Order of salvation: Roman, Lutheran, or Reformed?

Formatted version with hyperlinks

Geerhardus Vos eloquently confessed this problematic order of salvation in 1891:
“According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily stillremains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does themystical union with the Mediator take place. Everything depends on this justification, which is losable, sothat the believer only gets to see a little of the glory of grace and lives for the day, so to speak. The [Reformed] covenantal outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant,by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is inChrist is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps the instantaneousjustification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, as his rich and full Messiah.” 1, p. 256
Taken at face value, that sounds very much like the error of Osiander and Nevin. In the order ofsalvation, Vos put union with Christ before faith, in spite of John 1:12-13 and Gal. 3:26-27. He seems tomake justification simultaneous with union, but that would then put justification before faith, contrary tothe Westminster Confession, and, more importantly, contrary to Paul's doctrine of justification by faith(not faith by justification). Perhaps, however, when Vos spoke of a faith that reflects on a priorjustification, he did not mean to deny a prior faith that was the instrument of that justification, but in thatcase much of the distinction he saw between Lutheranism and “covenantal” Calvinism would be lost.
In a 1903 paper, Vos expressed an ordo salutis much more in line with Pauline (and Lutheran)soteriology:
“Paul’s mind was to such an extent forensically oriented that he regarded the entire complex of subjectivespiritual changes that take place in the believer and of subjective spiritual blessings enjoyed by thebeliever as the direct outcome of the forensic work of Christ applied in justification.” 2, p. 384
Did Vos later move toward Protestant orthodoxy, or are the 1891 and 1903 statements somehowcompatible? If they are compatible, then what aspect of Luther’s soteriology was Vos criticizing?

References:
(1) Vos, G. In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation; Gaffin, R.B., Eds.; Presbyterian andReformed Publishing Co.: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1980; PDF.
(2) Vos, G. In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation; Gaffin, R.B., Eds.; Presbyterian andReformed Publishing Co.: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1980; PDF.