active/passive obedience [Archive] - Predestinarian Network

Brandan Kraft

12-05-2004, 07:56 PM

The main reason NCT wouldn't agree is that by imputing the active obidience in minimizes christ death in some way.My response to that is if the active obedience of Christ is not imputed to the elect, you have no Gospel. Sure, Christ atoned for the sins of His people and they were pardoned, but what good is it if they don't have an alien righteousness? I depart from modern day NCT theologians (most are neo-calvinists anyway) and side with traditional reformed calvinism on this topic. I agree with you Eileen, all of Christ's obedience was imputed to the elect.

I disagree with Forrester that Rom 5:19 speaks only of Christ's death. John Gill, (Dr. Voluminous) wrote in his body of divinity... Read up, cause this is golden
There are some divines that exclude Christ’s active obedience from being any part of the righteousness by which we are justified: they allow, that it is a condition requisite in him, as Mediator, which qualifies him for his office, and that without it his death would not have been effectual and meritorious. But they deny that this obedience strictly and properly speaking, is the matter of our justification, or that it is imputed to us, or reckoned to us, as ours: they suppose that Christ was obliged to this obedience as a creature for himself, and that it was unnecessary to us, because his sufferings and death were sufficient for our justification. On the other hand, I firmly believe, that not only the active obedience of Christ, with his sufferings and death, but also that the holiness of his human nature is imputed to us for justification. The law requires an holy nature, and perfect obedience, and, in case of disobedience, enjoins punishment. Through sin, our nature is become unholy, our obedience imperfect, and so we are liable to punishment. Christ has assumed an holy human nature, and in it performed perfect obedience to the law, and suffered the penalty of it; all which he did not for himself, but for us; and unto us it is all imputed for our justification. He is of God, made unto us, that is, by imputation, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30) Wisdom may stand in general for justification, because there is in it such a manifest display of the wisdom of God; and the other three may be considered as so many parts of it. Sanctification may intend the holiness of his human nature; which is that law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which frees from the law of sin and death. Righteousness may signify his active obedience, by which many are made righteous; and Redemption may express his sufferings and death, whereby sin was condemned in the flesh, and so the whole righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. I shall now very briefly give some reasons why, I think, Christ’s active obedience, in particular, as well as his sufferings and death, is imputed for justification.

1. Because all that must he imputed for our justification, which the law requires, and without which it cannot be satisfied. Now, let it be observed, that the law, before man had sinned, only obliged him to obedience; since his fall, it obliges him both to obedience and punishment; and, unless its precepts are perfectly obeyed, and its whole penalty endured, it cannot be satisfied; and unless it is satisfied, there can he no justification by it. If Jesus Christ, therefore, engages, as a surety, to make satisfaction to the law, in the room and stead of his people, he must both obey the precept of the law, and suffer the penalty of it; his submitting to the one, without conforming to the other, is not sufficient; one debt is not paid by another; his paying off the debt of punishment did not exempt from obedience, as the paying off the debt of obedience, did not exempt from punishment. Christ did not satisfy the whole law by either of them separately, but by both conjunctly by his sufferings and death he satisfied the threatenings of the law, but not the precepts of it; and, by his active obedience, he satisfied the preceptive part of the law, but not the penal part of it; but, by both, he satisfied the whole law, and magnified it, and made it honourable, and therefore both must be imputed for our justification.

2. Because we are justified by a righteousness, and that is the righteousness of Christ. Now righteousness, strictly speaking, consists in actual obedience; it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments, Deuteronomy 6:25. Christ’s righteousness lay in doing, not in suffering. "All righteousness is either a habit, or an act; but sufferings are neither, and therefore not righteousness: no man is righteous because he is punished; if so, the devils and damned in hell would he righteous, in proportion to their punishment; the more severe their punishment, and the more grievous their torments, the greater their righteousness must be; if there is any righteousness in punishment, it must be in the punisher, not in the punished." If then we are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, it must be by his active obedience, and not merely by his sufferings and death; because these, though they free us from death, yet they do not, strictly speaking, make us righteous.

3. Because we are expressly said to be made righteous by the obedience of one, (Rom. 5:19) which is Christ. Now by obedience, in this place, cannot be meant the sufferings and death of Christ; because, strictly speaking, they are not his obedience, but flow from it, as has been observed. Besides, the antithesis, in the text, determines the sense of the words; for if, by one man’s actual disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the rule of opposition, by one man’s actual obedience, many are made righteous.

4. Because the reward of life is promised not to suffering, but to doing; the law says, Do this and live; it promises life not to him that suffers the penalty, but to him that obeys the precept. "There never was a law, as an excellent divine observes, even among men, either promising or declaring a reward due to the criminal, because he had undergone the punishment of his crimes." Christ’s sufferings and death being satisfactory to the comminatory, or threatening part of the law, are imputed to us for justification, that so we may be freed and discharged from the curse, and hell, and wrath. But these, as they do not constitute us righteous, do not, properly speaking, entitle us to eternal life; but the active obedience, or righteousness of Christ, being imputed to us, is our justification of life, or what gives us the title to eternal life.

5. Because Christ’s active obedience was performed for us, in our room and stead, and therefore must be imputed to us for justification. If it should he said, that Christ, as a creature, being made of a woman, and made under the law, was obliged to yield obedience to that law for himself; I answer, that he assumed human nature, became a creature, subjected himself to the law, and obliged himself to yield obedience to it, not for himself, but for us; not upon his own, but our account; to or for us a Child is born, a Son is given; (Isa. 9:6) and if Christ only in his sufferings, and not in his obedience, is given to us, we should not have a whole Christ given us, only a suffering Christ, not an obeying one.I hold to a modified form of CT which is extremely similar to NCT but not entirely. I still believe in a covenant of grace (the OC was not a covenant of grace but a law covenant - a covenant of works) and that the active obedience of Christ was imputed to the elect.

Anyway to repeat what Gill said, the best point he made was that the law requires a PERFECT obedience, and without it we would not be found righteous. Christ fulfilled every aspect of the law on behalf of His people ACTIVELY and PASSIVELY. To take away from this is a very bad thing in my opinion.

Forester07

12-05-2004, 09:16 PM

I disagree with Forrester that Rom 5:19 speaks only of Christ's death. John Gill, (Dr. Voluminous) wrote in his body of divinity... Read up, cause this is golden
I don't quite agree with what I said either. I was mainly stating what most NCT people say. I personally am still studying the issue to see where I stand. Thanks for the quote by John Gill he is an awesome theologian to study.

Anyway to repeat what Gill said, the best point he made was that the law requires a PERFECT obedience, and without it we would not be found righteous. Christ fulfilled every aspect of the law on behalf of His people ACTIVELY and PASSIVELY. To take away from this is a very bad thing in my opinion.
That makes sense to me. I am wondering though that since Christ Fulfilled the law is it still necessary for us as new covenant believers to have a imputed law keeping. I am struggling with the fact that since the old covenant was a "do this and live/ don't do this and die" type covenant and the new covenant is not like this do we need Christ's Imputation of the law keeping which He did under the old covenant. It would seem to me that since we are under the New covenant we wouldn't necessarily need law keeping imputed to us because God through Christ has declared us righteous. Wouldn't Christ's Sacrifice (His Payment of our sins) do the trick. If our sins are gone why do we need perfect law keeping which was a requirment under the Mosaic Covenant. Does that make any sense. How do you see this Darth Gill? By the way I love your site. :)

Forester07

Ian Potts

12-06-2004, 05:54 AM

My response to that is if the active obedience of Christ is not imputed to the elect, you have no Gospel. Sure, Christ atoned for the sins of His people and they were pardoned, but what good is it if they don't have an alien righteousness? I depart from modern day NCT theologians (most are neo-calvinists anyway) and side with traditional reformed calvinism on this topic. I agree with you Eileen, all of Christ's obedience was imputed to the elect.

I never like disagreeing with you Brandan as I feel we have a shared love of the truth. However as I posted the links to those articles and as you have expressed your disagreement with the position taken in those articles I feel I must give some response.

I agree with those articles that the so called “active obedience” of Christ to the law is not imputed to the elect as their justifying righteousness. Why? Because as the articles show this position is not taught in the scriptures. The idea is based upon very few texts with the main one being Romans 5:18-19. But Romans 5:18-19 does not clearly state that vicarious law-keeping is the obedience mentioned – rather the context in Romans 5 is Christ’s death – see verse 8. The KJV rendering of verse 18 gives a wrong impression of what the verse is meaning by saying “the righteousness of one”. An alternative rendering is given in the margin of the KJV (demonstrating a difference of opinion among the translators) and that is more literal. Verse 18 ought to read:-

“Therefore as by one offence judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by one righteous act the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

The contrast is between the one offence of Adam which caused the fall and the one righteous act of Christ seen in His death which justified us. The contrast is NOT between Adam’s whole life - as though he was always disobedient – and Christ’s whole life, but between two specific acts done by each.

These points are sufficiently argued in the article I linked to so I won’t labour them but refer you again to that article. Please read it with an open mind, comparing carefully with what scripture actually teaches. Note also that the men who wrote this article used to accept the CT position on this but were encouraged to look again at scripture to see if it was really taught and they found that scripture really doesn’t teach the idea of vicarious law-keeping. Christ’s death was vicarious for us, not His life. The link again is: http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf (http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf)

Anyway to repeat what Gill said, the best point he made was that the law requires a PERFECT obedience, and without it we would not be found righteous. Christ fulfilled every aspect of the law on behalf of His people ACTIVELY and PASSIVELY. To take away from this is a very bad thing in my opinion.
Thanks for Gill’s thoughts Brandan. However I found his reasoning here lacking. He provided little scriptural proof but just ‘logic’ which I believe is flawed – and I say that cautiously because I have much respect for Gill but on this point I believe he, like others is wrong. ‘Active obedience imputation’ is an idea which sounds straightforward and has therefore been accepted and repeated by many divines without sufficient comparison with what scripture really teaches. It was not the position of all the Reformers, especially Luther. You just won’t find it in his writings. You will find the phrase “Christ’s righteousness” (same with Calvin) but you won’t find that expounded as being his vicarious law-keeping for us. Luther and Calvin place our justification wholly in the death of Christ because of sins forgiven. We are ‘justified by the blood’. Not by the blood and the life. To be justified by the blood, having our sins blotted out is AS IF we had lived in perfect obedience to the law - the end result is the SAME. No sin. Therefore we are righteous because we are justified by the blood.

Just to make a few things clear here….

I do believe that Christ lived a perfect life under the law. He had to in order to be a perfect sacrifice for us, and in that sense His life was for us. Also He had to in order to magnify the law and make it honourable. His life proved that man’s sin was in no way a fault in the law but because of his own sinful nature. Christ’s life absolved the law of any unjust blame from men. They can’t blame the law for their sin (even though experimentally the law revives and fuels their sin, nevertheless sin is at fault, not the law). Romans 7:12-13.

I also believe that through Christ’s death righteousness is imputed to us. There is absolutely no disagreement about the fact of imputed righteousness. We are made the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:21. See also Romans 3:21-22 and Romans 4:6-7.

However the point is, what is that righteousness imputed to us? How was it wrought? At the cross or in Christ’s life? I say at the cross, by an act of Christ’s faith, in our being united with Him in death and His taking our sin away (which he was made) that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” Romans 5:28.

That verse is true if we are justified by Christ in His death by that act of HIS faith (His death). It is not true if justifying righteousness also contains the ‘active obedience’ of Christ because we are then partly justified by the deeds of the law. One may answer that the context of this verse is ‘our deeds of the law’ but I reply that that is not stated in the passage. The verse is categorical – a man is justified without the deeds of the law. Likewise see Galatians 2:16 or Romans 3:20 and 21. The righteousness of God WITHOUT THE LAW is manifested. How? By the faith of Jesus Christ in His death that we might be justified by faith (His), by grace (3:24), by His blood (5:9).

Consider Romans 4:6-7. Paul quotes David who describes the “blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works”. How does God do that? The answer is in verse 7 “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.”

So by ours sins being covered (by the blood of Christ) God imputes righteousness to us. We are reckoned righteous if our sins are covered. No sin in us must mean we are righteous. You are one or the other, either a sinner or righteous. There is no ‘middle ground’. You can’t have sins covered by the blood leaving you in some ‘neutral’ state requiring some ‘positive’ righteousness (Christ’s law-keeping life) to then be imputed. The very covering of your sins means that in God’s eyes you HAVE NO SIN, therefore you ARE RIGHTEOUS. How? By being united to Christ. We are not righteous in ourselves as such (in the same way that sin isn't judged and taken away in us but in our Substitute), but being united with Christ in His death (and thereafter) our sin is taken away, we die in Christ, and we become the righteousness of God in Him, risen to life again in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 again.

The law demands either complete obedience or death. If you fail to obey it then the penalty is death. What the law does not demand is BOTH, and that is the fundamental flaw in the idea of vicarious law-keeping. This view thinks that if the penalty is paid we can’t be righteous as we haven’t ‘positively’ kept the law. But the point is that Christ’s death wasn’t merely a PENALTY. He didn’t just die in our stead, but He was made sin and bore our sins, that He MIGHT TAKE THEM AWAY. In Christ our sins were punished until they were no more. His blood covers our sins, so that God no longer sees them. Then what does God see? Us in Christ – righteous. (Also, we died with Christ, having a sinful nature which could only be taken away by actual death, but we also rise with Christ in His resurrection)

I repeat: It is important to understand that there can only be two states in which man is – either a sinner or righteous. If our sin is taken away, by being judged against a righteous standard (eg. the law) then we have no transgressions against that standard and are thus to be seen as having obeyed that standard.

An example: A man is created like Adam innocent, but placed under one law, that of “thou shalt not eat oranges”.

He lives his life until the age of 28 never having eaten an orange – he is therefore righteous according to that law. But then at age 28 he eats one orange, but never ever repeats that ‘sin’. Now he is a sinner, having transgressed that law. Now if one (Christ) came and died in his place and took that sin away, what would than man be? A sinner or righteous? The one sin of eaten an orange has been blotted out and forgiven. Therefore that man is considered to have lived his whole life without ever having eaten an orange. So is he righteous according to the law? Yes he is. Why? Because that sin of his was blotted out, so that he has now no sin imputed to him. He is seen as having never transgressed the law, as if his life had been one of perfect obedience.

Now in that example did the one who died for that man – Christ – need to also have lived a perfect life against that law and impute HIS life to the man who sinned? Well, Christ needed to live a perfect life in order to die in the man’s place as a perfect substitute, but His own law-keeping does not need to be imputed because the bearing away of the man’s one transgression is enough to blot that sin out and declare the man righteous.

The point is the standard against which our sins are judged in our Substitute. If we have broken the law in every point (and we have) but Christ bears all our sins and they are judged against that law, each sin being consumed by the wrath of God and blotted out under the blood of Christ, then we are left having no sins, no transgressions against that law. Thus we are righteous according to it. Thus the righteousness of the law is fulfilled. How? Well read Romans 8:3-4:-

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

How is the righteousness of the law fulfilled in us? By Christ’s own law-keeping being imputed to us? Well the verse simply doesn’t say that. It says “God sending his own Son…. Condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us”. It is by the condemnation of sin in Christ’s flesh. By His death alone.

One may ask: “But what of our union with Christ?” Well we are made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor 5:21). Righteousness is indeed imputed to us – why? Because “He was made sin for us”. He bore our sin away, and we become the righteousness of God in Him. But why do we need to be ‘in Him’ if his bearing our sins away leaves us righteous? Well:-

1. Christ was made our sin BECAUSE we were united with Him in His death. It was because of that union that He became our sin.

2. Whereas SINS (those deeds we commit which flow from a sinful heart) were borne by Christ and washed in the blood, SIN ITSELF (that sinful nature which we ARE) cannot simply be borne away. It must be completely consumed under God’s wrath – burnt up. Our old man had to actually DIE. Therefore we died with Christ. Our old man was actually crucified with Him on the cross (Galatians 2:20). But we rose again with Christ on the third day - we are now risen in Him. We live, but not us, but Christ liveth in us. Hence HE is our life, eternal life, and HE is our righteousness – our sin being consumed in our old man which was crucified and ‘burnt up’ like the scapegoat outside the camp, and our sins borne away and washed by His blood. But now united to Christ in His death, like Eve taken out of Adam’s side in His deep sleep, we are now one with Christ and what He is, we are, therefore we are the righteousness of God in Him.

Do I have no gospel because I disagree with vicarious law-keeping? Of course I have a gospel. The Gospel of Christ is based upon His vicarious atonement, God’s justification of sinners through the death of Christ, through the blood of Christ, through His being made sin that they might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Why does Paul stress Christ and Him crucified in 1 Corinthians 1-2? Because the death of Christ is what justified us.

Notice that all the New Testament passages speak of the ‘righteousness of God’. They do not use the phrase the ‘righteousness of Christ’ or ‘the righteousness of the law in Him’ but ‘the righteousness of God’ or ‘the righteousness of God in Him’. The righteousness manifested by Christ in His death for sinners transcends that demanded by the law. It is a righteousness which has at its heart the eternal love of God for His people, seen in Christ voluntarily giving up His life for them. The law never demanded such love, such grace. The law demanded love, yes, but not at the expense of one life. Not to die as a substitute in the place of others. This is only seen in the Gospel, it is what is at the heart of God’s own righteousness nature and it is revealed by Christ’s death in the place of sinners.

Did Christ live a perfect life according to the law though? Of course He did. But was He any more righteous at the end of His life than the beginning? Was anything being ‘wrought out’ by His obedience in His life, or was it simply demonstrating how righteous, how perfect He was? Surely the latter. Christ did not produce some merit by not killing or not coveting. That simply demonstrated His perfection. He never would have broken the law. The law MEASURED Him and could find no fault in Him. But was Christ showed was how righteous HE IS. His being made under the law simply showed that. Through Christ’s death we become united to Him and are therefore the righteousness of God in Him.

We are not justified by the works of the law (so cannot be justified by Christ’s vicarious law-keeping) but by the faith of Christ (ie. His sacrificial death in our place, an act of His faith). It is Christ’s death which manifested the righteousness of God, hence we are justified by that death and that righteousness is imputed to us because we are judged against it and all sin is taken away. No spot or blemish is to be found in the elect because Christ took all their sin and sins away in His own body on the tree. See Romans 4:6-7 again.

I won’t add any more but would refer readers to the article linked to. I think it handles scripture well and although I might add and clarify some other aspects I think enough is said in that article for the time being. I don’t really have the time to discuss the issue much but just wanted to stimulate though and further Bible study by providing the link. Please read that article and compare scripture. Is ‘vicarious law-keeping’ really taught in the Bible? I think not.

In Grace,
Ian

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ….
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
Romans 1:16-17

lionovjudah

12-06-2004, 07:35 AM

Here is an article on this subject.

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Active%20Obedience.htm

lionovjudah

12-06-2004, 08:02 AM

Hello all:

Just a quick note prior to me going into a meeting. WHy does an issue like this have to be an "either/ or" and not a "Both/and?" The Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurection of our Glorious Lord are all glorious. To elevate one without the other does an injustice to the Will of God. The Resurection of our Lord is only talked about on Easter Sunday. Which I believe the celebration of Easter is the worse thing that happenned to our Lords Resurection. We have been raised with Him, and only live as Resurected sheep once a year. Let us not diminish :"passively" or "actively" any portion of Christ.

More later brothers and sisters

Grace and Peace

Lion

harald

12-06-2004, 08:57 AM

Ian Potts. I have read your view. There seems to be something to it. It sounds plausible, and you have stated it carefully. But as of now I am not prepared to embrace it. I would have to be convinced without any doubt of its scripturalness. In the meantime I ask how your view (if I may call it your here) treats the verse in 1Corinthians 1 which says Christ was "made" (lit. was caused to become; ginomai being the verb, not poeioo) wisdom from God, and righteousness, and holiness, and redemption?

My belief has been concerning this verse that Christ was caused to become, by way of sovereign Divine imputation at the cross, all those things to His elect in an absolutely efficacious and saving manner so as to from that point on constitute them everlastingly righteous in the sight of the thrice holy God. What seems to me to have been made over to the elect by way of imputation, which was legally possible due to eternal decretive union between God the Son and the chosen, was 1) Christ in His holy sinless humanity ("holiness"), and 2) Christ's law-fulfilling righteousness, and 3) Christ's redeeming blood which blotted out their sins. Would you call this "another gospel"? Or partially another gospel?

Then I would say I believe you understand the term "deeds of the law" erroneously. In Romans and Galatians where Paul specifically uses this term it is in the Greek "works of law", no articles. I positively believe in those contexts it does not refer to Christ, but to sinners, whoever. That it refers to "works of law" of sinners. It means that ungodly sinners are not and are not able to be justified before God by or through or based on their personal efforts at fulfilling a law (in sight of God Almighty), any law. Christ Jesus the Nazarene did in His own character and conduct perform "THE works of THE law", vicariously on behalf of those He foreknew in Himself. Christ established a perfect Law-Righteousness for a people by His perfect obedience to the Law of God. It was not a righteousness involving legal efforts, because He did it in and by Faith, His own faith/faithfulness/trust, not from a motivating principle of legalism, legal fear. Thusly the Scripture calls Christ's established righteousness "a righteousness of faith", i.e. a faith-righteousness. Salvation of elect sinners is not conditioned on their personal works performed in obedience to a law [any law (standard of obedience/righteousness) whatever one can imagine], but exclusively on their Surety in His sinless holy person, His sin-remitting blood/death, and law-fulfilling obedience/faithfulness.

As I see it to say that there was no need of an imputation of a law-fulfilling obedience to the elect in order to their full justification before God "maketh void" or "abolishes" LAW (Rom. 3:31). In Rom. 3:31 Paul uses NOMOS without the article, thus "law", not "the law". It makes fully sense that the anarthrous NOMOS here has the sense of "legal accountability". Thus "Are we, then, abolishing legal accountability through the faith (the Gospel- and Pauline scheme of justification before God, viz. in and by and through Christ alone at the cross)?" Which means that practically I am charging this view of yours with antinomianism, it at least reeks of it. Inasmuch as the Gospel of Christ according to Paul upholds and maintains legal accountability he is able to say to his own rhetorical question "mee genoito" - "perish the thought!" (dynamic equivalence for the literal "not may become"). The Pauline and New Testament Gospel upholds legal accountability because it dogmatically maintains that a law-fulfilling and -satisfying righteousness had to be established and rendered to God - the Author of the Law, in order to the saving justification of the elect before His holy eyes. This the elect in their own character and conduct were not able nor enabled to do, but their Surety rendered it for them in their behalf, and God by Himself sovereignly imputed it to their legal accounts, apart from instruments, at His cross-death. This truth of Paul's and the Scripture the much praised Reformer Luther did not believe. Nor have I come across any other "Reformer" for that matter who would have held it. The same goes for the vast majority of "calvinistic" authors and preachers and "doctors" and "divines" etc. past and present, they have not stood in this truth, which is seen when examining their writings. Rather they have believed and taken pleasure in "THE Lie", "THE un-righeousness" (cp. 2Thes. 2). And for those of them that have passed away from our midst already and who held this falsehood to the end I can but say with the Scripture that their damnation is just.

May God, if it should please Him, bring some one reading this to diligently inquire after and thirst and hunger after "THE righteousness" (Matt. 5:6), and such an one shall be fed of God in due time.

Harald

Ian Potts

12-06-2004, 10:06 AM

Some brief responses here…

Hello all:

Just a quick note prior to me going into a meeting. WHy does an issue like this have to be an "either/ or" and not a "Both/and?"

Well scripture should guide us on this, not what we feel ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ be. Justifying righteousness is what is under discussion and the question is: was it wrought for us in Christ’s death, or also in His life? What scripture teaches is what we want to know.

The Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurection of our Glorious Lord are all glorious. To elevate one without the other does an injustice to the Will of God.

Indeed they are all glorious and I would desire to take nothing away from any, or wrongly elevate any aspect above the other. However scripture gives focus to certain aspects, and teaches us that certain things were done and are true of one aspect which are not true of another. It was not in His incarnation at Bethlehem that Christ was made sin for us and suffered the wrath of God against that sin. We do not preach ‘Christ incarnate’ as such, but ‘Christ and Him crucified’. Now the latter fact implies that Christ WAS incarnate. And without the resurrection our faith would be in vain. Yet scripture focuses the attention upon the cross for that was where Christ died for His people, where He justified them by His blood. That takes nothing away from other aspects of His life but simply teaches us where He justified us, where He made atonement, where His blood was shed, where God judged sin in Christ in order to take it away. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is about Christ’s work on the cross, not His life.

The Resurection of our Lord is only talked about on Easter Sunday. Which I believe the celebration of Easter is the worse thing that happenned to our Lords Resurection. We have been raised with Him, and only live as Resurected sheep once a year. Let us not diminish :"passively" or "actively" any portion of Christ.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Christmas or Easter it is obvious that the ‘world’ makes so much more of Christmas than it does of Easter. And it dates our calendars from the birth of Christ, not His death.

Yet in the mind of God the death of Christ is the ‘centre-point’ of history. That was what He came into the world to do, to die in the place of sinners. That was what His work was centred on, His death. “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”.

Gill mentioned about obedience and how Christ’s death doesn’t show His obedience, but His life did. But Christ’s real work was His death – that fulfilled the will of the Father. It is this which is spoken of in Hebrews 10:9-10 “Lo I came to do thy will O God… By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once”. That is Christ’s act of obedience as mentioned in Romans 5:18-19.

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
Hebrews 10:1-14

I don’t seek to diminish any portion of Christ. But I do see His work on the cross as being that work by which we are justified, and I believe that justifying righteousness was manifested by Christ’s work of faith seen in His death. In fact I actually feel that the ‘active obedience’ view diminishes the righteousness which is imputed to us. It claims that it is the righteousness of the law as wrought by Christ in His lifetime, but I believe that scripture differentiates between the righteousness of the law, and the righteousness of faith (see Romans 10) and that the “righteousness of God WITHOUT THE LAW is manifested” (Romans 3:21) in the Gospel, “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ”. This is a righteousness which far transcends that earthly righteousness demanded of men in the flesh by the Mosaic law. The righteousness which is imputed to us through Christ’s justifying death is the “righteousness of God in Him”, a righteousness which is heavenly, of the heavenly man, the Second Man, the Last Adam which makes all His people fit for heaven, fit not merely for everlasting life in this earthly realm (as Adam would have had if he hadn’t fallen) but eternal life in the heavenly realm in the very presence of God. This glorious aspects of the Gospel is so often missed by that teaching which brings Gospel righteousness as revealed in the New Covenant back down to the level of the righteousness of the law as seen in the Old Covenant. The Gospel is so much greater than the law, and what Christ brings in for His people is so much more perfect than was ever seen from the Old Testament revelation.

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9

Now briefly to Harald’s question:-

In the meantime I ask how your view (if I may call it your here) treats the verse in 1Corinthians 1 which says Christ was "made" (lit. was caused to become; ginomai being the verb, not poeioo) wisdom from God, and righteousness, and holiness, and redemption?

Well that verse is in the context of the whole of chapter 1 of Corinthians. In that chapter Paul shows that the preaching of THE CROSS is to those that perish foolishness, but to us which are saved it is the power of God (v18). He shows that the preaching Christ crucified is to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness (v23) but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Hence the wisdom of God is seen in the preaching of the cross, in preaching Christ crucified. Paul concludes his arguments by showing how God uses the foolishness of such preaching to call the foolish, base, weak, nothings of this world, to salvation, that no flesh should glory in his presence. And he ends by saying:-

“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom: righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” 1 Corinthians 1:30.

Notice how I have translated that – the KJV says ‘wisdom and…’ as though Christ is made four things to us. The better translation is that He is made unto us wisdom in three respects (the preaching of Christ being the wisdom of God, hence Christ is made unto us wisdom, as seen in the preaching of Christ crucified): righteousness, sanctification and redemption. All three a result of His death, all three wrought for us in His death. Righteousness, sanctification (or being set apart to holiness in Him) and redemption.

The whole focus of the passage, and how we read verse 30 is in the context of preaching CHRIST CRUCIFIED. There is no mention of His life. The focus is the preaching of the cross. The preaching of Christ Crucified - the Wisdom of God. At the cross Christ is made unto us RIGHTEOUSNESS. This fits perfectly with 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”. Where? At the cross.

‘Made’ here carries the same idea. It is through our being united supernaturally with Christ at the cross that this ‘creative’ process of God begins. Christ was made sin. He was made our sin, through our union with Him. He then bore that sin away under the judgment of God, until at the end of three hours in the dark no sin was left in Him and He said ‘It is finished’. Then, there being no sin in Christ, Him being dead, but then rising on the third day, we rose in Him, having His righteousness. He was made sin, and we are made the righteousness of God in Him, because He took our sin away.

But that righteousness is the righteousness of God in Christ. Not a wrought out legal righteousness. Of course Christ kept the law and the law found nothing wanting in Him, but He was as righteous at the beginning of His life as He was when they nailed Him to the tree. His law-keeping life didn’t add one iota to that perfect righteousness with which He was born. The law measured Him every second of every day of His earthly life and found no fault in Him. But no righteousness was ‘wrought’ by that. The whole idea is a misnomer. Yes, He was in His human nature, but even so He was as perfectly righteous the moment He was born in that nature as He was 30 years later. He was born with a heavenly righteousness as the Son of God, and as a man could do nothing but live righteously – His life as a man under the law showed forth His righteous nature. It is that righteousness by which our sin was judged in Him as our substitute. All that sin was taken away and all that is left to be seen in us is perfect righteousness, as we are united with Christ. We are ‘made the righteousness of God in Him’.

Does this take away from the righteousness of the law? Not at all. Christ had the righteousness of God in Him. His life under the law was found to be righteous – the law found no fault in Him at all. Our sin is judged according to the same standard of righteousness (which exceeds that of the law) and we have that righteousness imputed to us. Hence we have a higher righteousness than that of the law. The law is fulfilled in every way – it could find no fault in the Saviour and will find no fault in us, as we are in Him. But this righteousness was ‘wrought’ upon the cross by Christ being made our sin and taking that sin away that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him.

Harald, this is not Antinomianism. I do not take away from the law as our sin was indeed judged against that law in the Saviour on the tree. It was also judged against that even higher standard of God’s own divine righteousness, as revealed in the GOSPEL (Romans 1:17). But that law was FULFILLED through God condemning sin in the flesh. See Romans 8:3-4. The law does NOT have to be fulfilled for us in BOTH vicarious substitutionary death and LAW-KEEPING. It is one or the other. Either we keep it or are condemned by it. Christ took our condemnation and took our sin away. The law can no longer find a single fault in us because Christ took our sin away – it is as if we kept every single precept of it. The law is fulfilled for us in the death of Christ, which is why Paul insists on the preaching of Christ crucified – that is the heart of the Gospel.

But I have stated before that Christ lived a perfect life under the law. The law found no fault in Him. He magnified the law and honoured it. There is no taking away from the law or its righteousness here, so the charge of Antinomianism is unfair.

Righteousness could not be ‘wrought’ in Christ’s life as it can only be ‘wrought’ where it is not. Just as light cannot be ‘created’ where there is perfect light, so righteousness cannot be wrought where there is already perfect righteousness. But light can be shone in darkness, and darkness can be taken away. Likewise Christ was made pitch black by our sin, but the wrath of God consumed all that blackness of sin until nothing was left but the pure brilliance of the light of the righteousness of God in Christ. Hence righteousness was ‘wrought’ for us at the cross, by Christ’s death, an act of faith, so fulfilling verses such as Romans 3:21-22 “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested…. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.”

…

Antinomian? Another Gospel? Folks, when someone says something that does not seem to be what you have been taught or understood previously, be hasty about throwing out accusations. Go to scripture, think about it prayerfully, see if these things be so or not. If at the end you still feel a brother to be in error then try to correct him from those scriptures. But test by scripture. Many of this forum have come to change their views over time on certain truths as the Lord has taught them. We should always be testing things by scripture.

I will leave things here. I really don’t have time to debate much on here, and yet I often find that whenever I post something it opens up a whole topic and folk want to quiz me on the subject. I am sure the topic will throw up many questions in your minds and I can assure you that there are answers to those questions, but alas I lack the time to debate them. I apologise to all if you are hoping that I will answer your points but I really must refrain. However I would encourage all to look at this matter in the light of scripture. Read the ARTICLE I linked to (http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf) as it discusses many scriptural passages well. I did not come to my persuasion rashly or quickly but have a settled assurance that it accords with Holy Writ. But may we test all things by scripture.

:)

In Grace,
Ian

harald

12-06-2004, 12:19 PM

Ian. Thank you for your reply to me. I hope to take time and read it carefully, and hopefully understand as I ought.

I agree that one ought to test all things by the scripture, to see whether they be so. And not cling to commonly accepted views which eminent men may have held to just for the sake of their being commonly accepted.

In the meanwhile I would inquire of you, whether you still insist that Luther the Reformer taught the same gospel as Paul, whether Luther was a teacher of the truth of God as respects justification before God?

Harald

lionovjudah

12-06-2004, 12:28 PM

Ian:

You provide excellent points and I enjoy reading them. Thank you for the 50 bucks for me to say that.

But I have stated before that Christ lived a perfect life under the law. The law found no fault in Him. He magnified the law and honoured it. There is no taking away from the law or its righteousness here, so the charge of Antinomianism is unfair.
Just as this does nto take away from the Law or its rightousness, Christs perfect obedience to all of Gods commands does not take away from the cross if taught within the confines of the Holy Writ.

When the convenant of grace was determined from eternity between Father and Son, it was perfect obedience of ALL that was required. The first covenant was made between God and Man, the Covenant of Grace was between the Father and Christ. He is in our stead for ALL. The Law of Mediation, Christ being our Mediator, Is the crux of this discussion. As our mediator, what was required. We needed a spotless Savior, not one taint of sin, we needed shedding of blood, for without there is no remission, we needed a resurection to perform constant intercession for His children. All of these were imputed to all believers.

Aother meeting brithers and sisters.

Lion

Brandan Kraft

12-06-2004, 03:44 PM

That makes sense to me. I am wondering though that since Christ Fulfilled the law is it still necessary for us as new covenant believers to have a imputed law keeping. I am struggling with the fact that since the old covenant was a "do this and live/ don't do this and die" type covenant and the new covenant is not like this do we need Christ's Imputation of the law keeping which He did under the old covenant. It would seem to me that since we are under the New covenant we wouldn't necessarily need law keeping imputed to us because God through Christ has declared us righteous.
Wouldn't Christ's Sacrifice (His Payment of our sins) do the trick. If our sins are gone why do we need perfect law keeping which was a requirment under the Mosaic Covenant. Does that make any sense. How do you see this Darth Gill? By the way I love your site.I know you're not saying this forrester, but I've heard a lot of people say, "The law was abolished, we are now under grace." This is not true!!! This is totally contrary to the Scriptures. It is true that Christ fulfilled the law, but it still stands as strong as it ever did. It was not abolished - and every child of God meditates on the law and he delights in it. If not for the law, they would not have known what sin was - the Bible refers to the law as the "schoolmaster unto Christ." It still has its strict requirements as well as demands a strict penalty. If not for Christ, we would still be under that law. All men are under obligation to God as their Creator - and that obligation includes obeying all biblical precepts. Christ fulfilled every aspect of the law in His life but He also fulfilled the PENALTY aspect of the law in His "passive obedience" as theologians call it. (There was nothing "passive" about what Christ did if you ask me. He was actively engaged in dying for His Bride!). He came to REDEEM US from the CURSE OF THE LAW. It is true that the law was only given to OC israel, but even the gentiles were not without law. Every person alive today knows by nature what is right and what is wrong.

Believers are not opposed to the law by any means. Grace does not free an individual from law - Christ's people are not free to act however they please - instead it establishes His law over them - Christ does this freely. He has written the law on the heart of every believer. And by doing this He establishes His kingdom by making them His subjects. I know the killing power of the law! It's awful! And I also recognize how important it is for it to be fulfilled on my behalf. Without that substitute I have no hope. Christ has done this for every one of His sheep. While I look to Christ's work of "passive obedience" on the cross, I look to His entire life as it were done for me.

Which means that practically I am charging this view of yours with antinomianism, it at least reeks of it.Antinomianism means to be "against law." In defense of Ian, I think you should graciously give him more opportunity to explain himself before we sling this charge at him. I know what it's like to be called an antinomian - I often face this charge - and I don't like it. This is a term that is used WAY too much in condemning free grace believers, so I would be cautious before firing off this charge.

Forester07

12-06-2004, 06:22 PM

Darth Gill,

I would agree with most of what you said in your last post. Do you have any scriptural support for you conclusions on holding to the active imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Through reading and studying the scriptural support for the other side it seems to me that they make sense using the scriptures they use. I'm still undecided at this point on the issue but it seems to me that scripturally the case is stronger for not holding to an active imputation.

Forester07

Forester07

12-06-2004, 07:16 PM

I found this quote from John Piper who supports the Active imputation of Christ's Righteousness. What do you guys think of his Arguement for it? It is from his book "Counted Righteous in Christ"

Forester07

DOES CHRIST’S “ONE ACT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS” REFER TO HIS LIFE OF OBEDIENCE?

Now what does Christ’s “one act of righteousness” (5:18) andhis “obedience” (v. 19) refer to? I do not think the historic doctrineof the imputation of the righteousness of Christ depends onproving that these phrases refer to the entire life of Christ’s obedience. I do think that this is in fact what Paul means, but thereally crucial and more important thing at stake in the controversyis whether any of Christ’s “obedience” or “act(s) of righteousness”are imputed to us. In other words, does Paul teach adoctrine of justification that includes the imputation of a divinerighteousness—namely, Christ’s? So I am much more eager toshow that the imputation of Christ’s divine righteousness (asopposed to impartation) is what Paul teaches than I am to provethat Paul thought of the entire life of Jesus as included in the “actof righteousness” in Romans 5:18 (ESV).Gundry denies that Christ’s one act of righteousness is “inclusiveof both his life and his death.

”That one act of righteousness does not include Jesus’ previous lifeany more than Adam’s contrastive one transgression included asubsequent life of sinning. Contextually, Jesus’ one act of righteousnessrefers to his dying for the ungodly, dying for us whilewe were still sinners, shedding his blood for our justification, andreconciling us to God through his death—period. (II, 15)

He gives several “data” in support of this view. I will mentionthem and give brief responses to show why I don’t find themcompelling.First, Gundry calls attention to “[the references earlier inRomans 5 to Christ’s] dying for the ungodly, dying for us whilewe were still sinners, shedding his blood for our justification, andreconciling us to God through his death [vv. 6-11].”In other words, Christ’s death has been the focus of Christ’sobedience in Romans. This would only be compelling if weassumed that the atoning aspects of Christ’s death provide all that goes into giving us a right standing with the Father. But infact we saw above that Romans 4 develops a view of justificationthat encompasses more than blood-bought pardon. Itencompasses the imputation of God’s righteousness.58 Second, Gundry argues from “the absence of any contextualindication that Christ’s obedience included his previous life ofobedience to the law.”To this I would give four responses.First, does not the word “obedience” in Romans 5:19 with-out any limitation itself provide that clue? Gundry gives theimpression that it is easy and natural to picture Christ’s death asa single act of obedience. But is it? Were there not many acts ofobedience in Jesus’ final days and hours? Are we to think of theobedience of Gethsemane, or the obedience when the mob tookhim away, or the obedience when he was interrogated, or theobedience when he was crowned with thorns, or the obediencewhen he was flogged, or the obedience when he was nailed to thecross, or the obedience when he spoke words of love to his enemies,or the obedience when he offered up his spirit to his Father?Is not Gundry treating the death of Christ as a unified act involvingmany acts of obedience? If so, then it seems arbitrary to drawthe line at some point in the final hours or days of Jesus’ lifeand say that the obedience before that hour was not part of therighteousness that “leads to justification” (v. 18) or part of the“obedience” that constitutes many righteous (v. 19).Second, the word translated “act of righteousness” in verse 18,ESV (dikaiwvmato~, dikaiømatos) is used in Romans 8:4 to refer, inthe singular, to the entire scope of what the law requires: “. . . sothat the requirement (dikaivwma) of the Law might be fulfilled inus, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to theSpirit.” This suggests that in Paul’s mind the “one act of righteousness”that resulted in our justification may well refer to theentire obedience of Jesus viewed as a single whole—as one greatact of righteousness—rather than any single act he did in life.Third, keep in mind the parallel between verses 16 and 18. Inverse 16 Paul spoke of the “free gift [of righteousness]”59 that“brought justification.” In verse 18 he speaks of “one act of righteousnessresulting in justification.” So we should adjust ourthinking to see the righteousness and obedience of Christ as a gift.Then we should keep in mind the contextual demand that this giftof righteousness is the positive counterpart to the sin of Adam,which was imputed to those who are in him. This shows us thatit is not arbitrary or foreign to the context to see the obedience of Christ as a gift that is imputed to us, resulting in justification. Infact, I think Paul wrote this entire paragraph to make this point.Fourth, any act of disobedience or unrighteousness in Jesus’life would have disqualified him from being our righteousness (orour substitutionary sacrifice), not just disobedience at the end ofhis life. In Matthew 3:15, at his baptism, Jesus said to John theBaptist, “In this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”So from beginning to the end in his ministry Jesus was fulfillingone great “requirement of righteousness” (which is probablywhat dikaiwvmato~ [dikaiømatos] means in Romans 5:18).Third, Gundry points out “the extremely scant attention thatPaul pays elsewhere to Christ’s previous life, and the extremelyheavy emphasis that Paul lays elsewhere on the death of Christ.”The theological importance of the perfect life of Jesus doesnot depend on any extensive treatment of that life. And I haveno quarrel that the death of Jesus has central stage in Paul’s theology and is the climax and consummation of Christ’s obedience,so that it receives greater attention.Further, Gundry refers to “the present antithetical parallelwith Adam’s transgression, which hardly refers to a whole life ofsinning but refers instead to the original sin in Eden.”This is not compelling because in the nature of the two cases(of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience) something differentis called for to bring about the result. For Adam, one singlesin brought condemnation immediately, so that the rest of hislife was lived under that condemnation as the penalty of it. Hedid not have to live a life of disobedience to bring condemnationon himself and his posterity. But this is not the case with Christ’sobedience. A period of obedience in Jesus’ life that was followedby any act of disobedience would have disqualified Christ as theground of our justification. Therefore the very nature of the twocases demands that Adam’s disobedience be singular and Christ’sobedience be cumulative.Finally, Gundry observes “the singularizing of both Adam’stransgression and Christ’s act of righteousness by the modifier‘one.’”This is not significantly different from the preceding observation,and I have given my essential answer to it there and inthe answer to his second observation above. I will simply addhere John Murray’s answer to a similar objection:

If the question be asked how the righteousness of Christ couldbe defined as “one righteous act,” the answer is that the righteousnessof Christ is regarded in its compact unity in parallelism with the one trespass, and there is good reason for speaking of it as the one righteous act because, as the one trespass is the trespass of the one, so that one righteousness is the righteousness ofthe one and the unity of the person and his accomplishment mustalways be assumed.60

I conclude then from Romans 5:12-19 that there is goodexegetical warrant for seeing here a righteousness of Christ thatis imputed to sinners who believe. This righteousness is the ground of their justification.

Brandan Kraft

12-06-2004, 07:57 PM

It does appear that Piper is becoming more biblical on the topic of justification. His latest stuff has looked much better than the heresies he has published in the past. I have a borrowed copy of his book, "The Passion of Jesus Christ" that I've read from recently.

Here is a quote that I liked -
He was "obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:8). His death was the pinnacle of his obedience. (emphasis mine) This is what the Bible refers to when it says, "By the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19).

Therefore, Christ's death became the basis of our pardon and our perfection. "For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21). What does it mean that God made the sinless Christ to be sin? It means our sin was imputed to him, and thus he became our pardon. And what does it mean that we (who are sinners) become the righteousness of God in Christ? It means, similarily, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and thus he became our perfection.

May Christ be honored for his whole achievement in suffereing and dying! Both the work of pardoning our sin, and the work of providing our righteousness. Let us admire him and treasure him and trust him for this great achievement. (The Passion of Jesus Christ, John Piper, [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004] pp. 40-41)I think there is a lot of truth in Ian's words here - I do believe the righteousness that is imputed to the elect is if you will more fully expressed in Christ's death. But I do believe real damage is done if we neglect the imputation of "active obedience" to sinners. If we do that, I believe we can lose the Law and Gospel antithesis in our teachings.

Forrester07, I'll provide a biblical basis for my position, but I believe the article posted by Lion gave ample evidence. Also, Harald's post on the subject I believe was brilliant bringing into play the "vital union" of Christ to His people.
which says Christ was "made" (lit. was caused to become; ginomai being the verb, not poeioo) wisdom from God, and righteousness, and holiness, and redemption?

My belief has been concerning this verse that Christ was caused to become, by way of sovereign Divine imputation at the cross, all those things to His elect in an absolutely efficacious and saving manner so as to from that point on constitute them everlastingly righteous in the sight of the thrice holy God. What seems to me to have been made over to the elect by way of imputation, which was legally possible due to eternal decretive union between God the Son and the chosen, was 1) Christ in His holy sinless humanity ("holiness"), and 2) Christ's law-fulfilling righteousness, and 3) Christ's redeeming blood which blotted out their sins. Christ is EVERYTHING to the believer. He is EVERY ASPECT of the believer's salvation. When asked, "what is your sanctification?" The answer? Christ! When asked, "what is your righteousness?" Answer: Christ! "what is your wisdom?" Christ! We have a salvation wholly outside of us (p.s. - I'm not denying regeneration or anything like that). When the Father looks upon His people - He sees Christ. And that includes all of His works of righteousness. Talk about a GLORIOUS SALVATION! What a magnificient robe His people do wear.

I'll write more later as I find time. I'd much rather participate in this discussion than the foolish one on "multiple wives!"

Eileen

12-06-2004, 08:35 PM

What a treasure of posts here for study, thank you to each one for so much input on this subject. I have never studied the full realm of these issues so I have much to learn.

It's funny, but every time I read here on this thread the scripture that continually comes to my mind is the one quoted in your last post Brandan by Piper: Phil 2:6....and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross"
And....I had the exact same thought, it was the pinnacle of His obedience, and is the focus, even as Paul says "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Every perfect, righteous step that He took lead to Calvary and so I agree at this point that to contemplate His 'active obedience' cannot be a harmful thing at all but one to rejoice in, however the "passive obedience" of the cross is and evermore where our eyes are focused, for.....

Heb 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

I will continue to read with awe the knowledge and wisdom that is here and by it will grow in Grace and in knowledge.

Forester07

12-06-2004, 08:57 PM

Thanks for the interaction. I'm still as undecided as ever though. I see merits to both sides an am still honestly searching for what the bible shows to be true. The one arguement that makes me lean toward not having an active righteousness imputed in from the Paper by Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker. http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf Here is the section:

Before we can begin to discuss the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, we must consider Christ’s passive obedience. The great reformed theologian Louis Berkhof believes that the passive obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to the believer has limitations as to what it does for the believer: “…if He (Christ) had merely paid the penalty (for the believer), without meeting the original demands of the law (for the believer), He would have left man in the position of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal life in the way of obedience. By His active obedience, however, He carried His people beyond that point and gave them a claim to everlasting life.”4 If only the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, according to Berkhof, this would not give him eternal life. He would have to obey God perfectly and earn eternal life on His own. The man who only has the passive obedience of Christ imputed to him would be in a spiritual Switzerland— stuck in neutral. Is the distinguished Louis Berkhof right? We don’t think so. Rather than turning to another brilliant theologian to give a contrary opinion, let’s consider what Scripture actually says that Jesus accomplished by His death on the cross— His passive obedience. Hebrews is a great book to turn to when considering the passive obedience of Christ because it is the book of the Bible that spills the most ink concerning Christ’s sacrificial work. Hebrews chapter 10 extols the greatness of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ in contrast to the repetitive but ineffective sacrifices offered by the Levitical priests:

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy (Hebrews 10:11-14).

This passage speaks only about Christ’s priestly sacrifice for the sins of His people. It says nothing about His righteous life. The sacrifice of Christ or the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ does two things for the believer. First, it makes the believer perfect—that is the believer is viewed as though he had obeyed the law perfectly (v. 14a). Second, it purchases a work of the Spirit in the life of the believer that guarantees that he will grow in holiness (v. 14b). Our concern here is for the perfect status the believer is given because of the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ. In the context of the book, "perfection" is referring to the state of moral innocence that allows one to be accepted by God—to stand in the presence of God and to approach Him boldly for grace and mercy in times of need. Consider the verses that immediately follow the passage above:

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more. "And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:15-22).

The one priestly sacrifice of Christ on the cross is identified here as the New Covenant. It gives us complete forgiveness of our sins—past, present, and future—making us perfect in God’s eyes. Christ’s passive obedience imputed to us allows us into the very presence of God! Notice that there is no mention of the active obedience of Christ anywhere and yet the passive obedience of Christ is said to be the sum and substance of the New Covenant and a guarantee that those who get this passive obedience imputed into their account are right with God, perfect—justified. What more could you possibly need to have eternal life? If God loves you and welcomes you into His presence because of Christ’s vicarious death and if no sin can ever be charged against you because of Christ’s sacrifice, then what more is necessary for God to fully accept you and to give you eternal salvation?
The paper goes on with another example but this makes the point i'm having trouble with. This Arguement makes sense to me. How do you guys understand this.

Forester07

Ian Potts

12-07-2004, 05:43 AM

I was interested to read in Forester’s quote from Piper the following:-

Now what does Christ’s “one act of righteousness” (5:18) and his “obedience” (v. 19) refer to? I do not think the historic doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ depends on proving that these phrases refer to the entire life of Christ’s obedience. I do think that this is in fact what Paul means, but the really crucial and more important thing at stake in the controversy is whether any of Christ’s “obedience” or “act(s) of righteousness ”are imputed to us. In other words, does Paul teach a doctrine of justification that includes the imputation of a divine righteousness—namely, Christ’s? So I am much more eager to show that the imputation of Christ’s divine righteousness (as opposed to impartation) is what Paul teaches than I am to prove that Paul thought of the entire life of Jesus as included in the “act of righteousness” in Romans 5:18 (ESV).

Piper is fair here in stressing that the crucial point is whether we believe in the imputation of a divine righteousness (as opposed to impartation or salvation by our own works).

That keeps things very much in perspective. Both ‘sides’ (as it were) here believe that we are justified by Christ’s work, not ours, that we have a divine righteousness imputed to us. Neither side in any way is claiming that justification rests upon the works of man, nor does either side in any way deny that Christ lived a perfect life and fulfilled the law in every way.

So as far as the fundamentals of the Gospel is concerned there is agreement on both sides. Charges of ‘Antinomianism’ or ‘Another Gospel’ against those of us that deny that Christ’s life is IMPUTED to us as part of justifying righteousness are without foundation because we do believe that we are justified by God alone, by having a divine righteousness imputed to us, and we do believe that the law was fulfilled by Christ. We simply believe that His fulfilment of the law in its precepts was for Himself in order to be the perfect sacrifice for sinners, and in order to magnify and honour that law before God and man, and that His fulfilment of the law in its penalty was for the elect in His death. Indeed this is a ‘lawful use of the law’ for one can be a substitute for another under law by taking their punishment, but not by ‘vicarious law-keeping’. Consider carefully.

But Piper is right to draw attention to what is most important in the discussion. In the past I have been accused of heresy for my position over this which is a ridiculous charge. Particularly considering that most of the Reformers held to the same position. The teaching on ‘active obedience’ came in later, particularly when it was set down doctrinally in the 1600s by such people as John Owen and the Westminster Assembly. But Owen in his treatise on justification has to admit himself that the Reformed Divines of his time were split in their viewpoint on this issue. I quote him here:-

“That which is of real difference among persons who agree in the substance of the doctrine, may be reduced unto a very few heads; as,--

(1.) There is something of this kind about the nature of faith whereby we are justified, ………

(2.) There has been a controversy more directly stated among some learned divines of the Reformed churches (for the Lutherans are unanimous on the one side), about the righteousness of Christ that is said to be imputed unto us. For some would have this to be only his suffering of death, and the satisfaction which he made for sin thereby, and others include therein the obedience of his life also.The occasion, original, and progress of this controversy, the persons by whom it has been managed, with the writings wherein it is so, and the various ways that have been endeavoured for its reconciliation, are sufficiently known unto all who have inquired into these things…”

I think there is a lot of truth in Ian's words here - I do believe the righteousness that is imputed to the elect is if you will more fully expressed in Christ's death. But I do believe real damage is done if we neglect the imputation of "active obedience" to sinners. If we do that, I believe we can lose the Law and Gospel antithesis in our teachings.

May I ask just what damage is done Brandan? How do we lose the Law/Gospel antithesis?

The concept of vicarious law-keeping has very little Biblical support. Even the passages which are quoted in support of the idea don’t spell it out. It ‘could’ be there, but equally it could not. To build such a doctrine on so few texts is questionable. For example the MAIN passage quoted for support is Romans 5:18-19. Yet all that speaks of is ‘one act of righteousness’ and the straightforward and most honest reading of that is in contrast with Adam’s one act of disobedience, therefore the ‘one act of righteousness’ is Christ’s death on the cross. If His whole life is meant it would say ‘many acts of righteousness’ would it not?

Such passages must be read in the light of other scriptures. And if Romans 5 is read in its context of chapters 3 – 5 which teach the doctrine of justification it will be seen that all the references regarding our being justified, and of imputed righteousness are based on the work of Christ upon the cross.

“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:”
Romans 3:20-22

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
Romans 3:24-28

“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”
Romans 4:6-8

“For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”
Romans 4:13

“And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for [because of] our justification.”
Romans 4:21-25

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”
Romans 5:1

“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” [i.e. saved from wrath because of Christ’s risen life, being risen in Him]
”And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”
Romans 5:6-11

That sets the context which leads into the latter part of chapter 5. Every mention of justification (and therefore justifying righteousness) is in regard to the death of Christ. “Justified by his blood”. Contrast is made between faith and law works. No mention is made of Christ’s law-keeping life.

So why, having read in 5:9 that we are “justified by his blood” or in 5:10 that we are “reconciled by the death of his Son” would we then read in 5:18 of that “one act of righteousness” and think of it as anything other than this death? Implying that this includes the whole ‘active obedience’ of Christ’s life is simply reading into the text what is not there, and what has NOT been expounded in any way in the chapters leading up to that point. And chapters 3-5 of Romans represent Paul’s teaching on justification. What follows in chapters 6-8 are the results of that work, with various rhetorical questions posed and answered by Paul.

My reason for questioning the whole idea of ‘active obedience imputation’ is simple – I can’t find it taught in scripture.

Forrester07, I'll provide a biblical basis for my position, but I believe the article posted by Lion gave ample evidence. Also, Harald's post on the subject I believe was brilliant bringing into play the "vital union" of Christ to His people.Christ is EVERYTHING to the believer. He is EVERY ASPECT of the believer's salvation. When asked, "what is your sanctification?" The answer? Christ! When asked, "what is your righteousness?" Answer: Christ! "what is your wisdom?" Christ! We have a salvation wholly outside of us (p.s. - I'm not denying regeneration or anything like that). When the Father looks upon His people - He sees Christ. And that includes all of His works of righteousness. Talk about a GLORIOUS SALVATION! What a magnificient robe His people do wear.

I agree with much of these points and do believe that Christ is my sanctification, my wisdom, my righteousness. But Christ’s ‘keeping the law’ did not make Him righteous. It simply demonstrated what He ALREADY WAS. Christ WAS righteous, He was born righteous, He ALWAYS WAS righteous, HE EVER WILL BE righteous. It is that divine righteousness of God in Him that is imputed to us. 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Christ’s obedience in His lifetime did not ‘produce’ a righteousness. It showed forth that righteous nature He already had. The only ‘obedience’ of Christ which ‘wrought’ a righteousness was His obedience in dying on the cross because THERE He became united with His Bride, and her sins became His. In order to make her perfect Christ had to bear those sins away under the wrath of God. That He did in His hours of suffering as He drank the wrath of God, according to God’s righteousness against that sin. At the end no sin was left and His bride was seen as being completely righteous in Him for all her sin was gone. Consumed, burnt up, taken away. Thus that which was black, dark, vile was taken away to leave only that which is perfect, white, righteous – the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:32. How is the bride justified? She is “justified by his blood”.

…

Ian. Thank you for your reply to me. I hope to take time and read it carefully, and hopefully understand as I ought.

I agree that one ought to test all things by the scripture, to see whether they be so. And not cling to commonly accepted views which eminent men may have held to just for the sake of their being commonly accepted.

In the meanwhile I would inquire of you, whether you still insist that Luther the Reformer taught the same gospel as Paul, whether Luther was a teacher of the truth of God as respects justification before God?

Harald
God bless you in your reading and understanding Harald. May He alone be our teacher.

Regarding Luther, it is not my judgment that matters Harald. I am not able to test another man’s heart. Luther isn’t here, I can’t talk to him to form a good conclusion. All I can go on is what is left on record from the history of his life and in his writings. And all I can say is that FROM MY READING of Luther (which is not all of him and in which I may be mistaken, or understand him wrongly) I believe he taught much truth. I believe he emphasised faith in contrast to works salvation. I don’t think he meant that ‘our’ faith justifies us as though it is our work (and not a work of the Spirit in us, a fruit of the Spirit), and nor do I think he meant that it isn’t Christ’s work on the cross that justifies us. I believe he meant that and that our faith (of the Spirit) looks to that work and rests upon it. But his emphasis in his writings may give a different impression, but I think that is because he was focussed on the contrast between the Papal teachings of works salvation and faith. He lived, and wrote, in very different times to ours.

But ultimately Harald that is simply my ‘understanding’ of Luther. I may be wrong. Of more importance is whether I understand scripture aright and believe the truth myself. For that I look to God alone to be my teacher and I feel sure that He is and will be for the Spirit will lead us into all truth regarding God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

I must go – I said before I lack the time to discuss this but I just wanted to reply to a few points. I leave it here for now. May God open up His word to all His people and point them to Christ alone for Salvation,

In Grace,
Ian

Ian Potts

12-07-2004, 07:15 AM

P.S. Just a few more thoughts on this matter which I meant to write in my previous post but forgot...

When looking for the scriptural support for the teaching of the imputation of Christ's active obedience it is important to remember that we are looking for those passages which teach about justification and the imputation of righteousness. There is absolutely no disagreement about the fact that Christ was made under the law and lived a perfect life under that law. Verses can certainly be found which teach that Christ was obedient in all things in His lifetime as one who lived under the law. But those passages do not relate that life or obedience to justification - that's the point. The key word is VICARIOUS. Is Christ's law-keeping life imputed to us?

In the passages of scripture which DO speak of justification and imputed righteousness (eg. Romans 3-5, Galatians etc.) there is no clear teaching on the relation of Christ's life to justification. Every clear reference to justification regards the cross - eg. "justified by his blood". Also, passages such as Hebrews 10 which speak of Christ's obedience, and His coming to do the will of the Father are with regard to His death. That passage clearly shows that Christ's obedience there was in His one sacrifice. The chapter contrasts that with the Levitical priesthood and their many sacrifices which never took away sin. But Christ's one sacrifice did! And by that we are justified.

Brandan has mentioned about Christ being all to us. Our wisdom, our sanctification, our righteousness. That is very true, but when we speak of God seeing us in Christ, and of Christ being our all, we must be clear about what we are meaning. Certainly our new life in the new man of grace is Christ in us (Galatians 2:20). We have eternal life because He IS eternal life. We are the righteousness of God in Him. We are united to Him like the bride is to her husband. But nevertheless is the bride actually the same person as her husband? She is united to him, one with him in the marriage bond, as one flesh. But nevertheless they are two, who have become one. We don’t become Christ – we are still us, yet one with him. A mystery, but true. Much as God is a triune God – One God in Three Persons. But each person is distinct – the Spirit is not the Father. The work of the Son is not attributed to the Spirit or the Father. Each has His own work. The Father elected a people and gave them to Christ. Christ died for that people, not the Father. The Spirit regenerates that people in their lifetime – that is the Spirit’s work. Yet all three are one in that wonderful union of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

So our unity with our HUSBAND does not mean that we are the same person or have done all that He has. What is His becomes ours (eg. sonship, divine righteousness, eternal life) but we don't become the husband, we are the bride of the husband, one with Him, yet distinct. Christ died in the place of sinners and took their sins away. We, as His Bride, died with Him. But we didn’t take sin away – HE DID. We didn’t make atonement – HE DID. We aren’t the Saviour – HE IS. We died with Him, yes, but it was OUR SIN which He took away. He is the Saviour, we aren’t – we are the saved. Likewise, though we know we are in Him, and we are made the righteousness of God in Him we should not think that because of our unity that we have DONE ALL THE THINGS HE HAS DONE. We didn’t die vicariously for others. We didn’t touch the eyes of blind men and make them see. We didn’t call out to Lazarus to come forth from the grave. We didn’t calm the tempestuous sea. So the idea that because of our union with Christ His keeping of the law was done vicariously for us, as though we did it because we are His bride is somewhat suspect reasoning. Just because we are united with Christ does not mean that we have done all that Christ has as though we are HIM. We have the place of sonship, we are sons of God but we are not THE Son of God. So many blessing are ours in Christ but we are not actually HIM. We are His bride, and we were betrothed to Him from eternity but we actually came into union with Him at the cross, as pictured by Eve being taken out of Adam’s side in the deep sleep, so the Bride is taken out of Christ’s side in His death. It is in His death that we are united with Him, we die with Him, our sin becomes His, and He takes it away. And then in His resurrection we rise again with Him having His eternal life. Hence all scripture centres justification and justifying righteousness upon the cross.

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” 1 Corinthians 1:18.

May I just encourage again one and all to look into the scriptures to see what they really teach regarding justifying righteousness. Not what they teach about Christ's obedience in His perfect life, but what they teach about justification, about imputed righteousness. I have read many things by various writers on the subject of the ‘active obedience’ of Christ yet in all I have read the same verses are quoted (eg. Romans 5:18) which really don’t support the idea. Rather the idea is read into those verses. From my reading of scripture all the attention with regard to justification is in the work of Christ upon the cross. That act of faith in which He was united with His people, became their sin, and took their sin away that they might become the righteousness of God in Him.

“For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”.
2 Corinthians 5:21.

In Grace,
Ian

Brandan Kraft

12-07-2004, 01:31 PM

I've been racking my brain all day and night thinking about this, and I think I've come up with a "logical" proof against those who argue for solely passive obedience. Tell me what you think!

I really have difficulties with segregating the obedience of Christ into "active" and "passive" and prefer to think of the death of Christ as the pinnacle of His obedience. All of Christ's obedience is imputed to the elect! I don't see a major distinction in the Scriptures between active and passive - it's there, but it's not a major theme (the distinction). Christ is the end of law for righteousness (Rom 10:4), and He eliminated the penalty due to the law. You could say this was completed in His death (a true statement), but His death had a view to His obedient life. His "passive obedience" is nothing without His "active obedience". So in a sense, the imputation of righteousness wrought through "passive obedience" wraps up and packages "active obedience" as well! Does that make sense?

Let me try to put it in simpler terms.

1. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness occurs at the cross (Christ's passive obedience).
2. Passive obedience is a result of active obedience because Christ's act of passive obedience was impossible without His work of active obedience.
3. Therefore, you must conclude that righteousness is wrought through both the active and passive obedience of Christ.

Forester07

12-07-2004, 04:50 PM

Thanks for the thoughts Dr. Gill they have made me think.

All of Christ's obedience is imputed to the elect!
I still have not found any definate scripture that says this. Where is His active obidience imputed?

You could say this was completed in His death (a true statement), but His death had a view to His obedient life. His "passive obedience" is nothing without His "active obedience". So in a sense, the imputation of righteousness wrought through "passive obedience" wraps up and packages "active obedience" as well! Does that make sense?
It kind of makes sense but again I have been unable to pull it out of scripture. I would definitely agree that without Christ's Active obedience there couldn't be a passive obedience. However, this doesn't mean the Christ's Active righteousness is imputed to us. If I can find it in the scriptures I will definitely agree with this view but I haven't yet. That is the point of the article section I posted in my previous post. There is no scriptural evidence to support an the imputation of Christ's Active righteousness.

Let me try to put it in simpler terms.

1. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness occurs at the cross (Christ's passive obedience).
2. Passive obedience is a result of active obedience because Christ's act of passive obedience was impossible without His work of active obedience.
3. Therefore, you must conclude that righteousness is wrought through both the active and passive obedience of Christ.
I follow what you are saying and again it kind of makes sense. Christ's active righteouness allowed Him to be able to perform His passive righteousness. Christ's Passive obidience couldn't be done unless Christ completely fulfilled and kept the Old covenant law (active obidience). This all makes sense and I agree with it completely. However this doesn't say what is actually imputed to Christians. The way I see it and how my logic flows on this issue: Christ's death on the cross justifies sinners completely. Christ's Righteousness in imputed to us while our sin is imputed to him. Christ's perfect law keeping proved that he was able to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins that God's law demanded. The active and passive righteousness are tie together because one couldn't happen without the other. However since the active righteousness leads to the passive righteousness as the ultimate one act of righteousness wouldn't that mean that all we need is the Passive righteousness imputed in order to be justified. It seems to me that by requiring the imputation of the active righteousness it is saying that Christ's death as the perfect sacrifice is not enough but we also need His perfect law keeping imputed as well. That in my mind deminishes Christ's ultimate sacrifice. I see Christ's perfect Lawkeeping as very important for the fact that if He didn't keep and fulfill the law He wouldn't be able to be the perfect sacrifice and his passive obidience would be worthless. I would think that the active righeousness pertains more to Christ being an acceptable sacrifice to God. Christ's Blood (refering to his passive obidience) covers our sins and washes us white as snow. Scripture always talks about Christ's death on the cross is what saves and justifies. It never once talks about the perfect life of christ as our justification. What do you guys think? Am I completly off? I'm open to correction. :)

Forester07

Ivor Thomas

12-07-2004, 04:57 PM

Brandan Kraft

12-07-2004, 05:35 PM

Thanks for the thoughts Dr. Gill they have made me think.

I still have not found any definate scripture that says this. Where is His active obidience imputed? I think Rom 5:19 is fairly clear

Rom 5:19b, "...so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;"

"obedience" to what? The law...

I believe this obedience is in reference to the law of God, because vs. 13 and 20 refer to the law. Rom 5:13, For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:20, Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Brandan Kraft

12-07-2004, 05:43 PM

The lamb that was offered under the old covenant sacrifice was not accepted for how it had lived behaved or anything like that, but that it was to be with out blemish. Hence the spottless lamb of God presented himself for our sins, it was not by the law keeping of Jesus Christ that the righteousness of God was brought in, it was brought in by the faith of Jesus Christ, it was not a legal righteousness, it was a Divine righteousness it was wrought with out the law, and it was with out the works of the law,Galatians 2;21: I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.Agreed.. Christ's righteousness is much greater than obedience to the law. But He put Himself under the law as a representative of His people. Without Him putting Himself under the law and fulfilling every aspect of it, we would STILL BE UNDER IT. He fulfilled it on our behalf and represents the obedience that WE need.

Brandan Kraft

12-07-2004, 05:53 PM

Another thing -

1 Jn 3:16, (KJV), Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

There was nothing "passive" about that obedience!

Brandan Kraft

12-07-2004, 06:00 PM

Here's a good quote from Pink's, "The Satisfaction of Christ"

3a. By obeying the precepts of it, and answering all that it requires. Does it require an holy nature? it has it in him, who is "holy, harmless, and undefiled;" does it require perfect and sinless obedience? it is found in him, who did no sin, never transgressed the law in one instance, but always did the things which pleased his Father; and who has declared himself "well pleased for his righteousness sake," and with it; and that as wrought out for his people by his active obedience to the law, which is so approved of by God, that he imputes it without works for the justification of them (Rom. 4:6; 5:19). Nor is it any objection to this doctrine that Christ, as man, was obliged to yield obedience to the law for himself, which is true; but then it should be observed, that as he assumed human nature, or became man, for the sake of his people, "to us," or for us, "a child is born;" so it was for their sake he yielded obedience to the law. Besides, though he was obliged to it as man, yet he was not obliged to yield it in such a state and condition as he did; in a state of humiliation, in a course of sorrow and affliction, in a suffering state throughout the whole of his life, even unto death; for the human nature of Christ, from the moment of its union to the Son of God, was entitled to glory and happiness; so that its obedience to the law in such a low estate was quite voluntary, and what he was not obliged unto: nor is it to be argued from Christ’s yielding obedience for his people, that then they are exempted from it; they are not; they are under the law to Christ, and under greater obligation to obey it; they are not obliged to obey it in like manner, or for such purposes that Christ obeyed it, even to justify them before God, and entitle them to eternal life.

Brandan Kraft

12-07-2004, 06:02 PM

More good stuff from Pink
The active obedience of Christ to the law was required as the meritorious condition upon which the Divine favor and the promised reward of the Covenant might come upon all whose Surety He was. We must never attempt to separate between the active obedience and the passive sufferings of Christ, either when contemplating His mediatorial work, or when considering the effect of that work upon the covenant-standing of His people. Christ’s vicarious obedience is an intrinsic part of that "righteousness" which He wrought in our stead, and which is imputed to us as the ground of our justification. All that Christ did on earth He did as Mediator. He was acting in our stead just as truly when He was obeying God as when He was enduring His wrath. It is in reference to both of these conjointly that He is designated "the Lord our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6).It needs to be pointed out that the "obedience" of Christ is not to be restricted to what He wrought prior to the Cross, nor are His "sufferings" to be limited to what He endured during the crucifixion and immediately preceding it. No, He suffered all through His life, and obeyed throughout His dying. "The whole earth life of Christ, including His birth itself, was one continued self-emptying, even unto death. His birth, and every moment of His life, in the form of a servant, was of the nature of holy sufferings. Every experience of pain during the whole course of His life, and eminently in His death on the cross, was, on His part, a voluntary and meritorious act of obedience. He lived His whole life, from His birth to His death, as our Representative, obeying and suffering in our stead, and for our sakes; and during this whole course, all His suffering was obedience, and all His obedience was suffering. The righteousness which He wrought out for His people consisted precisely in this suffering and obedience. The righteousness of Christ, which is imputed severally to each believer, as the ground of his justification, consists precisely of this suffering and obedience. His earth life as suffering cancels the penalty, and as obedience, fulfills the precepts and secures the promised reward of the law; but the suffering and the obedience were not separated in fact, and are inseparable in principle, and equally necessary to satisfy the law of the covenant and to secure the salvation of the elect" (A.A. Hodge).

Ivor Thomas

12-07-2004, 06:22 PM

The law was a school master that led to Christ. as Christ he always has been Christ, he was Christ at birth he always was sinless at any given time he fullfilled the law he did not have to work to keep it. The law came by Moses Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.It was the obedience of faith of the Son OF God that fullfilled all the righteous requirement of the law of God. Ivor Thomas...

Eileen

12-07-2004, 09:30 PM

GraceAmbassador

12-07-2004, 10:21 PM

I was reading online an article in favor of only the imputation of the 'passive obedience' of Christ and it was excellent. There was a partial quote taken from the book Faith Alone p. 103 by R.C Sproul which I don't know if I can verify or not but this is what he was quoted as saying......

"the cross alone, however, does not justify us"

Boy, I'm going to really have to study and pray on this one as that seems to go against everything I believe, everything I read in scripture and everything I have been taught. Isn't that kind of a scary sentence? Like I said early on, I haven't been taught the splitting of the obedience into passive and active and don't remember that ever being mentioned. Also, this one sentence above may have a totally different 'look' if read in context.

The discussion on both sides has great merit because we know that Christ was obedient in all things unto the Father, but at this point I too cannot find the imputation of His law-keeping in scripture, however that doesn't mean that it isn't implied. That is what I will have to come to by faith.

A great teaching thread! Thanks!
Eileen, you will find that many "teachers" do have a tendency to separate the "cross" from Christ's obedience to God. It does not surprise me that anyone would say such a thing!

I don't know, but in my opinion, to separate Christ's obedience into passive and active is the same as to trying to separate His human and divine nature!
He obeyed God actively and passively and that is expressed in His words in the cross, specifically these two addresses to the Father:

Father why has thou forsaken me
and Into thine hands I commit my Spirit.

I have to read on to this thread and get a little background on it. But I am not suprised at all that some well known teachers would say such a thing.

Milt

wildboar

12-07-2004, 11:03 PM

I agree with much of what Milt says here. I do not believe there is such a thing as Christ's passive obedience. He was always active. I've always enjoyed this sermon and I believe Rev. Hanko explains it well here: http://www.prca.org/sermons/matt27.33-34.html

Theologians distinguish between Christ's active and His passive obedience. His passive obedience, they say, refers to the fact that He bore and endured passively all that was laid upon Him for our sakes. He went, as the prophet Isaiah says, like a lamb to the slaughter, making no protest - passively enduring shame, and reproach, and spitting, and beating, and finally, even death itself, for our sakes.

His active obedience, so it is said, refers to the fact that He went to His cross willingly. That He brought His own body to the sacrificial altar. But the suggestion is made, sometimes, that His active obedience ended with His being nailed to the cross, and that the hours He hung there were hours in which He passively suffered the punishment for sin - that His obedience was no longer active, and so, indeed it would seem. But that is not really correct. All Christ's obedience was active, even when He was hanging on the cross. He did not just passively endure all that suffering, but actively took it upon Himself.

Even while He hung on the cross He was active, busy, doing what was necessary for our salvation. Especially that was true in the giving of His life. For all that Pilate did and for all that the leaders of the Jews did, it was still true, as Jesus Himself reminds us in John 10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=John+10), that no man took His life from Him. He gave it. He laid it down, actively. He poured out, as we sometimes say, His own blood as a sacrifice for sin. He poured it out drop by awful drop. Every drop that fell was a conscious and deliberate act of His own. And when finally He was ready to die, He determined the moment of His death and He gave His life to His Father with the words: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." He did not die like us - not like us, who always have our life taken from us, but He gave it, gave it into the hands of His heavenly Father.

And He was doing that already here when He refused that wine mingled with myrrh. By that act He was saying us, and to all who will understand: "I must give My life. I may not go to the cross drugged and insensitive, but must feel the anguish and the pain, and above all must drink and taste every bitter drop of the cup of Jehovah's wrath, and must know what I am drinking. I may not just hang here passively, enduring My suffering, but must take it all upon Myself, and feel it to the uttermost. There is no other way that atonement can be made for the sins of My people."

That is Christ's active or willing obedience. And we must understand what that means and especially that even the hours on the cross were characterized by such willing and active obedience. He did not just resign Himself to His suffering and say: "Thy will be done," but willingly, even eagerly, He took all this shame and sorrow and death upon Himself - embraced it for our sakes - knowing that thus, and thus only, might atonement be made. When we realize that, then we begin to understand what Paul says in Ephesians 2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Ephesians+2) when he talks about the immeasurable love of God. It is immeasurable, is it not? When you think of our Lord Jesus Christ not merely going to the cross, but going willingly, going in such a manner as we've described, to suffer all these things, it's almost more than you can bear to think about.

Ian Potts

12-08-2004, 06:12 AM

I’ll just make a few replies to some points raised here which I hope will be helpful. But I don’t intend to reply much more as I haven’t the time to debate the issue. I would encourage folk, as I have said before, to look into the scriptures to seek out the truth on justifying righteousness.

I've been racking my brain all day and night thinking about this, and I think I've come up with a "logical" proof against those who argue for solely passive obedience. Tell me what you think!

I really have difficulties with segregating the obedience of Christ into "active" and "passive" and prefer to think of the death of Christ as the pinnacle of His obedience. All of Christ's obedience is imputed to the elect! I don't see a major distinction in the Scriptures between active and passive - it's there, but it's not a major theme (the distinction).

I just want to be clear here, I don’t like the concepts of “active” and “passive” obedience either. Christ’s death was anything but “passive”. The terminology is false and takes away from the suffering of Christ upon the cross. I try to avoid using these terms as much as possible.

But where did the terms come from? Who invented them? Well, those theologians who put forward the idea of vicarious law-keeping - such people as Dr John Owen. In order to draw attention to the law-keeping life of Christ as also being imputed to the believer they decided to describe that as “active obedience” and His death as “passive obedience”. So, if we don’t like the terms (and I don’t) these are the men to complain to.

Christ is the end of law for righteousness (Rom 10:4), and He eliminated the penalty due to the law. You could say this was completed in His death (a true statement), but His death had a view to His obedient life. His "passive obedience" is nothing without His "active obedience". So in a sense, the imputation of righteousness wrought through "passive obedience" wraps up and packages "active obedience" as well! Does that make sense?

Where it doesn’t make sense is when you slip in the concept of the imputation of righteousness. Of course His death (passive…) was dependent upon His perfect life (active). That simply isn’t in dispute – we all agree. The question is rather, what is the righteousness that is imputed? Where was it ‘wrought’?

Let me try to put it in simpler terms.

1. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness occurs at the cross (Christ's passive obedience).
2. Passive obedience is a result of active obedience because Christ's act of passive obedience was impossible without His work of active obedience.
3. Therefore, you must conclude that righteousness is wrought through both the active and passive obedience of Christ.
What we have got into here is the application of logic to try to defend a concept. Rather than finding actual scriptural backing, solid support from the scriptures, you have attempted to reason out the issue. But that isn’t really the way one is going to come to an understanding of truth in the matter. I don’t decry logic or sensible reason but it must be Spirit-led, and it must be according to scripture. If scripture plainly teaches that we are “justified by the blood” (Romans 5:9) and then gives a verse that says “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) the latter verse must be understood in the context of those other clear verses regarding justification. Obedience here clearly refers to the death of the Son (5:10) and therefore that justification brought in by his blood.

Your 3 step logic above Brandan is based on a presupposition – which is that Christ’s obedient ‘steps’ are what constitute the righteousness imputed to us, and I think that is where your misunderstanding lies. If we consider Christ's life to be 10 steps of obedience, with the final step being the cross, you are reasoning that if that 10th step is imputed to us as justifying righteousness, and it is dependent upon the previous 9 steps, then surely those previous 9 steps should also be imputed. That is reasonable. I understand your logic. But the question is: do any of those 10 steps constitute the righteousness imputed?

No they don’t. It isn’t the acts of Christ, these 10 steps (or even the last 10th step) which are themselves imputed to us. It is not the ‘10th step’ itself but WHAT CHRIST BROUGHT IN BY THAT STEP. It is not Christ’s obedience to the Father in dying for sinners which is imputed to us as righteousness, but it is BY THAT OBEDIENCE that justifying righteousness was wrought at the cross and imputed to us.

Can you see my distinction here? You have made the ‘cause’ the ‘effect’. Verse 19 says “… so BY THE obedience of one shall many be made righteous”. That obedience was the cause which produced the effect of many being made righteous. That obedience ITSELF isn’t the righteousness (the effect) which is imputed. It is what was done by that obedience. It is, as it were, what Christ DID on the cross which is imputed to us, not His DOING OF IT.

So what was done, and what IS imputed?

Well, at the cross Christ and His people became united in order that Christ might be made their sin and take it away.

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Romans 6:6.

“For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21.

That is what happened at the cross. By our being united to Christ in His death He was made sin. Being made sin, standing before God in the place of sinners, God poured out His Holy wrath against that sin. This did not happen in Christ’s life – it happened at the cross. This is how righteousness is ‘wrought out’ in us.

Before the cross we are entirely sinful – we have no righteousness in us. Before the cross Christ is entirely righteous – He knew no sin.

But at the cross we became united. Being joined mysteriously together our sin became Christ’s, that we might made the righteousness of God in Him. But we could only be made that righteousness if Christ took our sin away. So in those hours in the dark Christ gradually took our sin away. It didn’t happen instantly – it took hours, and that was effectively an eternity of suffering contracted into those hours. But in that suffering our sin was being taken away. How was that done? By being judged against that perfect standard of righteousness which is required in order for us to have eternal life and to dwell with the Father. That is the divine righteousness of God.

This is higher than the righteousness of the law. Indeed our sins were judged against the law, and the penalty of the law was met in Christ. But if that was the only righteous standard by which our sin was judged then it would merely place as back to the position of the original Adam – free to live endlessly in this present world. But it would not give us ETERNAL LIFE nor enable us to enter those heavenly realms where the Father dwells. No, for that our sin needed to be judged by an even higher standard, the Righteousness of God Himself. That righteousness was manifested in us, in our Substitute, at the cross, as Christ suffered for us, by an act of His faith. This is what is meant in Romans 3:21-22:

“But now the righteousness of God WITHOUT THE LAW is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference”

That is the standard by which our sin was judged. As it was judged, as it was consumed under the wrath of God it was taken away, out of sight. There was no longer any sin left in the Substitute to condemn, and therefore no sin left in us. All our sin was taken away. As we have no sin left in us (at the cross remember – we obviously in time still have the sinful flesh in us, but that has been spiritually judged and taken away at the cross), that sin being judged against the standard of the righteousness of God, then THAT righteousness is IMPUTED to us, it is reckoned to our account. If we have no sin according to that standard of righteousness, no variation from it, no deviation from it, then we must have that righteousness.

THAT is justifying righteousness. It was wrought out for us in the Saviour at the cross by our sin being burnt up under God's wrath, by the blood being shed. It is a divine righteousness, revealed in the Gospel (Romans 1:16-17), manifested in the Saviour, without the law (ie. apart from law) (3:21), during His hours of suffering in our stead. Because of our union with Him, our old man is crucified with Him (6:6), yet we then rise again with Him (6:7-6:10) in eternal life being the righteousness of God in Him. It is Christ’s death which took away our sin, hence we are justified by the blood (5:9), reconciled by the death of God’s Son (5:10). We have faith in that blood which is the propitiation for sin (Romans 3:25). It is in that death, in the shedding of the blood that God declared His righteousness (3:25), that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (3:26).

Justifying righteousness is the righteousness of God, without the law, manifested by the death of Christ for His people, an obedient act of His faith (Romans 5:18-19). It is not based upon Christ’s law-keeping but was wrought by His work of faith in which He took us into union with Himself at the cross that he might take away our sin, being made sin to suffer for it and to consume it, burn it up, take it away, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. That righteousness is a divine righteousness which Christ ever had – it was not ‘wrought’ by his law-keeping in His life (it couldn’t be because no man is justified by the works of the law – either by themselves, or by Christ’s works of the law, see Galatians 2:16 or Romans 3:20). But it was manifested in us in union with Him in His death as our sin was taken away.

This is what is consistently taught in Romans and elsewhere (eg. Hebrews). All the attention is upon the cross for that is where justifying righteousness was manifested in God’s people as they died with Christ, and is imputed to Him. We are justified by the blood.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law:
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Galatians 2:16

I think Rom 5:19 is fairly clear

Rom 5:19b, "...so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;"

"obedience" to what? The law...

I believe this obedience is in reference to the law of God, because vs. 13 and 20 refer to the law. Rom 5:13, For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:20, Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound

Is this obedience to the law? No, that isn’t what is meant here. What is meant is the obedience of faith, as a result of the hearing of faith, which is seen by Christ willingly laying down His life for the sheep (in which He certainly was judged by the law and so fulfilled it however).

Verses 13 and 20 do not set the context as being law in verse 19 at all Brandan. The context is the death of Christ (5:6, 5:8, 5:10) and being justified by the blood of Christ (5:9).

Then begins a comparison of the two Adams. In verse 12 we read of the fall of Adam and what his fall brought in – sin and death. There follows from verse 13 to 17 a parenthesis with regard to that. It is IN THAT parenthesis that law is mentioned in relation to the fact that law was not always in the world (ie. between Adam and Moses) and yet sin was, and despite the fact that some sinned under law, and some did not have the law, it nevertheless was still sin and death reigned. This reference to the law has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the obedience mentioned later in verses 18 and 19.

In verses 18 and 19 we have the comparisons between the two acts of the two Adams. Firstly Adam’s offence, or fall, by which all men fell into condemnation, and secondly Christ’s (the Last Adam’s) one righteous act (meaning his death on the cross, 5:6-5:11) which brought in justification for all His posterity.

What do we read next? Verse 20, almost as an aside. It says “MOREOVER the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” The wording here shows that law was NOT the context in verses 18 and 19 as such. ‘Moreover’ the law ENTERS, almost by the bye. It comes in along side, as a sort of side issue. And what effect does it have? That the offence might abound.

It is clear from the wording ‘moreover the law entered’ that the law is not at the heart of the obedience mentioned in verse 19.

I'll make just one final point about the translation of the words ‘disobedience’ and ‘obedience’ in verse 19. I believe the word in the Greek for each has the root meaning of ‘hearing’. The word translated disobedience on Adam’s part is to do with him hearing amiss, or ‘refusing to hear’ , ‘refusing to listen’ to God’s command. The word translated ‘obedience’ on Christ’s part is to do with hearing aright, hearing by faith. The wording is used to draw the attention to the fact that Christ’s death was a result of His faith. He heard God’s word, He was attentive to it, believed it, submitted to it, and went to the cross by Faith believing that the Father would lay upon Him all the sins of the elect and raise Him from the grave the third day. See Hebrews 12:2.

So you can see that by translating the word ‘obedience’ (the effect as a result of the cause of hearing aright) the English reader can tend to think of obedience in a legal sense – obedience to the law. But the Greek carries more of an impression of hearing God’s word, believing it, and doing a work of FAITH. That is the emphasis of the one act of obedience which Christ did (Romans 5:18-19). It was a work of faith, not law. Compare with Galatians 3:2 “…received ye the Spirit by the WORKS of the law, or by the HEARING of faith?” A similar thing is meant in Romans 5:18-19. Christ heard the Father by faith and submitted to the Father’s will. It was that hearing, and consequent obedience which led to our justification, whereas Adam refused to listen, questioned God’s words (consider Eve beguiled by the Serpent who said “hath God said?”) and fell into sin.

Agreed.. Christ's righteousness is much greater than obedience to the law. But He put Himself under the law as a representative of His people. Without Him putting Himself under the law and fulfilling every aspect of it, we would STILL BE UNDER IT. He fulfilled it on our behalf and represents the obedience that WE need.
The point is where does scripture say that Christ fulfilled the law in its precepts ‘on our behalf’ as our ‘representative’ in order to impute that law-keeping to us?

I have no disagreement with the fact that Christ was made under the law, or that he kept it. Nor do I disagree with the fact that the law has to be kept, Christ had to be sinless, in order to be the perfect Lamb to be sacrificed. But I would say that He could do ‘nothing but’ keep the law as He WAS (and IS) sinless. His righteous nature which He was born with meant that He would inevitably live a life which kept the law. But where does scripture teach that justifying righteousness is based on that law-keeping? It doesn’t.

The meaning of Romans 8:4 “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us” is given in Romans 8:3 “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”. THAT is how the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us – by sin being condemned in the flesh ie. in Christ’s death.

I leave the subject here. Forester, Ivor and Eileen – I agree with much that you have written and I commend your faithfulness to scripture. We must base our understanding upon the scripture.

I believe this is the sort of truth which is not come in to by reason or debate, but ultimately by the Spirit’s guidance in the scriptures – by His revelation. Let us look into the scriptures to see what they really teach. I would be glad to listen if someone can show me from the scriptures if and where I err on this, but from my own reading I just can’t find the idea of vicarious law-keeping taught there. May God be our guide.

:)

In Grace,
Ian

BTW Eileen – do you have a link to that article you were reading online?

Brandan Kraft

12-08-2004, 07:29 AM

I must admit I'm a stubborn old donkey that won't move on a subject until he sees it. I've learned through study in the past that vicarious law keeping is truth. I think I see the Scriptures that support it as well as the logic as well as I look to the wisdom of all of my favorite theologians (they all agree). If I'm going to change on this issue, it will take some time. So thanks for your comments Ian - I will think about them over the coming months and years :)

Let's look at the nonsense I've believed in the past: freewillism, ufo theology, reincarnation, becoming a "god", dispensationalism, "rapture ready", speaking in "tongues", charismaticism, modern day "Apostles", contemporary rock music in "worship", tithing, presbyterianism, pentecostalism (2nd blessing), justification based on faith instead of Christ (piperism), Christ's death sufficient for everyone (fullerism), Gospel is an "offer", common grace, duty-faith, progressive sanctification, etc....

All of these awful evil doctrines, the Lord graciously led me out of in time.. I sure think I'm right about this, but if I'm not - I hope to be led out of error here as well.

In Hope,
Brandan

Brandan Kraft

12-08-2004, 07:32 AM

Eileen

12-08-2004, 01:07 PM

I do think the problem lies in the fact that 'someone' saw fit to categorize the obedience of Christ into active and passive at some point in history. Perhaps that was never intended in scripture itself..and undoubtedly that is why I was never taught that specifically. I can't ask my lifelong pastor the why...he has truly 'gone home', so I will continue to study this issue. The totality of it may be that we should never categorize the obedience of Christ, but someone has so we must study the issues because of that.

I found the article posted by WB (I haven't had time to read the sermon yet), interesting in that Christ's active obedience was defined as His willingness to go to the cross, there was no mention of His law keeping.

I have appreciated all of the posts here, and for myself will continue on in study, willing to be taught by the Spirit in all things and willing to be corrected as well. Thanks to all of you.

The link to the article I found very helpful is from a 'dispie' site and is:

www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/vicarlaw.htm (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/vicarlaw.htm)

Brandan Kraft

12-08-2004, 01:12 PM

Here is a blog entry by a Covenant Reformed guy critiquing the article by IDS.

http://www.rustypth.com/072504.htm

Brandan Kraft

12-08-2004, 04:01 PM

I want to add my thoughts again. I haven't read of this anywhere - this is truly "off the cuff" so to speak.

First of all, thank you Ian for contributing much to this thread. I'm not going to directly quote you as I don't have time for much dialogue. I'm busy studying this issue right now and have read both of the articles by IDS (the initial one and the one defending the doctrine after being kicked out of FIRE).

As one who has a hope that Christ has made satisfaction for me believes the Bible is very simple. I believe the Gospel is simple - very easy to understand. It is written in common every day language, and when the Saints of God read it, the truth it contains is revealed to them.. I believe most of the complicated problems presented on this forum are because men have made it as such. And one of the reasons I have a problem with Ian's view is because it complicates things. So does the traditional reformed understanding now that I think about it. Let me explain.

The Bible never speaks of "active" or "passive" obedience. It speaks of Christ's obedience - period. Christ was obedient - even to the point of death. He was obedient to the will of the Father. He was obedient to the law of the Old Covenant. He was obedient in all things. He was obedient even in death. He was active in every aspect of obedience as He is GOD the ALMIGHTY!

I refuse now to separate any aspect of this obedience and make any distinction. Christianity in my opinion is about Christ being a SUBSTITUTE for His sheep, an exhange of His life for His Bride.

Eph 5:25, (KJV), Husbands, love your wives (live for them), even as Christ also loved the church (lived for the church), and gave himself for it; (This passage alone condemns the teaching of the "polygyny" thread.)

When He laid down His life for the church, the "great exchange" took place. This passage speaks of more than just dying for the Church, but of loving the Church - and this is more than a feeling, but something that was done for it. When He "gave himself for it", I believe He at every point of His life was giving of Himself. Now I believe this passage refers to His death, the point is made that Christ's relationship to the Church is the same as a husband and wife. A husband is to be giving of himself to his wife in all manner of life - even in death. There is a union between the husband and the wife - they are made "one" flesh - the husband represents the wife in all that he does. My job is my wife's source of income. My house is my wife's house. My child is also my wife's child. The same is true of Christ and His Bride. They were joined together in ETERNITY. There was a vital union that took place in the Eternal decree, and from before the foundation of the world, Christ was joined to the Church. All that Christ did in life was for His Bride in the same way that all that a husband does in life is for his wife.

There was no need for Christ to be made righteous by the law as He was already spotless. It was not for His sake that He put Himself under the law to become "righteous". Yet He put Himself under the law for His Church - He was giving of Himself in these actions (being born, circumcision, living sinlessly, etc...) Christ's obedience to the entire law was a demonstration of His righteousness! It is precisely CHRIST'S righteousness (not by law keeping) that is the only righteousness that could be accepted and is accepted by God, and it is this righteousness that is imputed to the elect at the cross. All of Christ's people have been clothed with this righteousness and God forbid that we view it as just Christ's obedience to the law, or His obedience in death, but as our Husband's righteousness! Everything He did was for His Bride! He is everything to His Church! When the Father looks upon the Church, He sees Christ! He joined them to Him in eternity and has always viewed them as perfectly righteous because they are ONE - vitally joined together.

Christ had absolutely no reason to put Himself under the law for His own sake as many "evangelicals" claim today. He is God - and needs no justifying whatsoever. From all eternity, He has been perfectly righteous. But He did put Himself under the law - and He did this as a representative for His Bride - because this was the Father's will. In order to redeem His people from the law, He had to put Himself under that law.

Gal 4:4-5, (KJV), But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Question to Ian - does this passage mean only redeem them from the curse of the law? There is no mention of any penalty at all. Why cannot this passage mean to redeem from obligation and curse? How can being "under the law" in this context mean only the penalty and not the obligation?

Now modern day theologians have separated the obedience into two separate categories, "passive", and "active". All are guilty of doing this - on both sides of the issue. If it were not for this division, I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. But because the division exists, things have now become complicated, and the simplicity of the Gospel has been distorted.

Simply put, the Gospel is about Christ giving of His life for His Bride, and He gave of His life from His birth until His death. It is about an exchange of His life for His Bride. Not only did He die for His Church, but He lived for His Church. His filthy bride's awful life of sin was imputed to Him, and His life of righteousness was imputed to His Bride.

Children of God, listen up! I have some words for you! Don't look to Christ as only your substitute in death; but look upon Him as your representative in everything! When Christ died, His people died with Him. They were put on that cross and crucified. When He was resurrected, His people were resurrected. When He lived, His people lived. When He obeyed the law, His people obeyed the law. He now resides in Heaven - His bride is represented there as well! Christ represents His people in everything!

Ok, well I'm all excited now!!!!

Ivor Thomas

12-08-2004, 06:00 PM

This is a Quote- A substitutionary life time lived by proxy on behalf of another, is downright illegal. But the payment of a penalty, fine, or debt, on behalf of a condemned defaulter, or bankrupt, is altogether gracious. And it has this advantage over the former scheme: it is acceptable in the eyes of the law. In Christ the former would have been absolutely unlawful. But of a truth the latter brought in everlasting righteousness. Then did Christ, as some would claim, keep the law for others by works of supererogation? If this were so, on the one hand the Judge of all the earth would be made to connive at what was illegal; and on the other, righteousness must appear to come by the law on a basis which the law could never accept. But Paul does not frustrate the grace of God by such unlawful fiction:his language is:'If righteousness come by the law , then Christ is dead in vain. Gal.2:21. ... John Metcalfe .... end of quote Ivor Thomas

Brandan Kraft

12-08-2004, 07:25 PM

A friend of mine on paltalk said the following: "Christ did not live His life a private person any more than He died a private person."

GraceAmbassador

12-08-2004, 08:03 PM

Children of God, listen up! I have some words for you! Don't look to Christ as only your substitute in death; but look upon Him as your representative in everything! When Christ died, His people died with Him. They were put on that cross and crucified. When He was resurrected, His people were resurrected. When He lived, His people lived. When He obeyed the law, His people obeyed the law. He now resides in Heaven - His bride is represented there as well! Christ represents His people in everything!

Ok, well I'm all excited now!!!!
So am I Brandan!

This is in line with Isaiah 53, 1 John and other passages where it speaks of Christ as our atonement and adovcate. If you separate His representation of us into "that which is spiritual" and that "which is not" then you have a partial representative before God. The obvious questions then arise:

Who is our representative before God in the other issues?
Who represents us in "active obedience": ourselves, our works?
What's the limitation, where do you draw the line in representing yourself in any aspect?
Who determines whom this representative on other issues here?
What are the requirements posed by God that gives credentials to this oither representative?

Now the very crucial one:

If we have no representative for "other things", such as a representative for "active obedience" how are we left before God? Incomplete? I propose NO!

When I was in Bible school, a teacher told me that the idea of the Greek word for "head" in Ephesians 5 is a military term for the "vulnerable part of the body". (Doug, W.B. and Bill Twisse can verify that). I will assume my teacher was right. Christ is our head in that He protected His body, the Ekklesia, His Bride, entirely and impenetrably, but He still did not protect His head in a way that would hinder Him from fighting our battles. As a soldier of old, although he needs his armor to protect his body as engaging the enemy, he needed his head to command his movements and that made him all vulnerable.

I believe we get the picture: Christ protects us all in every sense of the word. Big things, small things, exactly as you said above He is our representative. In addition, He is ready to fight our battles as the Head!

Now I am excited, and since I yield to my excitement, I just screamed Halleluyah!

A Christian song of the 70's stated: You either Lord of everything or you're not Lord at all. I believe Jesus to be the Lord of everything that my life emcompasses.

Milt

Eileen

12-08-2004, 08:09 PM

Great post Brandan and great points too. I too don't think I will actually use the words, active and passive but I have come to a greater understanding of the righteousness of Christ.

Here is a paragraph that speaks to why the law is not imputed to us that I found very interesting from the link I posted:

"Christian righteousness begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The risen Christ Himself is our righteousness, not Christ fulfilling the law in our place. The Christian's connection to the law is broken through the death and resurection of Christ. The apostle Paul in Romans chapter seven expands upon this important theme. The law's power is only in force as long as a person is alive, or in the words of the apostle, "Law has dominion over a man as long as he liveth" (Rom. 7:1). Paul then sets forth our complete deliverance from under the law when he says that those who were under the law were made dead to the law by the death of Christ, that they might be joined to another, to Him that was raised from the dead (Rom. 7:1-6). A dead man is not subject to civil or religious law; in like manner, the believer is not subject to the law of Moses because he is dead and risen in Christ. Therefore, to those who believe on Christ, the law has lost its authority to bring either condemnation or righteousness through the obedience of Christ. Paul finally concludes this argument in Romans by writing, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes (Rom. 10:4) If the law is powerless to make righteous, what then is the true character of justification? Justification is the declaration by God unto us of a high and measureless righteousness, in that the whole value of the death of Christ was credited to the believer by faith, irrespective of the law, according to grace"

Another......" Christ Himself, Risen, is our righteousness, His earthly life under the Law is not our righteousness. We have no connection with a Christ on earth and under the Law.......Though He moved among sinners, he was 'separated from sinners', and had no connection with them until God made Him their sin offering at the cross"

Powerful words to be sure. Much to mediate on and read and prayerfully ask for guidance.

So again, I have learned and grown in Grace and have been renewed in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, for I am united to Him in His death and resurrection and have died to sin and the law. Now that, my friends is a glorious truth!!

Brandan Kraft

12-09-2004, 05:02 AM

Eileen, Milt, Ivor Thomas,

Great Posts! I always look forward to what all of you have to say. Milt, I especially like your style of writing, and Eileen - I appreciate the humility with which you communicate. If only I could be like that as more than a few times have I been a bit unruly and ostentatious.

Anyway, I agree that the righteousness that is imputed to the elect is the Righteousness of Christ - His DIVINE Righteousness - not one that was earned by obedience to the law, but ALL of His righteousness. I still believe in vicarious law keeping, but that was for the purpose of redeeming the elect from the obligation of the law - not for attaining a righteousness that was needed to be declared as righteous. For me, it just shows how complete a and glorious a salvation Christ really accomplished for His people.

In Hope and Faith,
Brandan

Ian Potts

12-09-2004, 06:28 AM

Brandan,

The Lord bless you my friend! :) I see from reading your post that He is indeed leading you. You have made a significant statement when you go on to say “Christ's obedience to the entire law was a demonstration of His righteousness! It is precisely CHRIST'S righteousness (not by law keeping) that is the only righteousness that could be accepted and is accepted by God, and it is this righteousness that is imputed to the elect at the cross.”

In that statement you HAVE effectively shown the error of vicarious law-keeping, for that teaching, properly stated insists that Christ’s WROUGHT OUT a righteousness for us through His law-keeping. I am very pleased to read that you see that law-keeping as a DEMONSTRATION of His righteousness. That is a key point.

But I’ll go on to clarify a few others points from your post…

First of all, thank you Ian for contributing much to this thread. I'm not going to directly quote you as I don't have time for much dialogue. I'm busy studying this issue right now and have read both of the articles by IDS (the initial one and the one defending the doctrine after being kicked out of FIRE).

Lack of time? Me too! :(

As one who has a hope that Christ has made satisfaction for me believes the Bible is very simple. I believe the Gospel is simple - very easy to understand. It is written in common every day language, and when the Saints of God read it, the truth it contains is revealed to them.. I believe most of the complicated problems presented on this forum are because men have made it as such. And one of the reasons I have a problem with Ian's view is because it complicates things. So does the traditional reformed understanding now that I think about it. Let me explain.

Actually Brandan I believe the vicarious-law-keeping view is the one which complicates things. In principle it says that the blood of Christ, and the consequent declaration of us as righteous because of that blood, is insufficient to justify us. In principle the view says that the blood does not really wash all our sin away (or at least that having no sin is ‘not’ the same as being righteous) – that to it must be added vicarious law-keeping by Christ, in order for us to have a perfect righteousness. The idea is that although the ‘penalty’ is paid by the death of Christ we still need to have a ‘positive’ righteousness imputed to us, as though the blood doesn’t in itself do that. But this is confusion. THIS is what is complicated.

The truth is really very simple. As I have stated in a prior post we can only be in one of two states – righteous or sinful. There is no ‘middle-ground, neutral’ state. We can’t have our sins taken away and be in a neutral, sinless, yet not actually righteous state – having also the need for some ‘positive’ righteousness to be imputed. The very idea is erroneous. Yet that is what the whole vicarious law-keeping teaching is based upon as its foundational premise. The fact is we either have sin, or we don’t, and if we don’t we are RIGHTEOUS. If we have no sin then we have no transgressions against God’s law or His holy righteous nature, therefore we must be in accord with that righteousness – we are righteous.

To put it very simply, Christ’s blood WASHED our sins away. Then we are righteous. That’s it. That’s how Christ FULFILLED the law for us by CONDEMNING SIN IN THE FLESH (Romans 8:3). What is meant by that? NOT SIMPLY THAT HE DIED UNDER THE PENALTY OF THE LAW (death) but also that He CONDEMNED SIN IN THE FLESH – He took it away! If we have no sin left, it being condemned in Christ’s flesh, washed in the blood, then we have no violation of the law, no point in which we have committed any sin against that law, or omitted any righteous requirement of that law. The washing away of our sins covers ALL sins – sins of commission AND of omission.

The law said “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” Matthew 22:37.

I didn’t do that. I failed. I sinned, and that constantly. But Christ blotted out that sin with His precious blood and therefore my sin was taken away. IN WHICH CASE it is as if I HAVE LOVED THE LORD MY GOD WITH ALL MY HEART, SOUL, AND MIND always.

The law also said “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” Matthew 22:39.

I didn’t do that either. I failed in that too, I sinned against that. But Christ also blotted out that sin with His precious blood and therefore my sin was taken away. IN WHICH CASE it is as if I HAVE LOVED MY NEIGHBOUR AS MYSELF always.

“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” Matthew 22:40.

So by Christ’s blood taking my sins against these commandments away (omission and commission) I have no sin against them left, and have therefore fulfilled them. See Romans 8:3-4. I FULFILLED THE LAW because Christ condemned my sin in the flesh.

It is that simple – the blood washes away our sins. We are justified by the blood. No SINS are therefore imputed to us (because the blood covered them) so RIGHTEOUSNESS IS imputed to us. We do not need to go anywhere else to find the fulfilment of that righteousness, for it is fulfilled by the blood – Christ’s death took away our sins. (But Christ could only do that by being united to us in death so that He was made our sin and bore ours sins, and therefore having taken them away we are the righteousness of God IN HIM – we can’t be apart from Him, anymore than He could be made our sin apart from us, so HE is our righteousness).

All talk about the need to have Christ’s LAW-KEEPING imputed to us AS WELL is simply nonsense. It is superfluous – the blood has already washed away our sins making us righteous. The whole concept of vicarious law-keeping is complicated confusion (and it was for THAT teaching that the division of active and passive obedience was dreamt up in order to teach….). It effectively despises the blood of Christ as though it is insufficient to really atone for our sins.

I am reminded somewhat of the Arminian objections against Particular Redemption. They complain that if Christ’s death was not for ALL but only for SOME then that LIMITS His work. Also if God’s love is not for ALL but only for the ELECT then that limits God’s love. They see these things as limiting God’s power, His love, His victory.

But that is man’s reason. Man’s wisdom. Man looks at the cross, the wisdom of God, and counts it as foolish. See 1 Corinthians.

We must be careful not to fall into the same trap of looking at the cross, at the blood of Christ and saying that it is insufficient FOR JUSTIFICATION, that it limits Christ’s work. That for justification, for IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS we must add more to it, eg. Christ’s law-keeping. (Don’t get me wrong – the cross isn’t in isolation, nor is the blood. The value of the blood is in WHOSE blood it is, and the fact that Christ was PERFECT. The blood points to the fact of our sins being covered by Christ's blood - HIS blood, therefore HIS righteousness, but a righteousness which is everlasting, divine, and apart from the works of the law. The sacrifice offered at the cross HAD TO BE Christ, the Son of God incarnate, He had to be made under the law in order to be placed under the penalty of the law, He had to be a man to reconcile man to God. He had to be obedient to God in all things and we glorify God in that. But nevertheless JUSTIFICATION ITSELF, justifying righteousness, was wrought at the cross in that sacrifice by the taking away of our sins, and the shedding of that blood.)

What we must do is rest upon what the scriptures actually TEACH. If they teach that we are ‘justified by the blood’ then we should rest in that and not try to add other things, such as Christ’s law-keeping (vicariously), however reasonable it might seem to do that, or however that might seem to add greater glory to His work…. Because it doesn’t – really it is in danger of despising the blood – see Hebrews 10:29. It says the blood is not sufficient in itself to justify, it does not bring in justifying righteousness. Some of that must come from elsewhere – ie. the works of the law.

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galatians 2:21.

The Bible never speaks of "active" or "passive" obedience. It speaks of Christ's obedience - period. Christ was obedient - even to the point of death. He was obedient to the will of the Father. He was obedient to the law of the Old Covenant. He was obedient in all things. He was obedient even in death. He was active in every aspect of obedience as He is GOD the ALMIGHTY!
Very true Brandan. Yet it is the teaching of vicarious-law-keeping which has made such distinctions with the very intention of trying to show that Christ HAD TO PERFORM LAW WORKS in order to ‘produce’ a righteousness which can be imputed to us.

I refuse now to separate any aspect of this obedience and make any distinction. Christianity in my opinion is about Christ being a SUBSTITUTE for His sheep, an exhange of His life for His Bride.

Eph 5:25, (KJV), Husbands, love your wives (live for them), even as Christ also loved the church (lived for the church), and gave himself for it; (This passage alone condemns the teaching of the "polygyny" thread.)

When He laid down His life for the church, the "great exchange" took place. This passage speaks of more than just dying for the Church, but of loving the Church - and this is more than a feeling, but something that was done for it. When He "gave himself for it", I believe He at every point of His life was giving of Himself. Now I believe this passage refers to His death, the point is made that Christ's relationship to the Church is the same as a husband and wife. A husband is to be giving of himself to his wife in all manner of life - even in death. There is a union between the husband and the wife - they are made "one" flesh - the husband represents the wife in all that he does. My job is my wife's source of income. My house is my wife's house. My child is also my wife's child. The same is true of Christ and His Bride. They were joined together in ETERNITY. There was a vital union that took place in the Eternal decree, and from before the foundation of the world, Christ was joined to the Church. All that Christ did in life was for His Bride in the same way that all that a husband does in life is for his wife.

Well really the Bride was ESPOUSED to her husband from eternity. They became united at the cross in death and rose to life in the resurrection. In the death the Bride was taken out of the Last Adam’s side, as Eve was taken out of Adam’s side and presented to him as his wife. In that sense Eve was always ‘in’ Adam, just as the Bride was always in Christ, although that didn’t make Eve the same ‘person’ as Adam.

But our earthly person, our ‘flesh’ was originally fallen in the first Adam and that had to be united to Christ at the cross in order to crucify the sinful flesh. We then rose again in Him, in the ‘new man’ being a new creation. But as Eve did not ‘do’ what Adam did before she was taken out of his side, so the Bride of Christ did not ‘do’ what Christ did. But she does become WHAT HE IS. Her union with her Husband is in what HE IS (righteousness of God from eternity) not what He DID (the works of the law, which after all were only a showing forth of that righteousness so really added nothing to it).

There was no need for Christ to be made righteous by the law as He was already spotless. It was not for His sake that He put Himself under the law to become "righteous". Yet He put Himself under the law for His Church - He was giving of Himself in these actions (being born, circumcision, living sinlessly, etc...) Christ's obedience to the entire law was a demonstration of His righteousness! It is precisely CHRIST'S righteousness (not by law keeping) that is the only righteousness that could be accepted and is accepted by God, and it is this righteousness that is imputed to the elect at the cross. All of Christ's people have been clothed with this righteousness and God forbid that we view it as just Christ's obedience to the law, or His obedience in death, but as our Husband's righteousness! Everything He did was for His Bride! He is everything to His Church! When the Father looks upon the Church, He sees Christ! He joined them to Him in eternity and has always viewed them as perfectly righteous because they are ONE - vitally joined together.

Brandan! You’re beginning to get it! :)

Christ had to be made under the law in order to redeem His church from under the law – in order to suffer the judgement of the law against her. His life as you say was a DEMONSTRATION of His righteousness. You’re spot on there!

“Christ's obedience to the entire law was a demonstration of His righteousness! It is precisely CHRIST'S righteousness (not by law keeping) that is the only righteousness that could be accepted and is accepted by God, and it is this righteousness that is imputed to the elect at the cross.”

Yes! It is the Righteousness of God IN CHRIST. It wasn’t ‘wrought out’ by law-keeping – Christ ALREADY WAS RIGHTEOUS. That is what we become at the cross because of Christ’s washing our sins away in His blood, and our being united to Him in His death so that all that is left to be seen in us is the righteousness of God in Christ, in whom we are united as the Bride to her husband.

In seeing this Brandan you have effectively seen the error in the vicarious-law-keeping view (whether you realise it or not...! :) )

Christ had absolutely no reason to put Himself under the law for His own sake as many "evangelicals" claim today. He is God - and needs no justifying whatsoever. From all eternity, He has been perfectly righteous. But He did put Himself under the law - and He did this as a representative for His Bride - because this was the Father's will. In order to redeem His people from the law, He had to put Himself under that law.

Gal 4:4-5, (KJV), But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Question to Ian - does this passage mean only redeem them from the curse of the law? There is no mention of any penalty at all. Why cannot this passage mean to redeem from obligation and curse? How can being "under the law" in this context mean only the penalty and not the obligation?

Yes Brandan – Christ put Himself under the law, not to produce law-works, not to walk as a proxy-law-keeper, but in order to REDEEM His people FROM THE LAW. In order to do THAT, which He did by dying in their stead, He HAD to be made under the law.

You’re also right Brandan about Galatians 3:13 (“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law”). It does NOT simply mean that we are redeemed from the curse of the law (death), it also means that we are redeemed from under the law full-stop. Our OLD MAN was under the law but it is crucified with Christ, it is dead. It is dead to the law – both its curse and its obligation. See Romans 7:4-6, where this is taught very clearly. We are risen in Christ the other side of death, outside of the law’s reach.

I agree completely and that is my point regarding the death of Christ. The work of Christ in His death was not merely fulfilling the CURSE of the law. It fulfilled the obligation of us to it as well. The curse of the law was death. But Christ DIDN’T JUST DIE for us, He TOOK OUR SIN AWAY. HE SHED HIS BLOOD. He was made sin, bore our sins, and suffered under the wrath of God against that sin for HOURS. He didn’t die an instant death as though death alone was sufficient – He justified us through His SUFFERINGS on the cross, leading to the shedding of His blood.

The blood doesn’t speak of the curse of the law (that was simply death). The blood speaks of atonement. It speaks of sins being WASHED AWAY. It speaks of the remission of sins, and consequent forgiveness. Hence the law is fulfilled because all sins are blotted out, and all that is seen in us, in Christ, is RIGHTEOUSNESS.

That FULFILLS all the Old Covenant types and figures. The precepts of the law condemned our sin. The ceremonies of the law pointed to how that sin could be taken away – by sacrifice and the shedding of blood. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OR FIGURE of vicarious-law-keeping seen in those types. It is the sacrifice of a lamb (and the burning of the carcase outside the camp) and the shedding of its blood that takes away sin and sins. “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin”. In which case THERE IS REMISSION OF SIN (and hence imputation of righteousness) by the shedding of blood – and nothing more.

God’s forgiveness of sins is not the same as when we forgive someone who has wronged us. ‘Sorry’ won’t do. Paying a penalty in itself won’t do before God. No, God forgives us of our sins not simply because Christ died but because He TOOK OUR SINS AWAY. God CAN forgive us then because He views us as no longer having sin. His forgiveness is not simply based upon a price being paid, but upon the blood blotting out those sins. Hence upon justifying righteousness being imputed to us because of the covering of the blood. We are “justified by the blood”.

Now modern day theologians have separated the obedience into two separate categories, "passive", and "active". All are guilty of doing this - on both sides of the issue. If it were not for this division, I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. But because the division exists, things have now become complicated, and the simplicity of the Gospel has been distorted.

Simply put, the Gospel is about Christ giving of His life for His Bride, and He gave of His life from His birth until His death. It is about an exchange of His life for His Bride. Not only did He die for His Church, but He lived for His Church. His filthy bride's awful life of sin was imputed to Him, and His life of righteousness was imputed to His Bride.

Children of God, listen up! I have some words for you! Don't look to Christ as only your substitute in death; but look upon Him as your representative in everything! When Christ died, His people died with Him. They were put on that cross and crucified. When He was resurrected, His people were resurrected. When He lived, His people lived. When He obeyed the law, His people obeyed the law. He now resides in Heaven - His bride is represented there as well! Christ represents His people in everything!

Ok, well I'm all excited now!!!!
I’m glad you’re excited Brandan! I think you have said truth when you say “It is precisely CHRIST'S righteousness (not by law keeping) that is the only righteousness that could be accepted and is accepted by God, and it is this righteousness that is imputed to the elect at the cross.” (Christ’s righteousness being the ‘righteousness of God in Him’ 2 Corinthians 5:21). You seem here to have recognised that Christ’s righteousness is apart from law-keeping. He ALWAYS WAS righteous. He kept the law BECAUSE He was righteous, NOT in order to produce a righteousness which is then imputed to us.

THAT is the key point. Effectively you disagree with the vicarious-law-keeping concept by saying that (as that view teaches that His law-keeping WROUGHT out a righteousness to be imputed to us). Christ kept the law because He was/is righteous, not to produce a righteousness.

So, the only thing I’d point out from your comments here is that when you say that Christ’s ‘life of righteousness was imputed to His Bride’ I’d just say that His actual divine righteousness was imputed. His life simply demonstrated it. His obedience to the law did not add anything to that righteousness.

And that righteousness is imputed to us simply because we are united to Christ in His death, God judged our sin against the standard of His divine righteousness and Christ took all our sin away under that judgment, so we are made the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:21.

I really MUST leave it there – this is really my last post on this topic (I hope!). May the Lord continue to teach us all as we look into the scriptures to see if these things be so,

In Grace,
Ian :)

Brandan Kraft

12-09-2004, 07:12 AM

I've been thinking about this all night - even woke up early and couldn't go back to sleep. Right now I'm so obsessed with thinking and reading about this topic it's amazing. I've been renewed to a real pleasure in the righteousness of Christ. This is a very good topic - thanks Eileen and Ian!

This is what I've been thinking about - and I have a theory - and I don't know - maybe I've just found a way to merge Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. I might be way off here - but by God's grace, I think I have come up with a new systematic.

Let's call it MCT! (modified covenant theology).
It's a merging of Ian's view of Justification by passive obedience and the reformed view of vicarious law keeping.

I am positive the Scriptures speak of vicarious law keeping. However, I've ALWAYS had problems with Covenant Theology's idea of a "covenant of works" specifically because I do not believe any person can achieve righteousness through the works of the law. It's works based salvation and that is why I've rejected it.

But let's say we take a modified view of the covenant of works. Before the fall, Adam was righteous. He didn't have the righteousness of Christ, but he was righteous according to the law that was given to him. The revealed law to Adam did indeed judge him to be righteous. He still had a sin nature - an inclination to sin (which is indeed sinful!)- he was not Christ. When he fell, according to the law (two laws were given : don't eat of the tree - populate the earth), he became an object of its penalty. From that point on, all of his elect descendents would be cursed by some form of that law (CT calls it "moral law"). In order to be restored to a state of righteousness (Adam's prefall state), one would have to not only pay the penalty, but also the obligation as a substitute through vicarious law keeping and death on the cross (Christ). When Christ upheld the law, the righteousness earned by that obedience is indeed imputed to the elect but it is still yet insufficient to keep the elect from falling into sin again in EXACTLY the same way that Adam fell into sin. This is where the righteousness of Christ apart from the law comes into play and doesn't merely restore the elect to Adam's prefall state - but instead it's a divine righteousness that actually removes the elect's inclination to sin (Christ was impeccable). (the "two natures" view is vital at this point)

So the "covenant of works" given to Adam which Christ fulfilled by keeping the law is not really salvific - just a restoration to Adam's prefall state. It's not a complete salvation. The "covenant of grace" - the NEW COVENANT - begun in eternity and constituted on the cross in time is an exceedingly greater covenant as it's a divine covenant that imputes the divine righteousness of Christ to all of the elect and fashions them to be inhabitants in heaven through infused holiness / imparted righteousness. When the elect die and leave this body of sin behind, the warfare will cease, and they will be glorified - unlike anything Adam ever was.

What does everyone think about this?

Also, Ian, I will try to respond to your post. Needless to say, I am pleased to see that we are coming to some agreement!

Forester07

12-09-2004, 11:59 AM

I would agree with John Reisinger that there is not a covenant of works with Adam.

A COVENANT OF WORKS?

John G. Reisinger

"Mr. Reisinger, if God did not make a covenant of works with Adam in the Garden of Eden, then exactly what was the arrangement?"

I view the situation in the Garden of Eden as follows: Suppose I put you on a large farm and tell you that everything on it was for your personal use and enjoyment. I promise to pay all of the bills for everything, the fertilizer, the animal's feed, the electric bill, etc. You need only work the farm and you may sell or use all the produce, animals, etc. for yourself. There is only one condition. There is a small building out back of the barn that belongs to me and you may not go into it. The day you go in that building, you are going to be thrown off the farm. That is exactly like the arrangement that God made with Adam. Those are the same promises, conditions and terms laid on Adam in Eden. Everything in the Garden was Adam's to do with as he chose. The only restriction was to not eat of one tree.

Question: Is there anything in my 'farm deal' with you that states, or in anyway remotely implies, that if you do not enter that little house for X number of weeks, months, years or some period of time, I will reward you by moving you to a bigger, better or different farm? There is not a thing to that effect! Total silence! Is there any inference of any kind that if you do not go into the little house for a specific period of time that I will tear down the little house. No! Not even a hint of such a thing.

Is that not the exact 'deal' God made with Adam? I ask again, where in Genesis 1-3 is there a promise of a better life (or bigger farm) as a reward for Adam's obedience to a so-called covenant of works? There is not a single word or inference to that effect. There is indeed a threat of death for disobeying the one commandment, but there is no promise to Adam that he could gain, by works, something he did not already possess. Remember we are not talking about a minor point of doctrine. A covenant of works with Adam whereby he could literally "earn life" by obedience is an essential building block in the system of covenant theology. No covenant of works with Adam, no covenant theology.

By the way, what was missing in Eden that Adam needed and God promised him he could earn by personal obedience? I always thought Eden was a pretty good deal that did not need any improvements. I think Adam had everything that any heart could desire.

I repeat, the whole system of covenant theology is build on the absolute necessity of Adam being under a covenant of works wherein he was promised 'life' as a reward for obeying that covenant. But He already had life! He already had fellowship with God. The great tragedy of Eden was not that "an opportunity to earn life was lost." The tragedy was the life Adam already had was lost when he disobeyed. Where in Gen 2:17 is there the slightest inference that if Adam obeys a covenant for X number of months, or years, he will get a bigger and better garden or God would remove the tree. Genesis is a simple and straightforward narrative and covenant theologians superimpose a whole unproven system of theology on it.

That there are many arguments for different terms or labels used by different covenant theologians for the "covenant of whatever" is proof of my original statement. We do not have to argue about labeling a doctrine when it is established from texts of Scripture. However, when you are discussing inferences and deductions, you have many conclusions that have no clear biblical (meaning textual) proof. One man's idea is as good as another when we are discussing ideas. That is not true when we discussing the words inspired by the Holy Ghost. A.H. Strong was asked when and where the covenant of works was made. He replied, "In Amsterdam in 1468." He was far closer to the truth than the WCF.

Forester07

Brandan Kraft

12-09-2004, 12:18 PM

I would agree with John Reisinger that there is not a covenant of works with Adam.Agreed. I don't like the term covenant of works - that's why I put it in "quotes". Working can never merit eternal salvation. It was an arrangement that God set before Adam. God gave Adam LAW. The "covenant of works" or legal arrangement is that Adam would be able to stay in the garden as long as he didn't break the rules.

The traditional understanding of a covenant of works is really bad and wrong in my opinion.

Oh and by the way, I know a few reformed covenant theologians that do not believe in a covenant of works - Wildboar for example - he's PRC - as reformed as you can get.

harald

12-09-2004, 02:05 PM

Ian. I have meditated upon it today with the understanding I have of it at present. I find some things in it fascinating, yet would want to verify for myself from the Scripture whether these things be so in truth. I admit that Brandan was right in his admonition, and I apologize that I hurled "antinomianism" at your view. I guess I was in a zeal which was not tempered by thoughtfulness, firing away too hastily. I see from reading your thoughts that you do not propagate antinomianism, "against the law". I do not even wish to charge your view as being error as of now. But would want to examine in the light of the Scripture.

I acknowledge that there are scripture passages which seem to support your view quite strongly. It is true I think that the NT scriptures know not the term "Christ's righteousness imputed" or "Christ's imputed righteousness", as such. In fact there are many terms and phrases and words used in sovereign grace theology talk and jargon which specifically speaking are not found as such in the New Testament. Some of them are nonetheless legitimate and not misleading nor ambiguous. But many are misleading and even deceptive, and ambiguous. I believe it is all the better if one would use words and terms and phrases specifically found in the Scripture, I mean in particular such which are supported by the Greek text as legitimate and good.

One good thing I come to think of in your view is that it makes Christ as Redeemer central. At least it seems so at present. And it seems to emphasize justification before God to have taken place at the cross. And no doubt more things good there be.

Then. You seem to say that union of Christ and the elect came about at the cross. Would you say that union existed not prior to Christ going to Calvary, or prior to the incarnation? My belief has been that there has ever been a legal covenant union, even from eternity, between the Son of God and His elect. I believe it involves a Divine decree in eternity, and Divine foreknowing. And by reason of this union there was the union at the cross and in the resurrection. Any view of Christ's work which de-emphasizes the intimate union between Christ and His own is suspect. I do not say at present that your does so. I will have to read your writings carefully through. Myself has ever had a hard time with people who maintain that the union comes about "at the point of faith". If the union a person speaks of was not sovereignly established by One who is God and only God then his speaking is falsehood.

I will perhaps sound like I am rambling a bit, but I will put forth a few thoughts on some things.
First. I think I cannot find in the NT the language of "active" vs. "passive" obedience. It does say in some place concerning Christ's obedience that He became obedient unto death, a cross-death. In that passage it does not say some part was active and another passive. I think others have elaborated on this well here before.

I must say that in a sense it would for me be like "coming home" if indeed your view is the truth. In august 1997 when myself experienced conversion then the gospel I embraced was that simple gospel Paul briefly outlines in 1Cor. 15:2-3. In fact these two verses were with power applied to my whole heart and inner being, that is what I experienced. I think it was sometimes in late 1999 or in 2000 I came to learn of the "vicarious law-keeping of Christ imputed as righteousness" doctrine. I cannot now even remember exactly when and through what writing. But it was not through independent Scripture study, that much I recall. I did take it in as very orthodoxy for some reason, and have hitherto held it to be true, and have contended for it more or less, at least in the letter. Now I am perplexed in some degree. If the vicarious law keeping view is not the truth of Paul and the NT and the Scripture overall then it would verily explain a few things to me, which have more or less at times arrested my attention, but which I have brushed aside. If "your view" is truth indeed it would make many things fall into place for myself, explaining them. I have a feeling in my guts that your view may be the truth, and I feel I will one day yet thank you heartily. I have hitherto in my life turned so many times from erroneous things that one more time will not be a new thing to me. In fact as I have meditated upon your view with my present insufficient understanding I have felt some hope of better things.

Ian, have you thought about the ramifications if your view (I hate calling it "your view" all the time but will do so for now) is the truth and the vicarious law keeping imputed is falsehood? I have thought about it a little. It would at least to me explain a whole lot of strange and inconsistent things in the Christianity of the latter centuries, and especially it would explain a whole lot of strange things in calvinistic circles in the last 400 years plus. Among other things it would mean that almost all of calvinistic baptists (c.1637 to today) have propagated a man made falsehood in the name of truth. Not to mention calvinistic pedobaptists. This in turn would speak of the fact that the Holy Spirit has not been their anointing. I must say I find the situation at present intriguing. If your view is Scripture truth then myself is obligated to remove all writings from my site which propound the contrary view, and I will do it gladly as soon as fully convinced in mind.

If your view is the truth then I counsel you in all friendliness to act consistently according to that conviction, and among other things to remove from your homepage writings which may (if you have such) propound the vicarious law keeping imputed view. Not to mention writings by men who deny justification of God's elect to have taken place at the cross exclusively. E.g. Fortner.

If your view is the truth then it seems to me that most calvinistic theologians have wrongly used and defined the word "impute", i.e. Gr. logizomai. And they have read it into passages where it does not belong. I say if your view is the truth then there is a great need to set things straight by boldly proclaiming this as very truth Divine, and denounce the contrary view as error or heresy.

One reason why myself has at times experienced nagging doubts as to my state and standing is because at conversion I did not learn the doctrine of vicarious law keeping imputed. I have at times asked in my heart, "If this doctrine is indeed a core truth of the Gospel then why wasn't I taught it of God at conversion? Or was my conversion but a spurious one, seeing I learnt not this thing?"
Among the few vital things I was taught of God (if indeed it was Him) at conversion about the most central was this; "Now I am good enough for God for Christ's sake". Thus it was given to me to know and understand that it was all Christ. And this was my joy in all singleness of heart. I knew no fine theological terms or such back then. I guess I was not even familiar with the term "righteous", but I knew the term "good enough for God", that I was accepted of and acceptable to God for the sake of Another, Jesus Christ.

I had so many things on my mind which I wanted to spell out, but now I cannot remember. I may return when I remember anew.

Harald

Brandan Kraft

12-09-2004, 10:52 PM

Ian told me in a private post that my MCT understanding has a lot of crossover from Bob's two seeds doctrine. I haven't heard from Bob, and I'm pretty sure from our past conversations that he would agree with my understanding that Christ kept the law on behalf of the elect and that the righteousness wrought through that obedience is indeed imputed to the elect. Would he view it as the first Adam's righteousness, or would he agree that something "more" is needed? He's very busy at this moment, so I'll patiently await his reply.

Harald, please allow me to express my appreciation for you. I've appreciate your forthrightness and your love for the truth. I don't think we agree on every single point of doctrine, but I have learned much from you. I am very thankful for you.

I noticed you mentioned Fortner as one you disagree with. I believe you have misunderstood his position concerning justification. All that I know (except for conditional primitive baptists) that believe in justification from eternity believe that ALL of justification occurs at the cross. It's just from the divine perspective, eternity is not an extension of time, but something that exists outside of time entirely. From God's perspective in eternity, everything HAS happened. That is all events in time are complete. And justification from eternity is a righteousness that is imputed to the elect as if Christ's work on the cross WAS accomplished (it was not a future event nor a past event). I've read enough of Fortner to know that he believes that all of justification is a result of the cross. You speak of the decretive union - the joining of the elect to the Christ in eternity. Well how does God do this unless He already sees the elect as righteous? He sees them as righteous because in that single instantaneous decree - EVERYTHING in time occurred from God's perspective - Christ's work on the cross was accomplished and God imputed the righteousness wrought by Christ in His life and death on the cross to His elect in that union. Not only was justificatin accomplished, but so was regeneration, adoption, resurrection, and glorification (Rom. 8:28-30).

I'll write more tomorrow. Today was a great day for me.

I would encourage everyone to meditate on the things discussed in this topic. I don't agree completely with Ian - I believe there are some finer points of distinction to be made - but I still believe that Christ kept the law for His people, and the righteousness wrought through obedience to that law is imputed to the elect. This righteousness returns the elect to Adam's prefall state, but it is still not enough to save eternally. Christ's divine righteousness is what is necessary, and this is what is imputed to the elect for eternal life.

In Hope,
Brandan

Ian Potts

12-10-2004, 06:02 AM

Harald,

Thanks for your encouraging post – I rejoice to meet people who are open to searching the scriptures, open to the Spirit’s leading. May the Lord continue to teach us all.

My last post WAS meant to be my last… at the time. However your post deserves a reply… (I can see Brandan sniggering away already at another one of Ian’s “Last Posts”! :rolleyes: )

Ian. I have meditated upon it today with the understanding I have of it at present. I find some things in it fascinating, yet would want to verify for myself from the Scripture whether these things be so in truth. I admit that Brandan was right in his admonition, and I apologize that I hurled "antinomianism" at your view. I guess I was in a zeal which was not tempered by thoughtfulness, firing away too hastily. I see from reading your thoughts that you do not propagate antinomianism, "against the law". I do not even wish to charge your view as being error as of now. But would want to examine in the light of the Scripture.

That’s fine – no offence taken!

Then. You seem to say that union of Christ and the elect came about at the cross. Would you say that union existed not prior to Christ going to Calvary, or prior to the incarnation? My belief has been that there has ever been a legal covenant union, even from eternity, between the Son of God and His elect. I believe it involves a Divine decree in eternity, and Divine foreknowing. And by reason of this union there was the union at the cross and in the resurrection. Any view of Christ's work which de-emphasizes the intimate union between Christ and His own is suspect. I do not say at present that your does so. I will have to read your writings carefully through. Myself has ever had a hard time with people who maintain that the union comes about "at the point of faith". If the union a person speaks of was not sovereignly established by One who is God and only God then his speaking is falsehood.

Well, I’ve spoken a bit about our union with Christ in a few posts. There is no question that we were chosen IN CHRIST in eternity unto salvation. Scripture teaches that. I do believe there was a union between the elect and Christ in all eternity, but I think scripture teaches it in the sense that we were ‘in him’ ie. as ‘seed’ in him.

I think there are two pictures relating to this. One is that of Eve in Adam. Eve wasn’t created independently of Adam, She was taken out of his side. A rib was taken out – she was flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. So she was in Adam from the time he was created, yet she wasn’t united to him as his bride until she was taken out of his side and presented to him, which then brought her into a different union with him – a marriage union. This pictures us in Christ. We were always in Him from eternity but at the cross He went into a great sleep as it were (like Adam) and we were taken out of His side (the blood and water came forth from His side) and then rose from death with Him, as His bride. So we were ‘in Him’ before, espoused as His wife unto Him, but there is a marriage union of Bride and Husband at the cross/resurrection.

A second picture is that of being ‘seed’ within Christ from all eternity. As all of Adam’s offspring were effectively in him, and gradually over the generations they are BORN, likewise all of the LAST ADAM’S offspring were in Him from all eternity and are then born in time of the Spirit at regeneration. It is in this sense that the folk who speak of a union ‘at point of faith’ are probably meaning – that when born again we are brought to faith. Having been ‘born’ of God, seed from within Christ, born by the Spirit, we are then a child which looks to its Father.

However the former picture – Adam and Eve, is the one which most points to the Husband/Bride union of Christ and His church. The bride always was IN Christ, but is brought out of His side at the cross.

Now there is another point about union to be mentioned. Although we were ‘in’ Christ from eternity, NONE of our sinful flesh inherited from Adam in the fall was in Christ back then. There could be no sin in Christ in eternity, so our state in our fallen flesh in this world is NOT in union with Christ. At least, NOT UNTIL THE CROSS. At the cross however we are brought into union with Christ in His death, our FLESH in our manhood in the first Adam is brought into union with Christ so that He could be made our sin in order to take it away, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. THAT UNION only took place at the cross, which is why Christ was made sin there, why the light of the sun was taken away for three hours whilst He was on the cross and why the vaults of heaven opened and God’s wrath came crashing down upon the Saviour in order to condemn sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Romans 8:3-4.

That's my understanding regarding this matter - perhaps there is more that can be gleaned from the scriptures regarding it.

I must say that in a sense it would for me be like "coming home" if indeed your view is the truth. In august 1997 when myself experienced conversion then the gospel I embraced was that simple gospel Paul briefly outlines in 1Cor. 15:2-3. In fact these two verses were with power applied to my whole heart and inner being, that is what I experienced. I think it was sometimes in late 1999 or in 2000 I came to learn of the "vicarious law-keeping of Christ imputed as righteousness" doctrine. I cannot now even remember exactly when and through what writing. But it was not through independent Scripture study, that much I recall. I did take it in as very orthodoxy for some reason, and have hitherto held it to be true, and have contended for it more or less, at least in the letter. Now I am perplexed in some degree. If the vicarious law keeping view is not the truth of Paul and the NT and the Scripture overall then it would verily explain a few things to me, which have more or less at times arrested my attention, but which I have brushed aside. If "your view" is truth indeed it would make many things fall into place for myself, explaining them. I have a feeling in my guts that your view may be the truth, and I feel I will one day yet thank you heartily. I have hitherto in my life turned so many times from erroneous things that one more time will not be a new thing to me. In fact as I have meditated upon your view with my present insufficient understanding I have felt some hope of better things.

I think it is interesting to look back at our experience at times and consider what we have really learnt from God from the scriptures. Very often we will find that much of our understanding of doctrine IS gleaned from the writings or the preaching of men. Although God does use these means and teaches us through preachers (of course) nevertheless we should always compare what they say with the scriptures, to see if these things be so. Sometimes we just take things because ‘everybody else says so’.

Your looking back to your conversion here is good. The verses you have quoted, as a summary of the Gospel, say nothing of Christ’s life or vicarious-law-keeping but again focus upon the simplicity of the cross:-

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
I think most Christians, if asked to summarise the Gospel in a sentence or two would say a similar thing. That Christ died for their sins, and rose again. Of course there is much more to it in the depths and riches of the Gospel, but that summarises the Gospel by stating what is at the heart of it – what justifies us. The fact that Christ DIED for our sins.

I have to say Harald that this truth is one I have held for some time, but one which the Lord has sealed in my heart as truth. I don’t accept it simply as head-knowledge – I have had much experimental confirmation of it as truth, and experience of the Lord’s presence and power and affirmation of this being ‘the right way’.

In fact many times I have looked at the writings of men who teach vicarious law-keeping ‘wanting’ to agree with them as it were. The fact that many do teach this has made me question whether I am right at times and read their writings with an open mind wanting to see if they might be right. But I have always come away ‘disappointed’ in them. I have found their arguments to be flawed, their scriptural support to be weak, and most of all the Spirit just did not witness with my spirit that what they said was true. So although as a man, weak in the flesh, I desired in a way to agree with other men, the Lord would not have it – He led me another way, and I thank Him for His keeping hand on me. “Cease ye from man whose breath is in his nostrils”.

Ian, have you thought about the ramifications if your view (I hate calling it "your view" all the time but will do so for now) is the truth and the vicarious law keeping imputed is falsehood? I have thought about it a little. It would at least to me explain a whole lot of strange and inconsistent things in the Christianity of the latter centuries, and especially it would explain a whole lot of strange things in calvinistic circles in the last 400 years plus. Among other things it would mean that almost all of calvinistic baptists (c.1637 to today) have propagated a man made falsehood in the name of truth. Not to mention calvinistic pedobaptists. This in turn would speak of the fact that the Holy Spirit has not been their anointing. I must say I find the situation at present intriguing. If your view is Scripture truth then myself is obligated to remove all writings from my site which propound the contrary view, and I will do it gladly as soon as fully convinced in mind.

If your view is the truth then I counsel you in all friendliness to act consistently according to that conviction, and among other things to remove from your homepage writings which may (if you have such) propound the vicarious law keeping imputed view. Not to mention writings by men who deny justification of God's elect to have taken place at the cross exclusively. E.g. Fortner.

Well, not everyone has taught vicarious law-keeping. I think a number have seen it as wrong, but I tend to think that the writings and the men who become prominent in Christian circles are not always those who hold to the most truth. Very often God’s servants are side-lined and despised. I daresay that there are many faithful Gospel preachers in history who we have never heard of.

I don’t think most of the Reformers (Luther etc) held to vicarious law-keeping (I realise you have your differences with them – many of us do on various points – but nevertheless on this point I think they were clearer than later men). The view tended to come in during the 1600s as Covenant Theology was refined. However others have differed. The writer I have found the clearest on the matter is the present-day English preacher/writer John Metcalfe (whom Ivor quoted above). His book on “Justification by Faith” is probably the best book I have read on justification. See this site http://www.campusi.com/bookFind/asp/bookFindPriceLst.asp?prodId=1870039114 . Many of the Plymouth Brethren writers opposed vicarious law-keeping also (whatever other errors they may have held….).

But this is one area of truth among several which comprise the whole of the Gospel. I believe there have been men of God who have been in error on this point who I would still hold as faithful Gospel preachers – William Huntington for example. That man had so much light on other areas of truth and experience that I wouldn’t even dare to judge him by this point. All men hold error, we all do, and God leads some into one truth clearly, and others into other truths clearly – we only have so much time on this earth, eternity won’t be long enough to fathom the riches of God’s truth! We have to be careful to distinguish what is truly foundational or affecting of one’s salvation.

Another point however is that we don’t test men’s standing entirely upon their words or understanding of doctrine. We also test their spirit. I think often good men can hold error, but still have a true spirit, a gracious spirit, and that can be seen in their attitude to truth when presented to them. They may have held an error up to that point, but they are open and willing to listen when the truth is presented (and I have seen that very much in this thread in yourself and others here). However there are others who hold a very different spirit. Whatever ‘truth’ they may have in their heads, their hearts are very different. When they hear something which doesn’t fit with what they have been taught, or what their ‘party’ holds to, they oppose it with venom, with anger, with hatred. They denounce as heresy things that they have spent little time considering honestly by scripture. “That’s not what ‘so and so’ teaches…!” they decry.

So we can learn a lot from people’s SPIRIT. It is by such testing (truth and spirit) that I seek to discern those preachers and writers who I believe are God-sent. As such I am happy with those whom I present on my website. I may not agree on every point with every one but I still believe they preach(ed) the fundamentals of the Gospel, in the Spirit, and were men of God.

(I think another point to mention here is that we must be careful to distinguish MEN and the MESSAGE. What I seek to proclaim, by publishing any article or writing, is the GOSPEL, not the men who preach it. The men have faults, and errors, but if they have written some truth then I will proclaim that truth. If I discern an error in them, then I’ll leave that error out.)

Finally, I have held my position against vicarious law-keeping for some years now so I have not knowingly put any article on my site which teaches it. Some may mention ‘Christ’s righteousness’ but none to my knowledge expound that as being wrought by vicarious law-keeping (if you notice otherwise let me know). However, just because a certain author holds to that view doesn’t mean I won’t publish other works by that author, if I feel those writings contain much truth. By definition the preaching of men WILL contain error, as they still have the flesh. The Bible is inerrant but the writings of men aren’t. Yet I seek to publish that which is as scriptural and true as I can discern, as led by God.

One reason why myself has at times experienced nagging doubts as to my state and standing is because at conversion I did not learn the doctrine of vicarious law keeping imputed. I have at times asked in my heart, "If this doctrine is indeed a core truth of the Gospel then why wasn't I taught it of God at conversion? Or was my conversion but a spurious one, seeing I learnt not this thing?"

Among the few vital things I was taught of God (if indeed it was Him) at conversion about the most central was this; "Now I am good enough for God for Christ's sake". Thus it was given to me to know and understand that it was all Christ. And this was my joy in all singleness of heart. I knew no fine theological terms or such back then. I guess I was not even familiar with the term "righteous", but I knew the term "good enough for God", that I was accepted of and acceptable to God for the sake of Another, Jesus Christ.

Amen Harald. Oh! May we be kept as little children, for these things are not revealed unto the wise and prudent but unto babes.

Thanks again for your encouragement Harald. May God bless you in the pathway,

In Grace,
Ian

I don't agree completely with Ian
…But little by little, step by step…. three months and you’ll probably be there Brandan! :)

MCT (Muddly Covenant Theology ;) ) sounds a little bit like wanting it both ways to me…

But seriously, I do appreciate your desire to look into these things and your ongoing encouragement in the things of the Lord. May God bless you richly my friend,

Ian

Brandan Kraft

12-10-2004, 06:45 AM

Hey Ian!

I'm glad this wasn't your last post! (snickers)

Seriously, from now on, I'd suggest you drop that qualification! You just can't help yourself! I admire that!

Your Brother,
Brandan

harald

12-10-2004, 09:20 AM

Brandan,

You are too kind and friendly a man. I do not deserve your kind compliments. I know we do not agree in all points, and of course I wish we did. Maybe we will at some time. I am able to be pleased at all the truth you hold. I have come to respect you much, just so that you know. I may not have expressed it outright to you and know not if I have the ability to put it in proper words.

As for justification in eternity I do not at present see support for it in the New Testament and so will not accept it. As for Fortner I shall say that unless I be falsely informed he maintains justification from eternity. And, I have for myself at some point read him and from what I have read it seems he holds justification before God by God-given faith in Christ. This is a notion I cannot bear with at all as you well know. As for Fortner the man I do not know him, and have nothing against him, only his erroneous teachings. And I do not like it that Fortner teaches gospel regeneration. Steve Baloga recently supplied a quote from Fortner (when we discussed gospel regeneration) which clearly indicates to me he teaches it. I do not doubt Fortner teaches many things aright. But he has been so long in the business of preaching in public and to still hold certain clear errors makes me very very suspect and cautious as to him. I cannot help it.

As for myself I think I will never tire in condemning the falsehood of justification before God through subjective Christ-ward faith. Because Luther is the main proponent of this notion I cannot for anything accept him as having been a good teacher, but rather a wicked. I have read some of Luther's, and do not deny he was (comparatively speaking) a learned man, and he did maintain many true things. But many un-scriptural as well.

Trust to talk more later.

Harald

Brandan Kraft

12-10-2004, 10:27 AM

As for justification in eternity I do not at present see support for it in the New Testament and so will not accept it.Well if you don't see evidence for it in the new testament, I understand. Rom. 8:28-30 speaks of all things as they are past events. Eph. 1:6 says the elect are "accepted in the beloved". Rom. 8:1 says "there is no condemnation for them which are in Christ". How can be there no condemnation unless they are justified. And yet you hold to a decretive union. Your understanding is very inconsistent in my opinion.

As for Fortner I shall say that unless I be falsely informed he maintains justification from eternity. He does hold to this doctrine.

And, I have for myself at some point read him and from what I have read it seems he holds justification before God by God-given faith in Christ. This is a notion I cannot bear with at all as you well know.He believes justification is based entirely on the cross. I've read enough of him to know for sure. He believes in experimental justification - that is the elect receive knowledge of their justification through faith alone. When he speaks of justification by faith he is not speaking forensically. I would say that is also the traditional reformed position as well - it's just fullerism, marrow men, baxterianism, spurgeonism, etc. have distorted this so much I can certainly understand you concern. If justification did not occur at the cross, justification would in fact be based on faith - and so many "reformed" theologians deny justification before the cross. Fortner does not.

As for Fortner the man I do not know him, and have nothing against him, only his erroneous teachings. And I do not like it that Fortner teaches gospel regeneration. I can understand that. I disagree with Fortner on a few aspects of regeneration. He does not believe men are regenerated except they hear a preacher or read a sermon. I disagree with this completely!

Steve Baloga recently supplied a quote from Fortner (when we discussed gospel regeneration) which clearly indicates to me he teaches it. I do not doubt Fortner teaches many things aright. But he has been so long in the business of preaching in public and to still hold certain clear errors makes me very very suspect and cautious as to him. I cannot help it. I'm cautious of all men :) I recognize my own ability and inclinations to corrupt the Gospel of free grace, so I cannot help but suspect others whom I do not know as well. I understand perfectly.

Bill Ross

12-10-2004, 11:56 AM

<Harald>
>>...As for myself I think I will never tire in condemning the falsehood of justification before God through subjective Christ-ward faith...

<Bill>
This was Saul´s attitude as well, before his conversion!

In scripture, justification is on the basis of faith. God counts faith as righteousness.

Christ justified no one. God justifies. He does so on the basis of faith.

Bill Ross

harald

12-10-2004, 12:08 PM

Bill Ross. I do not claim to be any better than Saul of Tarsus prior to conversion. But I do know that after his conversion he never taught justification before God by or on the basis of subjective God- or Christ-ward faith/trust. He who has not been justified before God only and solely and exclusively in and by Christ alone at His cross-death has not been justified at all, and has neither the Father nor the Son. Justification before God based on faith in (toward) Christ is but a pathetic doctrine of demons. It is necessary for you in the nature of things to repent of holding to such a lawless notion.

Harald

Brandan Kraft

12-10-2004, 12:23 PM

Please Bill Ross - do not post in this thread any longer. I don't want your Arian / free will / blasphemous ideas promoted in this thread! Also, please stop polluting the other threads with your nonsense. Feel free to start a separate thread with your opinions and then maybe someone else will want to join in your discussion. As of right now, I see your messages as trolling.

Bill Ross

12-10-2004, 12:47 PM

<Harald>
>>I do not claim to be any better than Saul of Tarsus prior to conversion.

<Bill>
Do you claim to be walking in fellowship with God?

<H>
>>But I do know that after his conversion he never taught justification before God by or on the basis of subjective God- or Christ-ward faith/trust.

<B>
Hmm. The word "subjective" of course needs to be defined, but how do you read these verses?:

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Ro 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Ro 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Ro 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Ro 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ro 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. {freed: Gr. justified}
Ro 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1Co 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. {know: or, I am not conscious of any fault}
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ga 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Ga 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

<M>
>>He who has not been justified before God only and solely and exclusively in and by Christ alone at His cross-death has not been justified at all, and has neither the Father nor the Son.

<B>
That kinda has a scriptury, King Jamesian kind of feel to it when you say it, but it is in fact a fabrication of your own imagination.

<M>
>>Justification before God based on faith in (toward) Christ is but a pathetic doctrine of demons. It is necessary for you in the nature of things to repent of holding to such a lawless notion.

<B>
Wow! Do you call yourself Reformed? I guess Luther and Calvin were the purveyor of the doctrines of demons?

Bill Ross

Brandan Kraft

12-10-2004, 12:48 PM

I'm assuming you didn't read my post Bill - I'm sending you a PM - one more post and you're banned. - BJK

Brandan Kraft

12-10-2004, 02:34 PM

This is just a little something I threw together....

CT vs. NCT vs. MCT - a short comparison

CT = Covenant Theology
NCT = New Covenant Theology
MCT = Modified Covenant Theology

Adam
CT: Adam was perfectly righteous before he fell.
NCT: Same as CT.
MCT: Adam was perfectly righteous according to the laws given to him. He was born with a peccable nature – one inclined toward sin.

Adam’s legal arrangement and the fall
CT: If Adam had kept the law he would have merited eternal life. This is known as the “covenant of works”. Adam broke the covenant of works and merited eternal death. Imputation of Adam's sin is immediate.
NCT: There is no “covenant of works”. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he could stay in the garden but that wouldn't merit eternal life. He broke the law and merited eternal death. Imputation of Adam's sin is immediate.
MCT: There is a covenant of works. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he would have stayed in the garden.but not merit eternal life. This is identical to NCT in a sense, however, Adam's righteousness was only a legal righteousness - not a divine righteousness and therefore falling into sin was inevitable because he was peccable. Imputation of this sin is mediate and immediate. Adam's elect posterity will sin in exactly the same way Adam did (referred to in Rom. 5). The sins of Adam are also imputed to his reprobate sons (immediate only), but they will never experience sinning in the likeness of Adam (mediate) as they will never be given knowledge of both good and evil - only evil (in other words they won't be made to see their total depravity as Adam did because he saw his deeds in light of God's perfect holiness). Thus when the Scriptures speak of the imputation of sin in Rom. 5 it's referring only to the elect and only mediate imputation! (do you follow? I know you probably think I'm crazy!)

Moral Law
CT: The “moral law” is fully expressed in the Decalogue.
NCT: There is no “moral law”.
MCT: The “moral law” is whatever laws are revealed to men according to revelation. The “moral law” is fully expressed in Christ.

Covenant of Redemption
CT: The three persons of the Trinity covenanted with each other for the purpose of salvation of the elect.
NCT: There is no covenant of redemption. There was just an eternal decree.
MCT: Same as CT.

Covenant of Grace
CT: God made a covenant of grace with Christ and His people. Christ’s people are found in all ages of history including Adam. The OC is a form of the covenant of grace.
NCT: There is no covenant of grace. God redeems His elect from every age; but the OC was a law covenant; therefore the term “covenant of grace” must not be used to describe these various covenants.
MCT: Same as CT, however the covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant instituted in eternity and constituted on the cross. All the elect of all ages are partakers of the covenant of grace.

Christ’s Imputed Righteousness
CT: Christ kept the law for His people in the Covenant of Grace and thus fulfilling the Covenant of Works which merited for them eternal salvation.
NCT: Christ kept the law for His people to become the perfect sacrifice, but the righteousness wrought through this obedience is not imputed to the elect. Only Christ’s righteousness through “passive obedience / death” is imputed to the elect. (not all NCT people hold to this view and see the OC as the “covenant of works”.)
MCT: Christ kept the law for His people and the righteousness wrought through this law keeping only restores them to Adam’s original righteous state, but still insufficient for eternal life. Christ’s death also merited for them a divine righteousness which is necessary for glorification and fashioning the elect for heaven.

View of the different Covenants
CT: The covenant of grace can be found in all the covenants (excluding the covenant of works) because they are derived from the covenant of redemption.
NCT: Since there is no covenant of redemption, all covenants are related and culminate in the new covenant.
MCT: The covenant of grace is the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants. The Old Covenant is the New Covenant concealed. The New Covenant is the Old Covenant revealed.

Abraham’s Seed
CT: The main heir to Abraham was Israel, the “church” of the OC.
NCT: The main heir to Abraham is Christ and His Sheep (spiritual Israel).
MCT: Same as NCT

The Holy Spirit
CT: The Holy Spirit has taken up residence in and indwelt in believers of all ages.
NCT: The Holy Spirit didn’t indwell believers until after the cross.
MCT: Same as CT

The law as a rule of living
CT: The OC law is a rule for living, but only the “moral law”. The ceremonial and civil laws were abolished.
NCT: All of the OC law was abolished and only the laws of the NT apply to the believer.
MCT: The OC was a legal covenant. The believer’s rule of living has always been Christ regardless of what age in which they lived. The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ and cause them to rest in His vicarious law keeping and atoning work. The laws from all covenants are good as a rule of conduct, but the law of God is written on the heart of every believer, and every believer is motivated to obey the law to Christ out of love and gratitude instead of obligation.

harald

12-10-2004, 05:32 PM

Ian. I shall reply to your last post in some measure. First, thank you so much for your thoughts, and your kind words. This is one thing I have always admired in you at this forum. I do not feel worthy of them.

That’s fine - no offence taken!

Thank you.

From what I gather from you you do not deny eternal union. I will not now comment on the particulars of your union view.

A second picture is that of being ‘seed’ within Christ from all eternity. As all of Adam’s offspring were effectively in him, and gradually over the generations they are BORN, likewise all of the LAST ADAM’S offspring were in Him from all eternity and are then born in time of the Spirit at regeneration. It is in this sense that the folk who speak of a union ‘at point of faith’ are probably meaning - that when born again we are brought to faith. Having been ‘born’ of God, seed from within Christ, born by the Spirit, we are then a child which looks to its Father.

As of now I believe (I may be wrong) the elect were not actually in existence (like e.g. "pre existent spirits") in eternity in the person of God the Son, i.e. the Son of God. They had existence in God's will/decree and mind, in the Person of the Son of His love, Christ Jesus. He foreknew them intimately in His Son. Before they had actual physical existence, which wasn't until in time. He foreknew and chose them before they had done any evil or actively good. I believe what He chose and foreknew was total persons (humans), not natures (i.e. "the new creation"). And in order to bring His chosen into ultimate actual fellowship with Himself He had to will and decree the Adam fall. So that through His Son incarnate He might triumph and bestow on them "eternal life" with everything it encompasses. Something Adam could never have attained to even if he'd never fallen. The "thing" (John 3:6) which is generated from above as pertains to God's elect in time is a pure grace gift to them. It is a thing which pertains to and is enclosed in the gift of eternal life. The thing "born" (Gr. gennaO, to beget/generate) of the Spirit is not what God foreknew in eternity, but what He foreknew was a total human being. The new spirit of the Divine Spirit is a gift to the foreknown and chosen (and redeemed) human being in time. The new spirit, the new creation, the inner man, many epithets for one and the same thing which all true converts have, did not have actual existence prior to the point of regeneration by the Spirit of God in time. It (the new spirit/man) did not actually exist somehow mystically in the loins of the preincarnate Son as some sort of "seed substance" as some maintain. I do not know if you maintain such. The fact of the same being called "new creation" refutes this notion of such professors. The new creation of God's redeemed sheep is created out of nothing by God the Word in conjunction with God the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration. When the new creation is brought into existence it may be said that "life eternal" is communicated to the total person of the redeemed elect. But "life eternal" is a much broader thing than the new spirit/creation within a redeemed elect. It flows from the Person of the Son, and centers in God the Father via the Son.
As for such as maintain (saving) union is established at the point of their faith I fear the vast majority of them are unconverted. Maybe, just maybe, some of them might be true converts who for some reason are temporarily not in their right element and know not whereof they affirm.

Although we were ‘in’ Christ from eternity, NONE of our sinful flesh inherited from Adam in the fall was in Christ back then.

I think you are right. Sinful flesh entered when Adam sinned as I see it. And this was in time.

There could be no sin in Christ in eternity, so our state in our fallen flesh in this world is NOT in union with Christ.

Here I believe we disagree (or else use different terms). I believe the total persons which fell in and through Adam were in union all the time with Christ. There is never any on-off on-off vacillating with respect to God. He is immutable. Union was established in eternity, and did not cease to exist in or because of the Adam fall. The same blessed humans which were in eternity fixed firm in union with the Son were so just prior to Adam's fall, at the point of the fall, and after the fall, at the cross, in the resurrection, et cetera et cetera. Then again I do believe that my "flesh", i.e. the sin principle in me wherein dwells not good (Gr. agathon - active good, Ro. 7:18, and no agathon because no kalos thing - intrinsically good) knows nothing of union with Christ. If it enjoyed union with Christ now then it would so everlastingly. Perish the thought. If I am Christ's then it was crucified with Him, and merely awaits the final death blow after which it shall be no more.

Sometimes we just take things because ‘everybody else says so’.

Yes, so with me as well. Sad it is, and it ought not to be this way. Sometimes no harm comes through it, that is, if the things the others say are scriptural and true. But sometimes harm comes through it if the things are unscriptural and falsehood.

I have to say Harald that this truth is one I have held for some time, but one which the Lord has sealed in my heart as truth. I don’t accept it simply as head-knowledge - I have had much experimental confirmation of it as truth, and experience of the Lord’s presence and power and affirmation of this being ‘the right way’.

This is all good and well if so be indeed your view is very truth. I would nothing but want it to be so, good and well. But I am not at present prepared to definitely judge this or that as to your view. I am still learning and trying to discern for myself. I feel at the moment like a man at a crossroads. And I would want to obtain confirmation about which is the true path of the two, that is, if any of them be very truth. Both cannot be the truth of the matter of justification before God.

So although as a man, weak in the flesh, I desired in a way to agree with other men, the Lord would not have it - He led me another way, and I thank Him for His keeping hand on me. “Cease ye from man whose breath is in his nostrils”.

I perceive this is how God works. And I trust to know for myself quite soon if He has been your teacher indeed.

but I tend to think that the writings and the men who become prominent in Christian circles are not always those who hold to the most truth. Very often God’s servants are side-lined and despised.

Ian, I believe you are very right. A friend has pointed out quite this same to me previously and I perceived he was so right. He said something that God has hidden his true preachers or servants through the centuries. I think he means mainly in post apostolic times. I think he means they have not been those that have risen to fame and prominence. Except for perhaps a very few, but I cannot name any definite names.

I daresay that there are many faithful Gospel preachers in history who we have never heard of.

I believe you are very right. And one reason why we have never heard of is because no writings have survived to our day.

I don’t think most of the Reformers (Luther etc) held to vicarious law-keeping (I realise you have your differences with them - many of us do on various points - but nevertheless on this point I think they were clearer than later men).

I will not argue this as for now. You likely have studied this thing more and so are able to say more. What I take most issue with as to Luther is his having taught justification before God by faith in Christ - sola fide. He even perverted the formula "pisteôs Iêsou Christou" (in Rom. 3:22 etc.) into "faith IN ...". Consistently so, and in many an instance. And even though he is said to have revised his Bible translation until death (1546?) he never repented of this and revised it to conform to the Greek. This is another thing which to me speaks of his having been devoid of the Spirit. To deny Jesus Christ's faith or trust is grave error. Many erroneously believe that the exact opposite of "the deeds of the law" (KJV's rendering of "ergôn nomou") is "faith in Christ". But such a thought is evidence of lawlessness. The exact opposite of "works of law" (ergôn nomou, Gal. 2:16 etc.) is "pisteôs Iêsou Christou" - Jesus Christ's faith/trust. His personal faith and trust, not what he by His Spirit works in some in their lifetime. You have pointed that Jesus Christ's faith pertains to His suffering on the cross. I am investigating this thing. I have until now for quite a time believed His faith (i.e. pisteôs Iêsou Christou) has pertained to all of His life, not only to the cross work. I have also believed that this faith has been an active faith working by love, therefore I have much used the word "faithfulness". James (Jacob) in his epistle shows clearly that Christ's faith cannot have been a mere mental credence, but a working faith, a faith working by means of agape love.
Ian, would you say that the main proponents of the vicarious-law-keeping imputed-view came after the main Reformers? Do you perchance know who in modern times (Reformation to now) was the first major proponent of this view?

You mentioned John Metcalfe. I am not familiar with him or his teaching. But am interested. I have seen the name a few times lately, though, and a few quotes from him. I have thought to perhaps order some book of his through ABEbooks. Do you perchance know what his attitude is concerning the notion of justification before God at the point of believing in Christ?

Many of the Plymouth Brethren writers opposed vicarious law-keeping also (whatever other errors they may have held….).

I have come across this in brief. It must have been somewhere in late 1999 or early 2000 or so when I received a catalogue from Chapter Two (Brethren) in England. But as I knew the Brethren movement were more or less into arminianism I felt not to trust them on this point. I thought this was a predominantly arminian notion. I guess I should have ordered their book and not discard their view outright because of whatever errors they held in other areas. I fear I have been bewitched by this vicarious law keeping imputed view all too long. Over 4 and a half years or thereabout.

You mentioned William Huntington. I must say that man is to me a riddle in a sense. I have not read much of him for some reason, even though he has been recommended by some who ought to know. But I have for some reason not trusted him and I have sometimes asked within me what this means. I have seen in his writings quite clear statements which say a man is justified before God when he believes in Christ. In short, not differing much from Spurgeon and Luther as to justification before God. I cannot help but be on guard with such men, however prominent they may have been among men. I have lately become much alarmed at some men who boast of and make much noise about experimental knowledge (some such talk about "experimental calvinism") but who err in doctrine on various vital points and that continuously. Such men are to me very suspect, no matter how experimentally taught they profess to be or are said to be by others. True Spirit-called ministers of God are sound in doctrine and sound also when it comes to spiritual experience. This is the general tenor of their life and conversation I believe. I see no other thing taught in the New Testament. Lapses into grave error as concerns such men are only temporary, not permanent. I can not believe any other thing.

Another point however is that we don’t test men’s standing entirely upon their words or understanding of doctrine. We also test their spirit.

The main touchstone of "proving" (Gr. dokimadzô, 1John 4:1) seems to me to be doctrine. But not the only one. In this passage the testing of spirits is through doctrine, professing of doctrinal belief. In short. It seems to me that you by "spirit" mean attitude or behaviour towards fellow-men. This is also an area of "proving", with the aim of ascertaining the true nature so as to be able to accept or reject. This is the meaning of the verb dokimazO. One must nonetheless never downplay the importance of proving in the area of doctrine. In 2John 9-11 the touchstone of proving is doctrine.

I think often good men can hold error, but still have a true spirit, a gracious spirit, and that can be seen in their attitude to truth when presented to them.

If by "good men" you mean what the Scripture means then I say true, good men, men of God, may hold error, but it will not be lifelong. It will be temporary. This is my understanding. At least when it comes to purely soteriological, christological, pneumatological, theological etc. matters. Good men may hold to lifelong error when it comes to non-religious matters like nutrition. Just an example. But as to Scripture- and Divinely related matters they have the Spirit precisely for the purpose of teaching them all truth.

It is by such testing (truth and spirit) that I seek to discern those preachers and writers who I believe are God-sent.

Myself also believes this is important to do. I always want to know and discern for myself which men are of God, and such I desire to hold fellowship with as may be granted to me possibility and opportunity.

(I think another point to mention here is that we must be careful to distinguish MEN and the MESSAGE. What I seek to proclaim, by publishing any article or writing, is the GOSPEL, not the men who preach it. The men have faults, and errors, but if they have written some truth then I will proclaim that truth. If I discern an error in them, then I’ll leave that error out.)

As for the distinguishing the men from their message I have heard it said before. I wonder what is the Scriptural basis for this? This said I do admit myself has had and still have (I think) some men's writings on my site who I am not so sure about as I would want to be. So in this sense I also distinguish the men from the message in the sense that I take the liberty to put on articles which I discern sound by men who may hold some error in other areas not touched upon in the particular article online. But at times I wonder whether this is good at all in the sight of God. The optimal thing would of course be to have only articles by 100 per cent sound men like Paul and John and Peter etc. This thing is also an interesting thing to discuss with others who have websites with articles by various authors. To learn how they think in this respect.

Finally, I have held my position against vicarious law-keeping for some years now so I have not knowingly put any article on my site which teaches it.

I had not been aware of this. I have known about your site for about two or three years. But I guess you have been somewhat cautious (not positively opposing vicarious lawkeeping) in professing your view, otherwise I would surely have known you differed. I have just taken for granted that you have held to the "standard calvinistic" (if I may use such term here) view of vicarious law keeping imputed. It is only in the last few days I have learn you hold to this view.

Some may mention ‘Christ’s righteousness’ but none to my knowledge expound that as being wrought by vicarious law-keeping (if you notice otherwise let me know).

I do not think there is need for me to let you know. I trust you have done as you say. I admit I took for granted you might have some articles which propound vicarious lawkeeping seeing some authors of yours do or did hold to it. I have not read every single article you have on there, only a handfull or so. I recall I did read some of your own articles some year ago, and now as I think about it I have a slight memory that your writing style was a bit different from many other sovereign grace writers. It must have been just this that you did not emphasize the vicarious law keeping. I recall your articles were quite simple (not in a bad sense) and easy to understand in comparison to many who use refined and complex theological jargon. I recall I could agree with much of what you wrote.

As of now I myself must for myself learn which is which, and I am not ashamed to admit I am struggling at the time being. Likewise it behooves every one else who has been challenged by this issue to ascertain for themselves which is which in truth, in the light of the whole teaching of the Scriptures. To search the Scriptures whether these things be so, whether vicarious law keeping imputed be the truth of God, or whether there was no vicarious law keeping imputed, or whether there perchance be a third view which is God's truth. There can be and is only one truth in this matter. God knows which it is, and may it be granted to others also to know absolutely, and to love the true doctrine and hate the falsehood.

Hope to learn more and be able to discuss further.

Harald

harald

12-10-2004, 06:32 PM

Brandan. Romans 8:28 ff. does not prove justification in eternity. There are some possible explanations to the use of past tenses. Either Paul transfers himself into the future and from there looks back into the past. Or he employs a hebraism as respects the use of past tense. I recall having read that in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Hebrew OT) some future happenings are described with a past tense verb, the happening being viewed as "as good as done already" (because God is involved).
Well, as for Eph. 1:6 the Greek does not know of this "accepted". The verb is "charitoO". The root meaning has to do with "grace". The only reason why Strong's Greek lexicon has "make accepted" as one meaning is because it is connected to KJV, which rendered it thusly. CharitoO means "to (greatly)favour", "to bestow grace" or something closely similar. In Rom. ch. 11 Paul uses the noun which has to do with "acceptance", I think it was "proslêpsis". Its cognate verb is "proslambanô". It is not used here in Eph. 1:6. Besides, Eph. 1:7 also refutes that the "accepted" speaks of justification in eternity. Forgiveness of sins here is connected to the blood redemption, which took place at the cross in time.
As for Rom. 8:1 you leave out the "now" (Gr. nun - now, at present, presently), and this "now" is connected to the walking after the Spirit, which is a time matter. To persuade me of justification in eternity from Paul's writings you will have to try harder. Ignoring the context and/or the Greek will not work in the long run.

He believes justification is based entirely on the cross. I've read enough of him to know for sure. He believes in experimental justification - that is the elect receive knowledge of their justification through faith alone. When he speaks of justification by faith he is not speaking forensically.

This is not what Steve and David Simpson say about Don. I guess there is no one preacher who so dogmatically and staunchly maintains justification at the cross alone as Simpson, and Fortner has hitherto been rejecting his message. And Doug Weaver reportedly has preached the same as Simpson at some sovereign grace conference where Fortner was present and Fortner was adverse to Weaver's message of forensic justification exclusively at the cross. If this is the truth, which I have reason to believe at present, then I fear you have not read Fortner well enough, objectively.

I would say that is also the traditional reformed position as well - it's just fullerism, marrow men, baxterianism, spurgeonism, etc. have distorted this so much I can certainly understand you concern.

From having for myself read Luther and Calvin, and they were the two main Reformers, I cannot agree. Luther believed as Spurgeon, and Calvin was not far from them. As for minor Reformers I have not taken the time to read them on justification. I do suspect they agreed with Luther and/or Calvin. At least I have never heard they differed from them.

and so many "reformed" theologians deny justification before the cross.

I take it that with "before" you mean either "at the cross" or "before faith". I believe past Reformers denied justification at the cross exclusively, i.e. prior to faith. And I know for sure that very many of today's "reformed" theologians do the same. To their shame. They echo those forefathers of theirs which they admire.

I am content to hear you disagree with Fortner on regeneration. He is a classical gospel regenerationist. I call such sometimes sermon regenerationists. It is in my opinion a pathetic substitute for the scriptural truth of sovereign instantaneous Holy Spirit regeneration apart from means. In my judgment gospel or sermon regeneration paves the way for undue exaltation of preachers or "ministers". As if they were somehow necessary instruments in the work of regeneration. One reason why men seem to find gospel regeneration taught in the NT is because God has put there some snares for them. And they are caught in them because they are untaught and unskillful and obstinate etc.

I'm cautious of all men I recognize my own ability and inclinations to corrupt the Gospel of free grace, so I cannot help but suspect others whom I do not know as well. I understand perfectly.

We should as well be cautious in a right way. As for myself the only men I feel I can fully trust are the inspired penmen of the Scriptures. And I do also know my potential of corrupting the truth unless laid hold of by God's Spirit. O, to be preserved from such evil.

Harald

Brandan Kraft

12-11-2004, 04:43 AM

OK everyone! Disregard a lot of what I've said! Bob Higby has written me and given me an ENTIRELY new perspective on the active obedience of Christ. THIS is something else, my friends. That man is a GENIUS! I'll comment later.

Eileen

12-11-2004, 01:42 PM

Brandan Kraft

12-11-2004, 02:31 PM

Well..........

I'm looking forward to it Brandan, I'm glad he had a bit of time to respond. I have everything from this thread printed off, it just takes me longer to study these issues than most and I'm combining the other threads on justification in my study also.

Later then!He showed me some of the stuff he's studying! I'm so excited about these things... I'll let him share these things when he's done with his research, but the sneak peak he gave me is of historical proportions in my opinion! (Wow Wow Wow is all I could say)

harald

12-12-2004, 07:16 AM

While I am with some interest waiting to see what Bob Higby has to say I shall add a few thoughts on the issue at hand. I have lately been thinking quite intensely. And seemingly arriving nowhere. But shall nonetheless say something I see.

I have seen that the soundest defenders of the vicarious law keeping imputed for righteousness often are unsound in other vital areas. This implies they may be wrong, but not necessarily. I have seen that proponents of the other view (Ian's I call it here for want of imagination) may be unsound in other vital areas (definitely so with the Brethren). This implies they may be wrong here also, but not necessarily. Therefore it is the Scripture that must decide the case, not the unsoundness or soundness of either camp as respects other doctrines or areas of truth.
If the vicarious lawkeeping imputed view is the truth then this means that unregenerate professors may hold to it. If Ian's view is the truth then it also means that unregenerate men may hold to it. So, whichever is the truth of Scripture a holding to it in way of outward profession is no definite proof of regeneracy. Other things must also come into play. The same I hold to apply to the Scriptural truth of justification before God as to its timing, i.e. at the cross. Both unregenerate and regenerated men have been sound here, viz. as to its timing.

Then I see from the Scripture that 2Cor. 5:21 does not say that the elect were "made" God's righteousness in Christ ("him") by "imputation". I have myself said this, but the text does not say the "making" was through imputation. It is interesting to note that the verb relating to the elect is not "to make" (poieô) in this verse. It indeed is poieô in the same verse as touches Christ's being "made" (epoiêsen) sin. The only place in the context where logizomai ("impute", KJV) is used is v. 19, talking about non-imputation of sin. As to the verb relating to the elect's being "made" God's righteousness in "Him" (Christ) it is ginomai. It is not "to make", but rather "to become". This much is very clear from the Greek. Then there is the issue of varying readings. The Textus Receptus has ginomai (in v. 21) in the form of ginômetha, subjunctive present mid./pass. deponent (according to Perschbacher's Analytical Greek Lexicon; so also according to Friberg's). The Alexandrian text form (and the Byzantine Majority Text) has genômetha, subjunctive aorist middle deponent (acc. to Perschbacher; so also Friberg). This is one of the rare occasions where myself begs to differ with the Textus Receptus reading in favour of the Alexandrian text's reading.
It is interesting to note that versions that professedly follow (base on) the TR vary among themselves as to how this form (ginômetha) ought to be rendered here. KJV and Geneva Bible have "we might be made" and "we should be made" respectively. LITV, MKJV and YLT have "we might become" (LITV and MKJV) and "we may become" (YLT) respectively. KJV and Geneva do not translate aright. The three others get the root meaning of the verb right but seem to follow the form of the Alexandrian text (aorist middle deponent). The form of the verb as found in the TR (ginômetha) was as we saw present tense, not aorist. If interpreted as passive (as KJV & Geneva translators) it should translate into "(in order that - hina) we might be caused to begin becoming". The present tense verb of the TR, as contrasted with the aorist tense of the Alexandrian text, speaks of a process or ongoing happening as respects the "becoming" (God's righteousness in Christ). If the voice of the verb of the TR is interpreted as middle (seeing it is a mid./pass. deponent as to form) it might translate into "we might be becoming" or "we might begin becoming". Clearly seen that the "become" is some sort of process or progressive event. To me it appears that the simpler reading, the Alexandrian/Byzantine MT, genômetha, is likely the God-breathed one. Those versions that base on either the Alexandrian text (ASV, Darby, ESV etc.) or the MT (ALT, EMTV etc.) consistently and rightly render "we might become", reflecting the aorist tense as well as the root meaning of the verb, as well as the middle voice, seeing it (the form in the Alexandrian text) is an aorist middle deponent. Also I might mention that the Jesuit Rheims NT reads as KJV and Geneva, "made".

Therefore, because I believe the Alexandrian/Byzantine form is the right one, genômetha, "we might/should/would become" I do not feel warranted to import imputation to this happening, as if to say "that we might become (God's righteousness in him) by way of imputation". The text here does not say so. Rather I believe that the "becoming" (an instantaneous thing rather than a progressive event) is related to the elect's union with Christ. Because they were in vital Divinely established union with their Surety they automatically (so as to speak) "become" God's righteosness in Him when their sin and sins are (were) no more. This "becoming" God's righteousness in Christ came to pass when Christ hung on the cross. Christ was (and is still and eternally) the embodiment of God's righteousness, and by virtue of union with Him the elect are all that He is. They were constituted this (righteous, and the righteousness of God) in Him on the cross. Any message with pretensions of being a gospel which denies this is false and heretical. So I believe. And to believe such a gospel is to offend God and disbelieve His testimony concerning His Son. This includes, among others, the false gospel of justification before God at the moment of believing in Christ. If a person was unjust with God just prior to his believing then it is obvious that his believing in Christ does not bring any change to his standing before God. Believing cannot blot out sins and cover them. Believing cannot propitiate God's wrath. Believing cannot render Christ's blood personally efficacious for one. The doctrine of justification before God at the point of believing in Christ is one of the most pathetic heresies ever contrived of the Devil. And of the more subtle. It has deceived countless millions, both calvinistic and arminian people, and others.

Then, back to 2Cor. 5:21. It says that Christ was "made" sin (in behalf of the elect of God). I think at present this may either mean that he was made a sin offering, an offering for sin. It does not say here the making was by way of imputation. But I think it does involve imputation, and union of course. Because of union with His own He was fully warranted to take on their sin and sins for to bear them away in His sinless humanity. He did not become sinful at the cross, but was made sin representatively, because of union, through God legally charging to His person all the sin and sins of the elect. I perceive here a double imputation, imputation of sin and sins to Christ, and consequent or simultaneous non-imputation of sin to the elect. This two-way action or event was their justification before God, because when no sin was imputed to them they automatically were ("became") God's righteousness in their Surety, by virtue of union with Him. Not by virtue of a third imputation, i.e. an imputation ("charging to their legal accounts", as some say) of Christ's "active obedience" to the Law. God had no need of charging Christ's obedience to the Law to "their personal accounts". I do not see this wording in the NT, "personal legal accounts". Christ's legal account was the elect's, they had no own. What His legal account showed at the cross the same was their account (including His obedience of faith to God and His Law) by virtue of unbreakable union with Him.

I see that Christ obeyed and fulfilled the Law of God in all things, but He did it from a vantage point of "faith", not from a principle of "law". Christ, when obeying, obeyed not as Adam had to obey. Adam had to obey IN ORDER TO perpetuate his earthly life and fellowship with God. This was not "of faith", as it says that the law is "not of faith". But Christ obeyed from the point of one who had no need of obeying IN ORDER TO (secure this or that), but from a principle of "faith", as one having all things already, obeying because of what He was and possessed with God, not in order to get or become. Adam's obedience (prior to the "fall from" - "paraptôma", Rom. 5:18 et.al.; i.e. a fall from fellowship and friendship with God) was not from a principle of legal fear (as in the case of all unregenerate religionists), but nonetheless it was an obedience "of law", because he was obligated to obey IN ORDER TO perpetuate life on earth and his fellowship with God. The kind of obedience Adam would have rendered unless he'd fallen could not have secured to him "eternal life", because it was "of law" and not "of faith". Only one man ever has been able to render a perfect obedience of faith to God, Jesus Christ.
As for the writing moment I am not so comfortable with a sort of language which says that "the justification of elect sinners before God is conditioned on perfect obedience to the Law". Such language adds that "but it is not conditioned on them personally but on their Representative". But then I ask, if so then was not Christ in the position of "I HAVE TO obey the Law IN ORDER TO secure, not for myself, but for mine own, justification before my God and Father". Thus it seems to me that in such case Christ were to obey (vicariously) not from a principle of faith but from the said Adamic law principle. But I do not think I can find from the NT any wording in the Greek which positively says justification before God was "conditioned on" obedience to Law or on works (Christ's or any other's) IN ORDER TO secure justification before God the Judge (for oneself or others). But I do find language such as "not of works", i.e. not "of" or "conditioned on" works or efforts which are performed (done, carried out) IN ORDER TO (secure something from God or be/become something before Him).

Then. What I now wonder is that whether the "righteousness of God" pertains only to Christ's sinless virtuous humanity or only to His eternal Deity, or to both. Whichever is the fact I hope to soon arrive at the right one.

Then. Today I believe that those passages which in the Greek say "pisteôs Iêsou Christou" are better rendered "Jesus Christ's faith", rather than "...faithfulness". Because when rendering "faith" it is put in connection with passages which say e.g. "the law is not of faith". But as the word "pistis" also has the sense of "faithfulness" it must not be denied that Jesus Christ was possessed of the virtue of faithfulness. His faithfulness was the outflow of His faith and trust - His "knowledge", by which He was to justify many (Isa. 53). Those passages which say "Jesus Christ's faith" have bearing on legal justification before God and thus the formula does NOT mean "faith from Jesus Christ in a man's heart". This latter notion is a solafideite contrivance, not Paul's sense at all. What exactly the thing called "Jesus Christ's faith" refers to must be ascertained from the Scriptures. A verse which seems to say it refers primarily or exclusively to His doing on the cross would be Rom. 3:25. Because in this verse meet the concept of propitiation and "the faith" (the Greek says "the faith", the article being the article of previous reference, and the previous verse with "faith" is v. 22). Thus "the faith" of v. 25 is "Jesus Christ's faith" of v. 22. This faith is here put in relation to Christ's being a "propitiation" or a lit. "propitiatory [covering]" (cp. the mercy seat in the OT Scriptures). And "the faith" is also here put in relation to lit. "the of him blood". The Greek construction of v. 25 is special in my opinion, and difficult.

... hilastêrion dia tês pisteôs en tô autou haimati ...

Lit. "a propitiatory covering through the faith in the of him blood"

Questions to ask would be, among others. Where to put the comma, if at all? What is here the force of EN? It does not substitute EIS. If so then Paul was in error, as seemingly saying that Christ was a propitiation as soon as faith is exercised in the blood of Christ. Paul was no such man. Christ was a propitiation for His own at the cross irrespective of someone's personal trust in Him or His blood. To believe that the propitiation becomes of force at the point of subjective faith in the blood of Jesus is to believe a lie. This was not Paul's meaning at all, but many believe so erroneously from how e.g. the KJV reads.
A possibility is that EN here has the sense of "in connection with". Thus it would say "a propitiatory covering through the faith (Christ's personal faith) in connection with his blood". This would harmonize beautifully with passages which explicitly speak of justification by Christ's blood (Rom. 5:9) and by Christ's faith (Gal. 2:16) respectively. Christ was a propitiatory covering, a mercy seat, a propitiation, satisfaction, for the sin and sins of His own, through or by way of or by virtue of His faith in connection with His blood. I see nothing as of now in the epistles of Paul which militates against this proposition. In the whole context of Rom. 3:22 to 26 I do not believe the word "pistis" even once refers to a man's subjective faith or trust in Christ. The context is in favour that Christ's personal faith is in view each time. In Rom. 3:26 it does not say "believeth IN Jesus", but "of faith of Jesus" // "of Jesus' faith". The whole thing with importing personal Christ-ward faith into these verses stems from ignorance of God's gospel. It is especially seen in Luther and his translation of the Bible. It evidences gross ignorance as to the role of personal Christ-ward faith.

Have to take a break.

Harald

Robert R. Higby

12-12-2004, 03:53 PM

Kindest Christian greetings to all!

This EXACT controversy (in virtually every detail) is one that I engaged with a group of fellow seminary students and teachers back in 1980! The article by Lehrer and Volker outlines the same points and arguments against the imputation of Christ's righteous divine/human life (with the same arguments against the same scriptures) that those on the opposite side of the issue were using back then. There is nothing new or original in the study; it merely repeats arguments by Arminians that have been advanced through the centuries. If someone digs in to a good Methodist systematic of past centuries (possibly Wakefield?, I don't remember for sure), I am sure that the same arguments can be found there. The matter will never go away and will always continue to resurrect itself in every generation.

Let me state at the outset that I have never been more opposed to anything!

This whole discussion started with a mention of the fact that many do not agree with Berkhof on the idea of being justified by the law-derived merits of Jesus! Let me say freely, neither do I! Not in a million years do I believe that the just life of Christ imputed consists of mere conformity to external law; no matter how many laws this might involve.

The New Perspective does not deny the imputation of the death of Jesus Christ. Neither does Roman Catholicism or Methodism. All of these sects will gladly affirm that the atonement of Jesus is imputed to forgive the deficit created by our sins.

Those proposing the alternate position would claim that all of us who believe in active imputation are limiting Christ's righteousness in this regard to obedience to the Mosaic Law. No way! It is the ENTIRETY of his active righteousness (including his Divinity). His perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law only constituted a very meager portion of the human side of it.

The issue is one of whether our ENTIRE merit on which eternal life is granted is based on everything that Jesus Christ was and is--or whether it is based on what we are once the negative debt of our sins is cancelled. The denial of the imputation of Christ's life opens the door to the notion that our life stands as meritorious before God--once the negative debt of the guilt of sin is cancelled by Christ's death.

As a start, let me itemize my own confession on this subject:

1. I affirm the historic Reformed position on the everlasting Covenant of Grace, contrary to much New Covenant theology and the New Perspective. My affinity with NCT is limited to the area of ethics and the change of God's requirements in the New era.
2. I believe the Covenant of Works in scripture is the Old Covenant with the people Israel--purposed to end in failure before it was given, for the very reason that no person can achieve righteousness through works of law—ANY law. This is due to the carnal nature experienced by all as their created heritage. The failure of the Sinai covenant proves the futility of a works-righteousness in the inability of Israel to achieve righteousness by the particular form of law given to them.

3. God’s covenant with Adam (mankind—each one of us) is a covenant of works—but in the exact same sense as the Old Covenant at Sinai. All fail to obey God’s requirements perfectly and thus merit eternal death. This is according to God’s creative and predestined purpose for each of us personally--not due to the unique sin of one person. Adam in his sin only represented what all of us experience individually.

4. The Reformed concept of ‘covenant of works’ that I reject (in contrast to the above two truths) is the notion that Adam--being created perfectly holy--might have singularly merited eternal life for all mankind through his obedience to law. The imputed righteousness of Christ's life, therefore, does not stand i the place of what Adam might have achieved.

5. Paul teaches in Rom. 2:12, 13 and 5:13,14 that each Adam (member of mankind) is innocent from conscious disobedience to a known law--until his/her first act of such disobedience or act against conscience. We all had our first taste of forbidden fruit, even though most of us don’t remember the exact circumstances due to continuous repetition of the same experience in the years following. The difference for Adam in the garden is this: since his original created state was perfect in externals—there was no means to express rebellion or discontentment. He had no desire to eat of the forbidden fruit (inherently equal to all other fruit) until he witnessed the sin of his wife. This was the first circumstance that revealed his fleshly nature (his love for Eve the creature was greater than his love for God the creator and giver of life). Therefore, Adam had a latent nature of rebellion which only manifested itself in thes circumstances. He was not like Christ in his humanity. Neither was he yet truly human—like redeemed mankind will be in the final regeneration.

6. The sin of Adam guarantted that all of his elect descendants would be cursed by some form of LAW, not necessarily any particular type of law (such as MORAL law). God’s commandments are summed up in all his laws, whatever characteristic they may have. God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son, his command to Hosea to marry a whore, his command to Saul to utterly destroy certain heathen nations including infants, etc. were not moral laws-- but they were certainly God’s commandments equal to any laws moral in nature.

7. Christ’s atonement is not to pay a penalty to restore us to a state of mere external righteousness like Adam in the garden (which is no real righteousness). It suffers the curse of real disobedience and nonconformity to all that God requires, which is only partially revealed in any external law. Christ’s vicarious obedience involves the perfection of God himself veiled in humanity: the righteous and impeccable God-man.

8. Imputed righteousness is infinitely perfect at all times; experiential righteousness will be perfect only at the final regeneration. It is not God’s purpose for the imputed righteousness of Christ to deliver us from all sin until glory.

9. There is no disctinction between imputed righteousness and righteousness apart from law. Righteousness apart from law simply means a righteousness obtained by something other than obedience to the Law Covenant of works.

10. We will ultimately be conformed to the new and perfect humanity of Christ--which is indeed impeccable. We will never be conformed, however, to the Deity of Christ. So that which is imputed (the righteousness of God himself in Christ) will always infinitely exceed that which is experiential—even after the final regeneration.

11. Christ kept more than external commandments; he obeyed God perfectly in every aspect of his being. The obedience referred to in Rom. 5:18, 1 Cor. 1:30, 2 Cor. 5:21, & ESPECIALLY Heb. 2:9 is not in any way akin to Adam refraining from the tree. It is salvific.

12. In eternity, our righteous state will indeed be superior to Adam--but Christ’s DIVINE righteousness will never be infused into us. Our humanity most definitely will be fashioned like unto his glorious and impeccable humanity. This is not an infusing of his imputed righteousness into us, however. His imputed righteousness IS declared in us through the Holy Spirit’s presence and work in generating faith. That experience, however, is not an infusion of divinity. Our humanity is ever and always distinct from the God-man Jesus Christ.

I do believe the argument is valid that Christ's 'one act' of obedience imputed to us can have no starting point except the incarnation. It did not begin in the last few days or hours prior to his death on the cross. The Reformed distinction between 'active' and 'passive' is not a good way to explain the language of the New Testament, however. We worship a whole Christ as our savior. All that he was and is is imputed to us for justification: incarnation, righteous life, sufferings, death, resurrection, exaltation, Divinity!

More as time permits!

Ian Potts

12-13-2004, 06:33 AM

Harald,

Just a brief response. Thank you for your excellent posts. I am much in agreement with you on many things and believe you have expressed much truth here.

In your comments about our eternal union with Christ I think you have stated things more clearly than I did. I believe I am in agreement with you here – I just failed to express things as well as I should (all I was really trying to show was that though we were in Christ from eternity our sinful FLESH was not in union with Christ until He was made sin at the cross in order to take it away).

Ian, would you say that the main proponents of the vicarious-law-keeping imputed-view came after the main Reformers? Do you perchance know who in modern times (Reformation to now) was the first major proponent of this view?

I couldn’t tell you for sure who was most prominent who originally came up with the idea, but certainly Dr John Owen was a fairly early proponent of vicarious-law-keeping, whom I have read. He seems to read into the Reformer’s writings what they never actually said.

You mentioned John Metcalfe. I am not familiar with him or his teaching. But am interested. I have seen the name a few times lately, though, and a few quotes from him. I have thought to perhaps order some book of his through ABEbooks. Do you perchance know what his attitude is concerning the notion of justification before God at the point of believing in Christ?

Harald, order his book “Justification by Faith” – I think you’ll like it. He clearly shows that we were justified by Christ at the cross. He does speak of ‘justification by faith’ with reference to our faith in an experimental sense but clearly shows this to be simply the bringing to our knowledge and understanding what is already true of us as having been justified before God at the cross. He is very clear on this, and I am sure you will be in full agreement (any disagreement will simply be in terms of how things are expressed perhaps, as with myself).

Many of the Plymouth Brethren writers opposed vicarious law-keeping also (whatever other errors they may have held….).

I have come across this in brief. It must have been somewhere in late 1999 or early 2000 or so when I received a catalogue from Chapter Two (Brethren) in England. But as I knew the Brethren movement were more or less into arminianism I felt not to trust them on this point. I thought this was a predominantly arminian notion. I guess I should have ordered their book and not discard their view outright because of whatever errors they held in other areas. I fear I have been bewitched by this vicarious law keeping imputed view all too long. Over 4 and a half years or thereabout.

It is unfortunate that they tended towards Arminianism because it does allow modern-day Calvinists to associate ‘vicarious law-keeping’ with Calvinism and the contrary view with Arminianism. But that is a false association as it has no connection with the Arminian view and indeed as I have stated, the REFORMERS did not hold to vicarious law-keeping – it came in later on (whatever modern-day ‘reformed’ people might claim). The Brethren were one of those groups that should be commended in their going back to scripture and comparing everything that had come in since with the what the scriptures actually teach. As such they came to see that vicarious-law-keeping was a view foreign to scripture.

…

I have lately been thinking quite intensely. And seemingly arriving nowhere. But shall nonetheless say something I see.

From what I have read in this second post of yours Harald I think you have seen very much. :)

Your comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21 show much understanding of the truth and you have expressed them well.

…

Those proposing the alternate position would claim that all of us who believe in active imputation are limiting Christ's righteousness in this regard to obedience to the Mosaic Law. No way! It is the ENTIRETY of his active righteousness (including his Divinity). His perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law only constituted a very meager portion of the human side of it.

The issue is one of whether our ENTIRE merit on which eternal life is granted is based on everything that Jesus Christ was and is--or whether it is based on what we are once the negative debt of our sins is cancelled. The denial of the imputation of Christ's life opens the door to the notion that our life stands as meritorious before God--once the negative debt of the guilt of sin is cancelled by Christ's death.

Bob,

I would refer you back to my own posts (not merely the article by IDS) and also to Harald’s last post. I feel that what you are opposed to is NOT a correct representation what I believe myself, and therefore would represent something of a ‘straw-man’ to knock down. Unfortunately I simply don’t have the time to go through your post and show where the differences lie or to debate the matter any further, although I feel that given the time if you and I were to discuss the matter through carefully we’d probably see that we actually in agreement on many points.

I tried to make it clear from my comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21 that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ. Our righteousness is not ‘separate’ from Christ as though our life in itself is ‘meritorious before God--once the negative debt of the guilt of sin is cancelled by Christ's death’. Christ could only be ‘made sin for us’ in order to take it away BY our being UNITED to Him in death. Being thus united He becomes our righteousness. This is done in His death as He takes away all our sin. Only His perfect righteousness remains, and we are that righteousness IN HIM. There is no ‘merit’ in us – our righteousness is in Christ.

No, the ISSUE with ‘vicarious law-keeping’ is that that implies that somehow Christ ‘wrought’ or ‘produced’ some righteousness or merit, over and above what He ALREADY WAS, and that that is imputed to us. I disagree with that idea which makes justification, at least in some measure, dependent upon law works (see Galatians 2:16 and 2:21). The whole idea is erroneous, unscriptural, and illegal. Christ HIMSELF is our righteousness. We become WHAT HE IS, not WHAT HE HAS DONE. Christ was obedient in all things because HE IS righteous. We become that righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor 5:21) as a result of what HE DID, but we don’t become WHAT HE DID, but WHAT HE IS – the righteousness of God.

I have mentioned to Brandan several times that I lack the time to post here and I really do mean that. Though I would like to discuss things more I must go on ‘leave’ for a season. This has nothing to do with this discussion, simply the fact that I don’t really have the free time to post on discussion boards. :) However, I hope this discussion will prove fruitful to us all as we search out the scriptures on this subject.

In Christ,
Ian

Eileen

12-13-2004, 08:15 AM

BT:

You always bring out a further clarification of the subject at hand and cause, me at least, to dig deeper and I an thankful for that.

'Someone' began this, as you alluded to, by putting the life of Christ and His imputed righteousness into two categories......the death (cross, blood) and the law-keeping and then calling it active and passive. By doing that it seemed to me that they were bound and determined to 'keep the law' and that seems to cause so many problems even in our day.

The New Persepctive, if I am thinking correctly, has done the same thing only in reverse. They don't want the vicarious law keeping as they want to have part in their own justification by keeping the law themselves...."working for it", so to speak.

Your point of a 'whole Christ' was well taken and I would agree wholeheartedly. I believe after reading Ian's post that there would be much agreement there also.

I hope, as time permits, that you can more fully explain your view. For now, I continue to study the scriptures and look forward to more input from those interested.

harald

12-13-2004, 12:11 PM

Ian. Thank you for the positive feedback. I am glad at where and when we agree when the things we agree on are God's truth. I fear something in my last post was the fruit of my erroneous reasoning. But some things may have been true in the light of the Scripture's pure teaching.
Thanks for the brief information on Metcalfe on justification and faith. I might go ahead and order the book just out of curiosity. He seems to be a "hot name" right now, and I feel I ought to check him out to see for myself what he propagates on the whole.

Bill Twisse said:

>>The issue is one of whether our ENTIRE merit on which eternal life is granted is based on everything that Jesus Christ was and is<<

Ian, I agree with his words above. And I find a certain joy in believing that eternal life was/is/shall be granted to God's elect based solely on everything Jesus Christ was and is (and did, I would like to add) in the capacity of God-man, Redeemer, Surety etc. From the point of the incarnation to the resurrection from the dead. Needless to say I believe He was resurrected on account of His having justified His own on the cross, by his faith/faithfulness and by His blood. And according as Peter in his epistle says regeneration of the same is by virtue of the resurrection.

Ian. Today I have, at work, meditated on the issue at hand. I still to some degree feel perplexed in mind. Some arguments of your view sound plausible. What I desire for myself is to arrive at a settled accurate understanding and thorough knowledge of God's righteousness. What exactly I should believe about and think of it in all its aspects. Furthermore I wish to be able to express the truth clearly and accurately (so as to wholly accord with the Scriptures) when I (hopefully) arrive at the sought-after understanding and comprehension.

As for Galatians 2:21 which says that if righteousness (justifying such, no doubt) were through law (no article in the Greek before nomos) then Christ died away without a cause. I think the context and the context of the epistle does not imply that Paul was discussing Christ's personal work relating to the law, His active obedience to God and His will and law. In Gal. chapter 2 Paul was refuting the Judaizers' notion that believers had to keep the law of Moses themselves. I do not see that in this epistle the issue is Christ's passive obedience (so called) imputed only VERSUS Christ's active (so called) obedience plus His passive obedience imputed. The issue in Galatians (in brief) seems to me to be whether all of justification (ch. 2 the end) and sanctification (ch. 3 beginning) is dependent on or "conditioned on" (I see now I was stupid yesterday, this is valid terminology as I see it now) 1) Christ and His finished work exclusively or 2) partly on man, partly on Christ. Paul's standpoint is that it is either all of (depending on, conditioned on) Christ or else no justification and no sanctification. All or nothing. The reason why Paul in 2:21 contrasts "law" with Christ's dying away is that unless Christ at the point of His death did justify those that were given to Him to be justified then He died away without a cause, and justifying righteousness might as well be "by law", by sinful humans personally fulfilling conditions before God in order to obtain His favour and acceptance. In Romans 3 likewise I believe the context proves that "works of law", when used there by Paul, does not include Christ. It says in v. 20, that "through law" is EPIGNÔSIS of sin. Surely Paul here does not refer to Christ. This to me proves the "works of law" pertain to sinful men and women.

Yesterday I looked a little into Lehrer's and Wolker's article against the traditional view. What struck me is that these men are heretical on justification. Therefore I reason that there is no guarantee they are right in their view of as to what is imputed and what not. The Brethren movement of the 1800's was also off on justification. Wolker & Lehrer are heretical in that they propagate the classical view of Luther, that a man is justified before God when he believes in Christ. The below quotes from the beginning of the article supports what I claim:

"So, one might say that imputation communicates that all that Jesus did on the cross is placed or wired into your “spiritual bank account” when you believe."

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ ...
... and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

"This means that we can become righteous without perfect obedience to God. In fact, we can become righteous even after having transgressed God’s holy law. How is this done? The first thing that is revealed to us is that it is done “by faith.” We acquire this precious righteousness simply by believing or trusting in Jesus Christ. That is, by trusting in Him alone to save us from God’s wrath
because of His substitutionary work on our behalf, His work is then imputed to us."

The quote in the middle was from some Bible version which mistranslates Paul's Greek words. Only ignorant and blind men are capable of quoting such wicked mistranslations without no explanation or disclaimer. Wolker and Lehrer are ignorant as bats as respects how and when God justified His elect. They believe as all arminians and as the vast majority of calvinistic people, cp. "simply by believing or trusting in Jesus Christ". It is very clear they do not here speak of experiential justification so called, nor do they understand to distinguish between justification before God and the obtaining of knowledge of justification before God.

Myself said yesterday:

>>But then I ask, if so then was not Christ in the position of "I HAVE TO obey the Law IN ORDER TO secure, not for myself, but for mine own, justification before my God and Father". Thus it seems to me that in such case Christ were to obey (vicariously) not from a principle of faith but from the said Adamic law principle. >>

I fear I reasoned erroneously, Paul warns against such. Christ would not and could reason thusly, as I outlined. Rather it would have likely looked like "I will magnify the law and make it honourable, and I will die for mine own, and they shall be saved in and by and through my being and doing and suffering and dying, to the glory of my God and Father". Christ did what He did all from a principle of faith, primarily with a view to God's glory, secondarily with a view to the blessedness of the chosen. To be willing to do all He did for (in behalf of and for the benefit of) His own was an exhibition of faith working through agape love. Nothing in God and nothing in His law could find any fault whatsoever with such. Salvation from sin unto life eternal, including justification before God, is to no degree conditioned on or dependent on the personal character and conduct of sinful man, but wholly and solely and exclusively conditioned on and dependent on the personal character and conduct of the Surety and Representative of those chosen in eternity to be saved in Him with an eternal salvation. In this truth I rejoice.

While 2Cor. 5:19-21 does not state that the elect's "becoming" God's righteousness (in Him, Christ) was by way of Divine imputation I now wonder whether some other passage in Paul says or implies there was a third imputation at the cross? The two given ones of course being imputation of sin to Christ and non-imputation of sin to the elect.

Then. Again to day I lean towards translating the "pisteôs" of the formula "pisteôs Iêsou Christou" as "faithfulness". I hate wavering between two, but cannot help it. Then again it might be both "faithfulness" and "faith" were what Paul had in mind when He wrote "pisteôs". If "faithfulness" indeed was Paul's intent then it might refer to Christ's faithfulness to God from the cradle to the grave. And this faithfulness indeed was a fact, and it must never be thought of as some blind obedience or some legalistic fidelity to God and His will. It sprung from the principle of faith in Christ's heart. I find this very interesting to meditate on and ponder.

Harald

Brandan Kraft

12-13-2004, 02:17 PM

I find myself still firmly in the refomed camp concerning vicarious law keeping and agree with Bob - here is something he wrote to me privately that REALLY stuck with me this weekend...

Righteousness apart from law simply means a righteousness obtained by something other than obedience to the Law CovenantThe imputed righteousness of Christ is indeed based on the active obedience of Christ, but it far exceeds just obedience to the law. It was a DIVINE obedience - obedience to the Father's will in everything. It involved the obedience found in the covenant of redemption (this is vital and one area where NCT really falls short)!

I know I sound like I'm really wishy washy, but I'm coming to a better understanding of the truth, and sometimes you experience periods of error when coming to these positions.

I agree with Bob that simply the passive obedience in death opens the door to the new perspective. I know Ian isn't there and I'm not accusing him of even leaning in this direction. However, I think "his view" can be seen as selling short all of Christ's active obedience starting with the covenant of redemption, his incarnation, and life of obedience to the law.

The one thing we all agree on is something more than legal obedience to the old covenant law is needed.

Brandan Kraft

12-13-2004, 02:28 PM

CT = Covenant Theology
NCT = New Covenant Theology
MCT = Modified Covenant Theology

Adam
CT: Adam was perfectly righteous before he fell.
NCT: Same as CT.
MCT: Adam was righteous according to the laws given to him but still needed the righteousness of Christ.

Adam’s legal arrangement and the fall
CT: If Adam had kept the law he would have merited eternal life. This is known as the “covenant of works”. Adam broke the covenant of works and merited eternal death. NCT: There is no “covenant of works”. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he could stay in the garden but that wouldn't merit eternal life. He broke the law and merited eternal death.

MCT: There is a covenant of works. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he would have stayed in the garden, but not merit eternal life. However the point of giving this covenant of works was to cause the fall to demonstrate Adam’s need for an alien righteousness and point him to Christ. The Old Covenant is another form of this covenant of works.

Moral Law
CT: The “moral law” is fully expressed in the Decalogue.
NCT: There is no “moral law”.
MCT: All men are cursed by some form of law, not necessarily the same laws found in the original covenant of works or the Law at Sinai. There is a “moral law” that is revealed in nature which all men are obligated to obey. The OC Decalogue shines further light on this law.

Covenant of Redemption
CT: The three persons of the Trinity covenanted with each other for the purpose of salvation of the elect.
NCT: There is no covenant of redemption. There was just an eternal decree.
MCT: Same as CT.

Covenant of Grace
CT: God made a covenant of grace with Christ and His people. Christ’s people are found in all ages of history including Adam. The OC is a form of the covenant of grace.
NCT: There is no covenant of grace. God redeems His elect from every age; but the OC was a law covenant; therefore the term “covenant of grace” must not be used to describe these various covenants.
MCT: Same as CT, however the covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant instituted in eternity and constituted on the cross. All the elect of all ages are partakers of the covenant of grace.

Christ’s Imputed Righteousness
CT: Christ kept the law for His people in the Covenant of Grace thus fulfilling the Covenant of Works which merited for them eternal salvation.
NCT: Christ kept the law for His people to become the perfect sacrifice, but the righteousness wrought through this obedience is not imputed to the elect. Only Christ’s righteousness through “passive obedience / death” is imputed to the elect. (not all NCT people deny vicarious law keeping.)
MCT: Same as CT. However, Christ’s active obedience involves far more than legal obedience; it was obedience apart from the law – obedience to the Father’s will in everything thus fulfilling the covenant of redemption. Christ’s righteousness is a divine righteousness which was imputed to all of His elect on the cross.

View of the different Covenants
CT: The covenant of grace can be found in all the covenants (excluding the covenant of works) because they are derived from the covenant of redemption.
NCT: Since there is no covenant of redemption, all covenants are related and culminate in the new covenant.
MCT: The covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants. The Old Covenant is the New Covenant concealed. The New Covenant is the Old Covenant revealed.

Abraham’s Seed
CT: The main heir to Abraham was Israel, the “church” of the OC.
NCT: The main heir to Abraham is Christ and His Sheep (spiritual Israel).
MCT: Same as NCT

The Holy Spirit
CT: The Holy Spirit has taken up residence in and indwelt in believers of all ages.
NCT: The Holy Spirit didn’t indwell believers until after the cross.
MCT: Same as CT

The law as a rule of living
CT: The OC law is a rule for living, but only the “moral law”. The ceremonial and civil laws were abolished.
NCT: All of the OC law was abolished and only the laws of the NT apply to the believer.
MCT: The OC was a covenant of works. The believer’s rule of living has always been Christ regardless of what age in which they lived. The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ and cause them to rest in His vicarious law keeping and atoning work. The laws from all covenants are good as a rule of conduct, but the law of God is written on the heart of every believer, and every believer is motivated to obey the law to Christ out of love and gratitude instead of obligation.

Sign of the New Covenant

CT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism just like circumcision was in the OC. Many believe babies ought to be baptized just like babies were circumcised in the OC.

NCT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism and only believers ought to be baptized.

MCT: The sign of the covenant of grace is the circumcision of the heart. Baptism is an ordinance given to believers to comfort them in their personal death, burial, and resurrection in Christ as well as their experience in the Spirit’s washing in regeneration.

Eileen

12-13-2004, 08:56 PM

I don't think you are wishy washy at all Brandan, I think that you want to be 'settled' in what you believe as harald so aptly put it. That too is my desire with this issue. I have been emotional over this thread several times, so desirious of knowing the 'righteousness of Christ' that was imputed to me. It is a most glorious thing, this righteousness.

No, the ISSUE with ‘vicarious law-keeping’ is that that implies that somehow Christ ‘wrought’ or ‘produced’ some righteousness or merit, over and above what He ALREADY WAS, and that that is imputed to us. I disagree with that idea which makes justification, at least in some measure, dependent upon law works (see Galatians 2:16 and 2:21). The whole idea is erroneous, unscriptural, and illegal. Christ HIMSELF is our righteousness. We become WHAT HE IS, not WHAT HE HAS DONE. Christ was obedient in all things because HE IS righteous. We become that righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor 5:21) as a result of what HE DID, but we don’t become WHAT HE DID, but WHAT HE IS – the righteousness of God

I appreciated what I felt to be a summary of the issue from Ian and I don't find anything in the above quote that I would disagree with. I know that he won't go any further with this thread at this time, I think he is settled in his convictions. I don't understand the huge difference between this summary of Ian's and the 'whole Christ' that Bob was speaking of in his post. Maybe Bob's next post will point out (at least in my mind) what the differences are.

I remain totally captured by this doctrine and I pray along with Harald that I can be settled in my knowing of what the scripture truly does teach. I am in the process of putting down every scripture that has been given here for my own edification and study.

Robert R. Higby

12-13-2004, 09:56 PM

Ian writes:

I would refer you back to my own posts (not merely the article by IDS) and also to Harald’s last post. I feel that what you are opposed to is NOT a correct representation what I believe myself, and therefore would represent something of a ‘straw-man’ to knock down. Unfortunately I simply don’t have the time to go through your post and show where the differences lie or to debate the matter any further, although I feel that given the time if you and I were to discuss the matter through carefully we’d probably see that we actually in agreement on many points.

I feel that I need to clarify myself. My points were expressed in contrast only to the study by Lehrer and Volker at this juncture (which I have substantial differences with); not all of the posts that have occurred since then--which I am still in process of reviewing. I regret it once again if I used a means of expression which seemed to implicate in broad terms most of those posting here. I'm sure that we do have agreement on many points. I think we mutually oppose the 'bare law keeping' notion of Christ's imputed righteousness.

It seems to me that there is also a danger of viewing Christ's death in terms of mere penal sanctions of the Mosaic covenant. Christ indeed suffered the curse of the law according to scripture (Gal. 3:13). The Mosaic law, however, was only a shadow of the divine government to which all mankind is subject. The curse of the law in the broader sense is the penalty due for the worst acts of rebellion the human creature has committed against God himself, not an external law.

I will continue to read all the posts in this thread and organize my thoughts.

Your brother in the gospel,

Bill Ross

12-14-2004, 10:16 AM

<Eileen>
>>...I have been emotional over this thread several times, so desirious of knowing the 'righteousness of Christ' that was imputed to me. It is a most glorious thing, this righteousness....I remain totally captured by this doctrine and I pray along with Harald that I can be settled in my knowing of what the scripture truly does teach. I am in the process of putting down every scripture that has been given here for my own edification and study...

<Bill>
Darth, I trust that you will permit me to ask a question on this thread which I believe is on topic....

Eileen, is the term "the righteousness of Christ" ever mentioned in scripture?

Thanks,

Bill Ross

Brandan Kraft

12-14-2004, 03:44 PM

Go to this thread to answer Bill's questions and comments.

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1857

Brandan Kraft

12-15-2004, 11:19 AM

Robert R. Higby

12-16-2004, 01:00 AM

In answer to Bill's question, righteousness=justification in the New Testament. Whenever a passage such as 1 Cor. 1:30 translates the Greek dikaiosune (I realize that my transliteration may be poor) as 'righteousness' instead of 'justification', this is merely man's best guess as to the proper English word to convey the proper translated meaning. So the justification we receive from Christ is the exact same thing as his righteousness.

I read Calvin this evening on the subject; he uses the expression 'righteousness of Christ' over and over in his arguments on justification. I believe that both Luther and Calvin need to be called back to the 'witness stand' in reference to the claim that neither taught any doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ's life. But I am not going to finish this argument tonight; I'm still reading. Suffice it to say that although the arguments of Luther and Calvin are generally not expressed in the same language as later Reformers (on the imputed life of Christ), neither do they contain ANY polemic against it--and I believe the weight of evidence will show that they were for it. The primary emphasis in their arguments was on the sacrifice of Christ as our justification. However, expressions such as Christ's 'obedience AND death' are certainly present when referring to the righteousness or justification provided in Christ. More to come soon.

Right now I am not quite finished in my summary response to this whole question. However, I believe there is one issue that needs emphasized at the outset: God only is holy, innately. No creature is righteous in and of himself. Jesus in his earthly life emphasized that no one is good except God. Even the perfect angels in heaven proclaim though only art holy! All creatures are fallible and subject to sin and rebellion. God's constant power and protection is the only remedy and sure antidote against a wayward heart. The pernicious doctrine of the infusion of God's righteousness (so prevalent today and in all past ages), suggesting that man will now or one day be righteous in some sort of subjective and independent fashion, is against all of God's revealed truth. As the continuing existence of the universe is possible only by the constant exercise of God's power, any holy experience on the part of creatures is dependent on the same miracle of God. The righteousness of God in Christ, though present in the believer and accepted in faith, is never fused with the believer's experience. We will never be God. Even after we are made impeccable like the angels, even though we will have a nature in the likeness of God's holiness, we will not be partakers of divinity. We will ever and always be individual creatures with unique and human-only souls--dependent on the grace of God for eternal preservation.

Robert R. Higby

12-18-2004, 04:08 PM

I am going to conclude my arguments on this subject with a brief summary of the major points. As I am heavily involved in other studies and issues right now, major dialog will have to be put on hold for another 4-6 weeks.

A lot is at stake in this issue. The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s impeccable divine/human life to the believer is a major part of the soteriological heritage of the Reformation. I am convicted that it belongs in the precious ‘jewels’ of faith that must be guarded; not in the dung of unholy tradition that must be shoveled out. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has confirmed the doctrine by uniting the majority of sovereign grace believers around it. It is a positive testimony that breathes life into Christ’s people, quite unlike many horrible doctrines that are still left over from Plato, Philo, Justin, Tertullian, Plotinus, and Augustine. The fact that the original Protestant Reformers did not eloquently and systematically defend the doctrine is a moot point. It was and is the logical end of their throwing out the goodness and merits of man as a basis of justification before God.
I affirm my continued unity and fellowship with those who view justification, saving grace, and the merits of Christ strictly in terms of the death of Christ. This holds true only if the doctrine of infused merit is condemned in no uncertain terms. Part of the ‘death only’ argument is based on the fact that Luther and Calvin spoke of imputation chiefly in terms of the cross and forgiveness. It is critical to note the difference, however, in the polemic needed to address the heresies of that era as opposed to ours. The Reformers back then were reacting to the doctrine of infused grace and merit taught by Roman Catholicism and certain Anabaptist heretics. The doctrine of infusion is just as pernicious and alive in our own time, however, we have a whole history of dogma and debate behind us that they did not. Our understanding of the doctrine of justification has matured over the centuries as a result of light given to many spirit-filled expositors of the Word. To take a step back at this point is to open the door to further decline by some into the teachings of the dark ages.
In scripture, both the life and death of Jesus Christ are spoken of in terms of law. Christ was made under the law, both in terms of obligation to obey it and suffering its curse. A justification or righteousness without the law is the blessing given to us: precisely because Christ fulfilled both its positive and negative demands, which are strict obedience and a tormented death for the guilty.
The Mosaic law-covenant was given as a type, shadow, parable, and figure of the reality of the guilt of all mankind before a holy God. External law and condemnation in the earthly realm can only partially portray the greater realities of the divine government. In cosmic terms, God is the law. All sin and rebellion is committed against him. This fact is timeless and equally true in any age. So there is no redemption unrelated to law, precisely because there is no redemption that is unrelated to a sovereign God requiring perfect obedience.
I strongly oppose the notion that we are perfectly just before God if we have no sin. If this were true, then the doctrine of forgiveness-only justification--based strictly on Christ’s atoning death--would also be true. But God only is good and holy, innately. One day Christ’s elect will be made impeccably pure in their humanity. But they are eternally dependent on God in Christ for this purity; it is not their own by right. Our present existence still in sin should ever remind us that even as God’s chosen, a permanent and everlasting deliverance from rebellion is possible only due to the merits of Christ’s indestructible and holy life. This life will never be ours intrinsically—for it consists of Deity as well as his perfectly obedient life while on earth. The imputed wisdom of God in Christ (1 Cor. 1:30) is not strictly the divine wisdom carried out in his death on a cross. That is certainly where it is most manifest. But it also includes all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in the person of Christ! (Col. 2:3) Our life is dead before God, it is hidden in Christ before the throne of God (Col. 3:1-4). In imputation, God treats and regards us as nothing less than Jesus Christ himself—all that he was and is.
May the blessings of grace in our Lord Jesus Christ abound to all of you students of the living and abiding Word of God! :)

Eileen

12-18-2004, 09:26 PM

BT:

Let us know, won't you, when your studies are complete and we can have some dialoug with you on this thread. The above post was very informative for me and I thank you for the summary of it.

I will have some questions ready in the mean time. I have never even spoken to anyone or read any literature on "infusion", however I know that to be untrue. Are there modern day sects that believe that....oops, a question:rolleyes: I truly will wait until you are done with your study.

In the meantime,

'Oh come let us adore Him".

Brandan Kraft

12-19-2004, 05:52 AM

I will have some questions ready in the mean time. I have never even spoken to anyone or read any literature on "infusion", however I know that to be untrue. Are there modern day sects that believe that....oops, a question:rolleyes: I truly will wait until you are done with your study.The New Perspective group for all practical purposes denies the vicarious law keeping of Christ - and because of this righteousness is earned by the "believer" in their christian lives. It's another form of infused righteousness - many "reformed" groups are moving into this line of thinking recently.

I'm very thankful for this thread - it has caused me to re-evaluate my beliefs. While I always believed Christ's righteousness was far more than legal righteousness - for some reason I had never been called upon to explain it. The "passive only" argument in my opinion doesn't adequately explain everything in my mind - but it detracts completely from the covenant of redemption. But NCT denies the covenant of redemption - and that I believe is a major downfall of the systematic. I believe the obedience apart from the law is Christ's fulfillment of the covenant of redemption - and that includes the incarnation through his death on the cross.

BTW, for anyone who is interested, I forwarded my MCT document to a dyed-in-the-wool presbyterian covenant theologian, Dr. Richard Bacon - he heads the blue banner magazine (http://www.fpcr.org/). I didn't realize who he was when I met him on Pal Talk, but our conversation was very natural and friendly. He was very gracious and offered his comments. If you're interested, I can forward you a copy of his comments, along with Bob's response.

Brandan

Eileen

12-19-2004, 08:18 AM

Brandan,

I sent you a private message asking that the MCT comments be forwarded to me. I am very interested in them, thanks! Especially since the Dr. is a 'covenant' theologian.

I am right there with you in the thankfulness department. Majorly so...... So much teaching can lead us down the road to despair if we don't understand our 'justification' before God and this thread has brought me to a fuller understanding of this doctrine and pointed me to the 'righteousness' of Christ in a way I had never known before.

Still.........

Growing in Grace,

Eileen~

Forester07

12-19-2004, 10:29 AM

Brandan,

IF you wouldn't mind I would also love to read the comments from Dr. Richard Bacon of your MCT stuff. If that is ok. I agree with alot of what you said in the three comparisions. I've also learned tons in this thread. Thanks.

James

Robert R. Higby

12-19-2004, 03:40 PM

Eileen:

Let us know, won't you, when your studies are complete and we can have some dialoug with you on this thread.

I have time for brief dialog but not long and detailed defenses right now. I would be happy to answer questions on specific points.

lionovjudah

12-20-2004, 08:18 AM

Just a quick thought.

If the sacrafice on the cross is all that was imputed to us as believers, then why did God ask for more than sacrafices in the OT?

He began to abhor the sacrafices in the OT. Obedience to His LAw was required. And if all this was fulfilled by Christ, Then I would be led to believe that His obdeience to the Will of God is imputed to us also.

Joe

Robert R. Higby

12-20-2004, 10:14 PM

I get where you are coming from, Joe. However, I don't think that we want to make any comparison between the sacrifices God loathed and Christ's sacrifice (even by loose comparison) and use this as a basis for imputed obedience 'apart from sacrifice.' There is no question that the atonement of Christ for the remission of sins is the heart of the gospel and of imputation. There were valid acts of sacrifice pleasing to God (through Christ's merits) in the shadows of the OT covenants.

I just believe there is a chain of evidence in scripture that is in favor of Christ's life imputed as well as his death. Col. 3:1-4; 2:3,9,10 tied back to Heb. 1:8-13 and then back to all of the other scriptures mentioned (1 Cor. 1:30, 2. Cor. 5:21, Rom. 5:18, etc.)--coupled with all that the gospels have to say on Christ's life of obedient submission to the Father--tell me that the gift of Christ's person & work imputed includes his life (earthly divine/human plus resurrected) as well as his atoning death.

andredav

12-21-2004, 12:42 AM

I am so happy to have a chance to participate in the discussion that really makes sense to me. I am trying to follow the flows of ideas that circulate in this world concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Sometimes it takes a little bit more effort to cope with many believes.

As far as this subject concerns, I can add this to it:
1. Everyone has freedom to express himself. inspiration may be divine or personal. but it stil comes from a source.

2. I do not want to place myself away from your thesis. It is biblical. Many times it happens to me to create my own definition of words to make them what I feel they mean to me. Usually it happens when the power of God feels me. This means yes, it is true. But it not always. We need to be with the Bible as a best friend and with the Holy Spirit as A Teacher.

3. When I come across thoughts or ideas that pertain to quicken my mind, I have to stop and think. It is like an open Bible study.

I would like to add this.

Everything that is active takes us to a new dimension. The passive takes us no where. This is why for us as believers , we deal with active faith and passive faith which James speaks about, the faith without deeds is a dead faith.

We do not only need the deeds, we also need the faith, the abstract. the matter, the invisible that God wants to make visible through actions of obedience.

Liuke 2: 52 Teaches how Jesus obeyed His father just by the way He lived. He set the example for us. We must have an active faith to live like that. We must set our hope on high.

Yes, indeed to make the passive become active. Let us take a look at Colossians 3:1-6. We must crucify this body. why? we must nake this body inactive, meaning passive in order to make our soul active for God. God does not deal with our flesh which is our enemy. Romans 5:19 shows that man became victime of his own flesh. but the flesh senses what the eyes perceive, what the ears hear, what the heart feels and accomplishes it all.

Jesus lived a life of death on this earth to please His Father. As God, He did not completely comply to the Law. the Law was Jesus Himself if the law came from God. But God made His law flesh in a certain way to make the world understand the will of God. This law becomes love and grace. This changes into mercy in the divine person of Jesus Christ. Then, The Bible tells us that the law yields to the grace and Moses Yielded to Jesus.

As being obedient to the Law, the Jews did not byu that because they could not be obedient to the Law. Jesus was obedient to it in the fact that He becomes the master of the Law. When He said the Son of Man is the master of the Sabbath, He explanes everytrhing because there was no law with the Sabbath and God said the Jews prophaned the Sabbath. Otherwise, when they did obey the Law, their obeservance of the Sabbath was nothing before God. Jesus become somethibg by sacrificing his life at the cross. Then Paul said if then we are active in faith, we must be active in the Spirit by being obedient to death. Romans 8 and Ephesians 2:1-3 and 2 : 8-9.

When the flesh is active, the obedience is none. when obedience exists, the Holy Spirit is in control. This is how we must understand Jesus who obeyed to death and not only by the Law but teavhes us a new approach of the law by suffering in His body so we can have power to obey God today.

Let us therefore klill the members of the body to offer to God the best sacrifice that is due to Him alone God.

It was good to read your spirit. It is good to share your thought with others. If there is any dicrepancy in my comments let me.

YOu have my email you can post my comments after you fix some typing errors or grammars if you chose to do so by your good heart.

Andredav.

I have been reading the articles that Ian posted on the Two seeds thread on the imputation of the Active vs. the Passive obedience of Christ and what exactly is imputed to us regarding our 'righteousness'.

Active obedience: The perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the Mosaic Law.

Passive obedience: Christ's sacrificial death by which He paid the penalty for the sins of the elect.

I don't believe I have ever heard or studied the issue this way. One side is saying that the passive obedience (Christ's sacrificial death) is all that the believer needs to have a righteous standing before God, also claiming that the scripture doesn't attest to Christ's perfect obedience to the law as something that is imputed to the believer.

Is there a dual aspect to the imputation of Christ's death and obedience to the law as something that God required for our being righteous before Him?

I think the bottom line understanding of what they were saying that I came away with was that the death of Christ (passive obedience imputed) is sufficient in all ways, the obedience to the law (active) was because He was sinless and it of coarse took a sinless man to atone for the sins of the elect.

I know this isn't a new theory or doctrine but is it clear exactly what scripture does teach?

For instance: Romans 5:19 'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous', (one act of obedience, the cross)??

Obedience to the law or obedience by the death? The claim is that it is making a theological mountain out of a theological molehill because Christ's death is all that the believer needs imputed to be justified and righteous.

Is this a major issue doctrinally?

lionovjudah

12-21-2004, 02:54 AM

I get where you are coming from, Joe. However, I don't think that we want to make any comparison between the sacrifices God loathed and Christ's sacrifice (even by loose comparison) and use this as a basis for imputed obedience 'apart from sacrifice.' There is no question that the atonement of Christ for the remission of sins is the heart of the gospel and of imputation. There were valid acts of sacrifice pleasing to God (through Christ's merits) in the shadows of the OT covenants.
Perhaps I was fishing Bill... God required the PERFECT sacrafice. The perfect spotless Lamb. Perfect obedience. And Christ Jesus is that. that is my comparison. Again it is a both/and not either or.

I just believe there is a chain of evidence in scripture that is in favor of Christ's life imputed as well as his death. Col. 3:1-4; 2:3,9,10 tied back to Heb. 1:8-13 and then back to all of the other scriptures mentioned (1 Cor. 1:30, 2. Cor. 5:21, Rom. 5:18, etc.)--coupled with all that the gospels have to say on Christ's life of obedient submission to the Father--tell me that the gift of Christ's person & work imputed includes his life (earthly divine/human plus resurrected) as well as his atoning death.[/QUOTE]
The error some make is to think that Christ is put in front of us and we are to imitate Him. it has and always will be His obedience, His death, His everything. Not mans or the blood of goats.

Joe

Eileen

12-21-2004, 08:06 AM

BT:

I am having a very difficult time trying to sort my thoughts and struggle into coherent questions, so please bear with me for a time.

I'm having a hard time seperating what Christ did from who He is, does that make sense? In imputed law-keeping it seems like that is what I must do, do you think?

If I seperate law-keeping as imputed (and that is basically what most teach, isn't it, just the law, or at least that is as far as they go) what about all of His other obedience and all that addresses? I think you alluded to that in one of your post when you talked about righteousness apart from the law, still righteousness. Is that what you are saying, all of Christ's life was righteous and that is what is imputed?

He was obedient to be born, He walked obedient every moment of His life, what about His suffereing before the cross, the great drops of blood in the garden, in other words His whole life? Is that righteous life imputed to us by the obedience in death and the shedding of blood for remission of sin?

I keep thinking that no flesh is justified by the deeds of the law and so when I begin to think of what Christ did in keeping the law instead of who He is, the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, I become a bit disoriented in my thinking.

I think that this is going to take me awhile to come to some settled thinking of my own and hopefully you can speak to what I am saying above, if it makes sense to anyone but me.

In Cor 1:30, of which you quote at times, are you saying that the wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemtion that we have in Christ Jesus is His whole life and that is what He took to the cross and what was imputed to us by His death?

Just a few thoughts in my mind that I'm kind of stuck on and until I get past those I won't be able to think on anything else.

lionovjudah

12-21-2004, 09:27 AM

Is this thread dancing around the root of Justification? How are we made right in the eyes of God?The idea that justification consists ONLY in the forgiveness of a sinner disregards the immutability of God's law, and infers that God's law is imperfect. God's law, however, is perfect and immutable. Scriptures teach that God, in justifying the believer, does not lower His standard or disregard the penalty of the law, but through Jesus Christ delivers the believer from the penalty of His law through its execution (Rom. 8.3-4). The law of God thus satisfied on our behalf, God declares us to be what we truly are in His sight: not guilty. God must act according to justice. Unless God's justice is satisfied, there is no justification. If, therefore, justification only consisted in the forgiveness of the sinner, then we do not need a Savior, or atonement.
[ michael bremmer]

Joe

Robert R. Higby

12-21-2004, 08:18 PM

I am having a very difficult time trying to sort my thoughts and struggle into coherent questions, so please bear with me for a time.

No problem; your struggles are like those of all of us!

I'm having a hard time seperating what Christ did from who He is, does that make sense? In imputed law-keeping it seems like that is what I must do, do you think?

The work of Christ (what he did) consists of the entirety of his co-planning from eternity as a person in the Trinity, his creation of the universe as the Word of God, his sustaining of the universe at every point (including the portion of time when he was also a seed in the womb of Mary), his incarnation, birth, divine/human life, atoning death, resurrection, and eternally exalted Divine/human life as ascended Lord and God. Imputed law-keeping is only a small portion of one aspect of what I have just described--a part of the human part of his earthly life! The real point of his perfect and holy life is obedience to his Father, of which external law is only an illustration and shadow. God is the real law!

If I seperate law-keeping as imputed (and that is basically what most teach, isn't it, just the law, or at least that is as far as they go) what about all of His other obedience and all that addresses? I think you alluded to that in one of your post when you talked about righteousness apart from the law, still righteousness. Is that what you are saying, all of Christ's life was righteous and that is what is imputed?

Yes, most definitely! The righteousness 'apart from law' is not what Christ experienced in his earthly life. It is what is available to us by faith--since his obedience and death stands in the place of our obligations to God. But Christ's obedience to the Father certainly transcended external law (both in his life before Calvary and also in his obedience unto death). He obeyed the Will of God perfectly, which is a greater reality than what can be expressed in any set of external commandments given to fallen human beings!

He was obedient to be born, He walked obedient every moment of His life, what about His suffereing before the cross, the great drops of blood in the garden, in other words His whole life? Is that righteous life imputed to us by the obedience in death and the shedding of blood for remission of sin?

It is imputed because Christ's righteous PERSON cannot be separated from his WORK as Savior. The obedience in death is the crowning act of his submission to the Father, since that act of humiliation is what atones for and stands in the place of our sinful lives--ushering in forgiveness before the bar of God's justice. Justification in forgiveness is man's greatest need. However, God gives even more in imputation--the indestructible life of Christ (both in his divine/human humiliation [33 years] and exaltation). Christ in every way stands in the place of our lack of merit and holiness before eternal God.

I keep thinking that no flesh is justified by the deeds of the law and so when I begin to think of what Christ did in keeping the law instead of who He is, the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, I become a bit disoriented in my thinking.

No disorientation is necessary, because Christ IS justified by the deeds of the law plus EVERYTHING ELSE in his person and work! He fulfilled the law by his life of obedience to it. He fulfilled the law by bearing its curse in our place. But both in life AND atoning death, he transcends a MERE fulfillment of external law. His real obedience is to his Father, WHO IS THE REAL AND EVERLASTING LAW of which the external Mosaic covenant law is only a shadow. His real death is to appease the wrath of his Father, WHO IS THE REAL AND EVERLASTING LAW demanding sanctions for disobedience of which the external Mosaic law is only a shadow.

I think that this is going to take me awhile to come to some settled thinking of my own and hopefully you can speak to what I am saying above, if it makes sense to anyone but me.

I can only hope that I have been able to be of some help, relying on God's gracious strength working in me!

In Cor 1:30, of which you quote at times, are you saying that the wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption that we have in Christ Jesus is His whole life and that is what He took to the cross and what was imputed to us by His death?

I do not believe that the righteousness (justification) of his indestructible life is imputed only because it enabled him to be a perfect sacrifice in death. That would limit his atonement to the types in the Mosaic law of blemlish sacrifice--which are certainly true and valid but also portray a transcendent reality. God ONLY is perfect and holy in his own right. He actually has purposed to impute that perfection to his unworthy elect people! I have in earlier posts given the rationale why I believe that this is an eternal purpose of wisdom and knowledge--one that involves treasures of divine merit over and above forgiveness. Experiencing forgiveness in Christ's atonement enables us to live in God's presence without the guilt of sin. However, it does not secure an endless and guaranteed deliverance from ever experiencing sin again. That is due to our life being hidden toward God in Christ (Col. 3:1-4) and his purposes of our eternal merit existing only in the indestructible life of our Lord! No INFUSION OF MERIT, ever!

Just a few thoughts in my mind that I'm kind of stuck on and until I get past those I won't be able to think on anything else.

I'll pray right now for the Lord to UN-STUCK your mind! I hope that you don't MIND my use of words in expressing this wish toward you. :cool:

Eileen

12-21-2004, 08:31 PM

Brandan,

The dialoug you sent me that you had with your pastor was extremely helpful.

You alluded to several things that has been exactly what I have struggled with since the beginning of this study.

1. You said that the 'legal model' in CT via vicarious law keeping is insufficient to fully explain the imputing of a divine righteousness.....that is where I have been stranded. So I would agree with this wholeheartedly, it is certainly more than obligation...That helped my understanding immensly.

2. A distinction has been made in the righteousness of Christ being more than a legal righteousness and so you said in response to this that "maybe they feel they have to choose between passive and active, not understanding that divine righteousness encompasses both - or in other words ALL of Christ's righteousness".....that is also exactly where I have been stranded and this frees me to realize that I don't have to choose, thankfully.

I was fully prepared, if called upon, to choose the sacrifice of the Spotless Lamb of God for the sins of His own.

Thank you for the correspondence Brandan. I am currently looking at the scriptures given in Bob's response to Joe.

Brandan Kraft

12-21-2004, 08:42 PM

NCT denies the covenant of redemption - so I think the "passive only" argument is appealing to those in the NCT camp... With Christ fulfilling a covenant of redemption, obedience to more than law keeping makes a bit more sense to me.

Eileen

12-21-2004, 09:51 PM

BT:

The following quote from your last post is the direction I needed, most definately. There was nothing 'mere' about His life and I think the active/passive argument in some ways can lead to that thinking. As I said to Brandan, if I had to choose I was going to choose His death and now I understand my own thinking, I was comparing His death to the 'mere' keeping of the law. NO comparison....

But both in life AND atoning death, he transcends a MERE fulfillment of external law. His real obedience is to his Father, WHO IS THE REAL AND EVERLASTING LAW of which the external Mosaic covenant law is only a shadow. His real death is to appease the wrath of his Father, WHO IS THE REAL AND EVERLASTING LAW demanding sanctions for disobedience of which the external Mosaic law is only a shadow.

The real truth........The Father is the real and everlasting law. What a large truth that is, thank you especially for that tonight. It changes my entire understanding and focus as to what Christ actually accomplished by all of His obedience.

A great measure of peace in that understanding. Thank you so much for your willingness to give of your time and for sharing your knowledge, I was awake much of the night last night with this 'stuck' in my mind, tonight, however, I do believe it is UN-STUCK.:rolleyes: I will continue to study in depth all of your comments.

Eileen~

Robert R. Higby

12-22-2004, 08:21 PM

Eileen, when you mentioned that you were stuck on this issue, I could not help but remember an experience that I had working in a warehouse in Chattanooga, TN back in October of 1976.

I was a forklift operator. One day when a trucker (whom I saw daily) arrived with his wares, I proceeded to open the door at the back of the trailer. It was very stiff and would not lift as usual. I went in to the office where he was shooting the breeze with my boss and explained that the back door of his trailer was stuck. He then humorously blurted out, "Well, UN-STUCK it!" I went and applied a lot more force in the lift and got it to open. Before, I had been afraid that I might break something if I did that.

Anyway, that is where my UN-STUCK expression came from! :cool:

Eileen

12-22-2004, 09:00 PM

BT:

Actually Bob that applies very much to my mind sometimes ......it takes a lot of force to UN-STUCK it :rolleyes:, or it feels like it anyway....:rolleyes:

One quick comment tonight as I continue on in this study. I have come full circle to the place I started in one respect. I don't think the obedience of Christ should be categorized into active/passive. I don't believe the scripture alludes to that and neither should we. It has caused me to study the doctrine of the righteousness of Christ and for that I am thankful. I'm not fully understanding the imputation so that will require more scripture reading.

I can tell you this however, whenever I read in the scripture of the atonement, the cross, the blood I am comforted instantly by the Spirit within and I rejoice anew.

Col 2:20,21,22

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.

Oh the joy of being reconciled to God through the blood of his cross!

Eileen~

Robert R. Higby

12-24-2004, 09:42 AM

Thanks, Eileen, grace and peace be with you this Advent season!

Getting back to the issue of a new definition of covenant (or 'new covenant'?) theology, I believe there are additional issues to be discussed as I don't believe many points are settled at this juncture! Perhaps in another thread after the New Year.

I do not believe that either 'Covenant' or 'New Covenant' theology, as historically defined and defended, constitute complete and logical systems of truth. There is fragmentation, paradox, synthesis, and compartmentalization in both teachings. So naturally, when one wants to hold to the biblical truths present in both, he must be prepared to take the same fire (or even 'hell fire'!) at the same level of heat that both sides hurl at each other! I do not believe that the dogmaticians of either view will in the end be even slightly accepting of any reasoning outside of their own definitions. On a matter such as this, we cannot depend on others. We have to depend on the Word and Holy Spirit as it comes to us pioneers.

A blessed Christmas and celebration of the whole Christ-event (including his resurrected glory and Lordship) to all!

Forester07

12-30-2004, 09:43 PM

For those of you who are still interested in studying this issue the In Depth Studies guys who don't support the active imputation of Christ's Obiedience have posted a audio file discussioning the issue. It is in Real audio format and can be found on there website. www.ids.org (http://www.ids.org/) It is a link about half way down. Or here at the New Covenant Bible Fellowship Website http://www.ncbf.net/audio/imputation.ra

I haven't listened to it yet so I don't know if they add anything more to the discussion. Hope everyone is having a happy new year.

James

Forester07

01-04-2005, 03:57 PM

I found an article that is an interesting response to Volker and Lehrer's paper on the active obidience of Christ. It is by a NCT person also and entitled "The Obedience of ChristA Response to Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker ."

http://www.ptitx.org/News/The%20Obedience%20of%20Christ.pdf

James

ray kikkert

01-04-2005, 10:27 PM

Updated comparison with help and some phraseology from Bob - who's in agreement!

CT = Covenant Theology
NCT = New Covenant Theology
MCT = Modified Covenant Theology

Adam
CT: Adam was perfectly righteous before he fell.
NCT: Same as CT.
MCT: Adam was righteous according to the laws given to him but still needed the righteousness of Christ.

Adam’s legal arrangement and the fall
CT: If Adam had kept the law he would have merited eternal life. This is known as the “covenant of works”. Adam broke the covenant of works and merited eternal death.

response: I am a little confused here. I do not maintain a covenant of works, but I do believe that Adam was in coveant relationship with God, that is, in Christ from before the foundation of the world, the everlasting covenant of God.

NCT: There is no “covenant of works”. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he could stay in the garden but that wouldn't merit eternal life. He broke the law and merited eternal death.

response: here, here.

MCT: There is a covenant of works. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he would have stayed in the garden, but not merit eternal life. However the point of giving this covenant of works was to cause the fall to demonstrate Adam’s need for an alien righteousness and point him to Christ. The Old Covenant is another form of this covenant of works.

Moral Law
CT: The “moral law” is fully expressed in the Decalogue.

NCT: There is no “moral law”.

MCT: All men are cursed by some form of law, not necessarily the same laws found in the original covenant of works or the Law at Sinai. There is a “moral law” that is revealed in nature which all men are obligated to obey. The OC Decalogue shines further light on this law.

response: what do we mean by moral law and the decalogue?

Covenant of Redemption
CT: The three persons of the Trinity covenanted with each other for the purpose of salvation of the elect.

response: this confuses me to. I maintain that God's covenant is everlasting, I do not think this to be of redemption , but of grace. Thus from before the foundation of the earth that covenant is everlasting to everlasting , and all points in between that my tiny mind can fathom.

NCT: There is no covenant of redemption. There was just an eternal decree.
MCT: Same as CT.

Covenant of Grace
CT: God made a covenant of grace with Christ and His people. Christ’s people are found in all ages of history including Adam. The OC is a form of the covenant of grace.
NCT: There is no covenant of grace. God redeems His elect from every age; but the OC was a law covenant; therefore the term “covenant of grace” must not be used to describe these various covenants.
MCT: There is a covenant of grace which is best understood as the new covenant instituted in eternity and constituted on the cross. All the elect of all ages are partakers of the covenant of grace. However, unlike CT, the OC at Sinai is not an administration of the covenant of Grace; but is a law covenant meant to bring condemnation.

response: I assume OC means old covenant. If God says His covenant is everlasting, can that mean there is an old and new covenant, or just the same everlasting covenant?

Christ’s Imputed Righteousness
CT: Christ kept the law for His people in the Covenant of Grace thus fulfilling the Covenant of Works which merited for them eternal salvation.

NCT: Christ kept the law for His people to become the perfect sacrifice, but the righteousness wrought through this obedience is not imputed to the elect. Only Christ’s righteousness through “passive obedience / death” is imputed to the elect. (not all NCT people deny vicarious law keeping.)

MCT: Same as CT. However, Christ’s active obedience involves far more than legal obedience; it was obedience apart from the law – obedience to the Father’s will in everything thus fulfilling the covenant of redemption. Christ’s righteousness is a divine righteousness which was imputed to all of His elect on the cross.

response: Imputed righteousness means that Christ fully satisied for the sins of the elect , right? That Christ would do this is not only prophecied in the old testament, but was determined to happen from before the foundations of the earth. That everlasting covenant of God with His elect in Christ was determined to be the purpose of God right from eternity that He may receive the honor and glory due to His most precious Triune name.

View of the different Covenants
CT: The covenant of grace can be found in all the covenants (excluding the covenant of works) because they are derived from the covenant of redemption.
NCT: Since there is no covenant of redemption, all covenants are related and culminate in the new covenant.
MCT: The covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants excluding administrations of the covenant of works (eg. Sinai).

response: If God's covenant is everlasting is'nt all the ones spoke of relating back and point to this one?

Abraham’s Seed
CT: The main heir to Abraham was Israel, the “church” of the OC. (Some would affirm agreement with NCT).
NCT: The main heir to Abraham is Christ and His Sheep (spiritual Israel).
MCT: Same as NCT

response: Hey, I maintain that Abraham seed is the spiritual seed , the elect in Christ, nothing more.

The Holy Spirit
CT: The Holy Spirit has taken up residence in and indwelt in believers of all ages.
NCT: The Holy Spirit didn’t indwell believers until after the cross. (Some would affirm agreement with CT).
MCT: Same as CT

response: The Holy Spirit is noted throughout the old testament bible to be part and parcel of the elect saints of that time. I do not think the holy Spirit to be impotent with the elect only after the cross. I think of Joshua or David. What is this business that they indwelled with believers until after the cross?

The law as a rule of living
CT: The OC law is a rule for living, but only the “moral law”. The ceremonial and civil laws were abolished.

response: I maintain that the ceremonial laws were abolished and that Christ came not to demolish the law , but to fulfill it. We had not known sin unless that the law told us what was sin. We still sin, we still err. We confess our sins and repent, and the very fact we do so is that God gives us this gift and we are no longer slaves to the schoolmaster of the law. Is this where theonomy usually comes into the mix?

NCT: All of the OC law was abolished and only the laws of the NT apply to the believer.
MCT: The OC was a covenant of works. The believer’s rule of living has always been Christ regardless of what age in which they lived. The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ and cause them to rest in His vicarious obedience to the Father, including the fulfillment of the revealed law because this truly defines righteousness in terms of His life. Commandments involving timeless principles (from all covenants) are good as a rule of conduct, but the law of God is written on the heart of every believer and thus every believer is motivated to obey the law to Christ out of love and gratitude instead of obligation.

Sign of the New Covenant

CT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism just like circumcision was in the OC. Many believe babies ought to be baptized just like babies were circumcised in the OC.

NCT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism and only believers ought to be baptized.

MCT: The sign of the covenant of grace is the circumcision of the heart which is the inner testimony and assurance of the Holy Spirit in the gift of saving faith. Water baptism is an outward testimony commanded by Christ to celebrate the reality of participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through Holy Spirit regeneration unto belief in the gospel.response: I thought baptism like circumcision was a command of the covenant , not the covenant itself. If baptism is a sign, sure I see that, but that it is a seal of God.... that is the work of God in His elect child, not the outward sacrament itself. This is where we get this "breaking of the covenant business" which if the coveannt of God is everlasting is blasphemous to me. They do break the command, but only the elect are ever part of the everlasting covenant of God.

greetings and salutations, el rana

Eileen

01-05-2005, 04:59 AM

James,

Have you read the last article above that you posted the link to? I printed it out, it is 23 pages and I did get to page 10 last night in my studies. It is really very good and brings together both sides, much the same way BT has done in his responses to us.

I find it interesting that he says to limit the 'active' obedience to just the moral law (or the keeping of the whole law) is where the Volker paper and others do an injustice to the active obedience and that too is where I was stranded for a time.........

Very good article, thanks and I am still studying this, you too I take it!!!!

Eileen~

Brandan Kraft

01-05-2005, 08:54 AM

Excellent article. I don't think it goes far enough in describing the obedience of Christ, for example it leaves out Christ's obedience in the everlasting covenant of redemption!

Good quotes from the article:

L&V have confused active obedience with .the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the Mosaic law.. In doing so, they have both limited and simplified the actual meaning of the term. They have limited and simplified it by the words .to the Mosaic law.. Christ certainly never broke the Mosaic law, but Christ.s obedience on our behalf was never so limited. It was, in fact, much higher. His perfect obedience to the Father.s will, in effect, becomes the new standard for righteousness, the fullest revelation of the law of God, a standard Scripture calls the law of Christ, which fulfills and supercedes the law of Moses. This obedience has its single greatest expression in the giving of his life on the cross. L&V have simplified the actual meaning by making the term refer merely to the formal law-keeping of the Mosaic code so that whenever one finds an example in Scripture of Jesus keeping one of the 613 statutes contained in the body of that law, it can be said that there is found the active obedience of Christ (pg. 8)

Commenting on Leher’s and Volker’s understanding of Rom 3:21-26…

There are two major problems with L&V.s treatment of this key passage. The first problem should be obvious by now. The cross is the ultimate expression of both Christ.s active and passive obedience as historically defined, and so the argument that there is no reference to Christ.s active obedience here because the cross is in view simply falls apart. The second problem is that more than the cross is in view here. As noted above, the context is both God.s wrath against sin and his demand for righteousness. .Now apart from the law the righteousness of God . has been disclosed. (v.21), meaning that we can be declared righteous without personally having obeyed God perfectly. The disobedient can be declared righteous. How? From an alien righteousness imputed by God. What righteousness is that? .Namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.. (v.22). The righteousness of God for all who believe comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. It is through the complete faithfulness of Jesus.a faithfulness that has its culmination in his death on the cross.that God imputes righteousness to the believer. (pg. 12)

Again on Phil 3:7-11

Once again, L&V are looking for references to Mosaic law-keeping. If no explicit references are present, they conclude Christ.s active obedience is not in view. This mistake stems from the fact that they have both limited and simplified the actual meaning of the term active obedience. As noted earlier, they err in thinking about the two aspects of Christ.s obedience as distinct and separate, one limited to the Mosaic law-keeping of his life, the other limited to his death. This error can be seen above in the false dichotomy they present as the two possible answers to the big question, .What is Christ.s righteousness?. For them, Christ.s righteousness is either his Mosaic law keeping, which they equate with active obedience, or his death on the cross, which they equate with passive obedience. (pg. 16)

I Cor. 1:30 & 2 Cor. 5:21

Beyond these recurring errors, the key phrase L&V fail to deal with satisfactorily here in both verses is .in him.. Because we are in Christ Jesus, all four nouns of 1Cor.1:30, including righteousness, relate first to him and then to us. He became, for us, righteousness. Our sin is imputed to Christ so that it is then possible to be united with him.a result of which is that all the righteousness belonging to him becomes ours. Union with Christ makes the imputation of his righteousness possible. .Christ became sin for us, in order that .in him we might become the righteousness of God,.. notes Stott on 2 Cor. 5:21. .In other words, our sins were imputed to the sinless Christ, in order that we sinners, by being united to him, might receive as a free gift a standing righteousness before God..48 It is not merely in part of him that we have become the righteousness of God, but completely in him. We are counted righteous to the very same extent that Jesus is, in fact, righteous. To limit that, to say that the entire righteousness of Christ as merited by his faithful obedience to the Father in all things is not wholly reckoned to those who are in Christ is either to deny that they are completely in Christ or to devalue the breadth and the depth of the surpassing righteousness of Christ. (pg. 17)

There is nothing in the context of either Corinthian passage to suggest that the righteousness imputed to the elect is anything other than his entire righteousness. They are entirely found in him by union with him. His entire righteousness is reckoned as theirs. (Pg. 18)

Matthew 3:13-17

L&V dismiss as irrelevant Matthew 3:13-17.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John to be baptized by him in the Jordan River. But John tried to prevent him, saying, .I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?. So Jesus replied to him, .Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.. Then John yielded to him. After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. And a voice from heaven said, .This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight..
Other than the keyword .righteousness,. argue L&V, this passage seems .totally unrelated.51 to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ.s righteousness. I must respectfully disagree. Among the few accounts in the life of Jesus which liberal scholars accept as historical, the baptism of Jesus is at the top of the list.52 The reason for this fact is interesting. The baptism that John the Baptist was administering was a baptism for repentance (Mat.3:11), and yet Jesus had nothing of which to repent. Liberal scholars gleefully see this problem as a thorn in the side of those who would affirm the sinlessness of Christ since those coming to be baptized by John came confessing their sins (Matthew 3:6). However, this is a problem that John the Baptist himself was the first to recognize. John had declared that Jesus was the spotless lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world. Asking .I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?. is another way of asking .Of what does the sinless one who comes to take away my sin have to repent?. It is a very good question. It.s a difficult question. Many attempts have been made to explain it.

Why did Jesus seek to be baptized? A proper understanding of baptism is the key to answering that question. When a believer is baptized, that person is identified with Jesus in his death and his resurrection. Identification is an essential aspect to baptism. What Jesus is doing by being baptized is identifying himself with us. There was nothing Jesus had to repent of and there was nothing baptism could add to his perfect righteousness, but in his baptism Jesus identified himself with us in our humanity that he might be our substitute.that he might be the second Adam. He identified himself with us through baptism so that he might, in his own words, .fulfill all righteousness.. He sanctified himself in our behalf. He submitted to baptism so that he might fulfill all righteousness not for his own sake but for the sake of his people, those with whom he identified in baptism. God then declared that he was well-pleased in his Son just as all who are in him receive the good pleasure of God. It is surely no coincidence that immediately after publicly taking upon himself the obligation to fulfill all righteousness on behalf of his people, the Spirit led him into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Before Jesus could begin his public ministry, he had to be baptized, sanctified in our behalf, identified with us, and then he had to meet the crafty serpent in the wilderness in order to pick back up exactly where Adam failed. (pp. 18-19)

The Presbyterian.s terminology which bifurcates the obedience of Christ into active and, particularly, passive is not helpful. It leads to confusion and a temptation to separate that which is inseparable. Richard Longenecker rightly stated that, .The sacrifice and the obedience of Christ are corollaries which can never truly be separated.. (pp. 21-22)

The primary mistake that Lehrer and Volker make is two-fold. First, they equate the term passive obedience with Christ.s death on the cross. Second, they equate the term active obedience only with Christ.s Mosaic law-keeping. In holding fast to this simplistic and flawed understanding of Reformed theology.s terms, they draw faulty conclusions from their examination of Scripture. In every passage where the cross is front and center and no mention is made of Christ.s keeping the laws of Moses, they repeatedly conclude that the passive obedience is in view to the exclusion of the active. This is incorrect. Christ.s active obedience, Reformed theologians have pointed out and Dispensationalists have confirmed, is demonstrated most clearly in his sacrifice on the cross. Murray taught that, .It is our Lord.s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and passive, and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the obedience of his life and the passive to the obedience of his final sufferings and death..61 .The two accompany each other at every point in the Savior.s life,. wrote Berkhof.62 Edwards concluded that the sacrifice of Christ is not merely part but .indeed the principal part, of that active obedience by which we are justified..63 Lewis Sperry Chafer affirmed .that the sweet savor offerings represent Christ offering Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14), and that this is substitutionary to the extent that, as the sinner is wholly void of merit before God (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22), Christ has released and made available upon grounds of perfect equity His own merit as the basis of the believer.s acceptance and standing before God..64 John Piper acknowledges this historical understanding, writing .Christ.s death itself both paid the penalty for sin and accomplished our positive righteousness. This is one reason why in Scripture there is not a significant distinction made between Christ.s life of obedience and Christ.s death. For Christ.s death is his crowning act of obedience.the culminating act of obedience to the will of God such that in it Jesus perfectly fulfills the law of God imposed upon him, such that he achieves a positive righteousness for us..65 To exclude active obedience from the sacrifice of Christ and make the sacrifice synonymous with passive obedience alone is to completely redefine the active and passive obedience of Christ. It is best to speak of theobedience of Christ, meaning his obedience in the totality of his incarnate life, and thus avoid the misunderstanding if not abuse of the active and passive terminology. In light of this, Lehrer and Volker are called upon to rethink their position paper on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. (pp. 22-23)

Ian Potts

01-05-2005, 10:12 AM

Thanks for posting the article in response to IDS. I haven’t yet fully read the article – only scanned it – but I’d like to respond again to one point which seems to come through in that article.

It seems that the writer disagrees with IDS limiting imputed righteousness to the ‘passive obedience’ of Christ, and describing the ‘active obedience’ as simply law-keeping. I fully agree that the terms are misleading (and I think IDS would agree too). I agree that Christ was active in ALL His obedience and that ALL His obedience was necessary in order to bring about our salvation. Nevertheless what IDS are trying to show is that the actual work of justification which brought in imputed righteousness was done AT the cross, not by Christ’s law-keeping in His life.

The question ISN’T whether imputed righteousness is the obedience of Christ at the cross, or in His life, or both added together. That obedience as such (life, and cross) isn’t what is imputed to us. It is WHAT IS BROUGHT IN BY Christ’s obedience which is imputed, not the obedience itself (Hence all this disagreement about the IDS definitions of active and passive etc. are rather irrelevant - just dust in the eyes).

If the question WAS simply between ‘cross’ and ‘life’ then the answer must obviously be BOTH because ALL of Christ’s obedience is glorious – we wouldn’t want to just take some of it. But the question is NOT THAT. The question is what IS the righteousness imputed, and which act of Christ actually brought about that imputation of righteousness - how was this righteousness wrought and put to our account? The righteousness imputed is the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN CHRIST and it was wrought out and imputed to us through Christ’s sacrifice – we are justified by His blood.

Christ’s obedience (life and death) DEMONSTRATED that righteousness, but that righteousness already existed in God before Christ had completed His lifetime on earth. The ‘vicarious law-keeping’ view essentially teaches that Christ WROUGHT a righteousness to be imputed by legal obedience to the law, both in precept, and in sanction (death), AS THOUGH that righteousness did not exist otherwise. That is what I disagree with, and what IDS essentially disagree with (although perhaps their terminology has possibly led to some confusion). What I believe, is that the righteousness of God already existed but Christ manifested it in His life and PUT IT TO OUR ACCOUNT in His death by taking our sin away in His own body on the tree. Thus His blood justifies us. It was 'wrought' in us at the cross by our being united to Christ, He thus being made our sin, and in three hours taking the sin away, leaving us as righteous in Him. THAT is how righteousness of God was wrought to be imputed to us - by our sin being burnt up in the Saviour. Not simply 'forgiven' but remitted, taken away, consumed, blotted out. Forgiveness is a result of that, but sin actually needed to be blotted out.

So it isn’t Christ’s obedience as such which is imputed (either life OR death) but what He brought in through His sacrificial death. His perfect life was essential to that end, but it is in His death that He was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him – 2 Corinthians 5:21. No one can deny that that verse refers to the three hours in the dark upon the cross when Christ was made sin. YET THAT is exactly how the righteousness of God was imputed to us, through our sin being taken away in the Saviour. It isn’t Christ’s obedience in DOING that which is imputed to us, but what He actually brought in by that action – the washing away of our sin and sins and therefore the imputing of the righteousness of God in Him to us.

This is essentially the point I made in an earlier post to Brandan, which I quote below….

What we have got into here is the application of logic to try to defend a concept. Rather than finding actual scriptural backing, solid support from the scriptures, you have attempted to reason out the issue. But that isn’t really the way one is going to come to an understanding of truth in the matter. I don’t decry logic or sensible reason but it must be Spirit-led, and it must be according to scripture. If scripture plainly teaches that we are “justified by the blood” (Romans 5:9) and then gives a verse that says “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) the latter verse must be understood in the context of those other clear verses regarding justification. Obedience here clearly refers to the death of the Son (5:10) and therefore that justification brought in by his blood.

Your 3 step logic above Brandan is based on a presupposition – which is that Christ’s obedient ‘steps’ are what constitute the righteousness imputed to us, and I think that is where your misunderstanding lies. If we consider Christ's life to be 10 steps of obedience, with the final step being the cross, you are reasoning that if that 10th step is imputed to us as justifying righteousness, and it is dependent upon the previous 9 steps, then surely those previous 9 steps should also be imputed. That is reasonable. I understand your logic. But the question is: do any of those 10 steps constitute the righteousness imputed?

No they don’t. It isn’t the acts of Christ, these 10 steps (or even the last 10th step) which are themselves imputed to us. It is not the ‘10th step’ itself but WHAT CHRIST BROUGHT IN BY THAT STEP. It is not Christ’s obedience to the Father in dying for sinners which is imputed to us as righteousness, but it is BY THAT OBEDIENCE that justifying righteousness was wrought at the cross and imputed to us.

Can you see my distinction here? You have made the ‘cause’ the ‘effect’. Verse 19 says “… so BY THE obedience of one shall many be made righteous”. That obedience was the cause which produced the effect of many being made righteous. That obedience ITSELF isn’t the righteousness (the effect) which is imputed. It is what was done by that obedience. It is, as it were, what Christ DID on the cross which is imputed to us, not His DOING OF IT.

I’d refer readers back to my previous posts which explain these things more fully. I think some of what IDS have written is possibly confusing, and therefore leads to responses such in the article linked. However, if one gets caught up in looking at the OBEDIENCE of Christ as though THAT is the righteousness imputed to us then one will never see this matter clearly. It is the righteousness of Christ which LED TO His obedience. It is the righteousness of God in Christ which is imputed to us – not the obedience which He rendered in EITHER His life or death as such. Much of what I have seen discussed here merely compares legal obedience in Christ’s life, with ‘faithful’ obedience in His life, with obedience in His death, with ALL His obedience, as though that is the issue. It isn’t.

The obedience of Christ is rather like the ‘effect’ which flowed from the ‘cause’ being His righteousness. It is this righteousness of God which is imputed to us – the cause – not the ‘effect’ as seen in Christ’s obedience. What brought about the imputation of that righteousness to us was:-

Firstly Christ’s life in an indirect way, in that He had to be perfect to take away sins.
Christ’s death in a direct way in that it was here that He was made sin for us and took it away in judgment, thus imputing the righteousness of God to us. Thus we are justified by His blood. This death was an act of Christ's FAITH hence we are justfied by HIS FAITH objectively, and believe on that fact through our faith subjectively. Hence the righteousness of God is revealed from faith (Christ's) to faith (ours). Romans 1:17
I hope that makes some sense. ALL of Christ’s obedience flowed from His righteousness, His righteous nature. It sprang forth like water out of a fountain. It is THAT righteousness of God in Him which is imputed to us, that 'fountain'. Not the obedience itself. It is BY the obedience of one that many are made righteous. In a similar way, we as fallen sinners have a fountain called 'sin' (inbred sin, our fallen nature) which springs forth sinful deeds (sins). 2 Cor 5:21 teaches that Christ was made SIN for us (not sins, not the deeds, but the source, the cause) that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him (not the deeds, or obedience, which sprang forth from that righteousness but the actual source, the fountain itself, His perfect righteousness, which led to His obedience).

Must go... :)

In Grace,
Ian

Robert R. Higby

01-05-2005, 07:57 PM

Well, I think it has been made fairly clear what the differing positions are and their respective defenses. I do support the more recent article under evaluation.

For those of us who support the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's divine/human life, it is critical to note the doctrines that some of us do not approve of in the traditional Reformed position:

1. The distinction between active/passive obedience and the resulting compartmentalized exegesis.

2. The eternal law philosophy of Anselm. If Anselm was correct on his view of the atonement, then I would have to subscribe to death-only imputation as a logical corollary. The notion of Christ's LIFE as satisfaction makes no sense in whatsoever in this context, since the 'infinite suffering' of his atoning death in the 'mystical moment' before his last breath (according to this philosophy) would exhaust all satisfaction owed.

3. The consequent absolute necessity view of the atonement. Again, if this theory be true, death-only imputation has to be true as a logical consequence.

4. The view that Jesus fulfilled a covenant of works meriting eternal life that Adam failed to obey.

Positive affirmations:

1. The covenant that Jesus fulfilled was a unique and eternal covenant which no other human being was ever subject to fulfill.

2. All aspects of the atonement are strictly fulfilled in God's sovereignty, according to his eternal purpose. The sufferings and death of Christ are what God determined was necessary to appease his wrath. This event was not an obligation of an eternal law that God was obligated to fulfill.

3. God's indestructible and righteous divine/human life in Christ is what he has sovereignly purposed to give (impute) to all the elect. Again, it is not the obligation of an external law demanding certain actions of God.

Brandan Kraft

01-07-2005, 07:18 AM

Ian,

You sound different now from the ids folk and more like the traditional reformed folk. That's just my opinion.

Brandan

Eileen

01-07-2005, 07:49 AM

In reading the last post of Ian's, I was struck by some things that I couldn't get out of my thoughts (once again), so I wrote him a pm with a short summary of what I thought his last post was saying:

1. The obedience of Christ didn't make him righteous, He was already righteous.

2. He demonstrated His righteousness while on earth by His obedience in both His life and His death.

3. It wasn't the obedience that 'caused' His righteousness, but His 'righteousness' (which is the righteousness of God in Christ) that caused His obedience (in life and death), therefore it was the righteousness (which already existed) that was imputed to us BY the one act of obedience at the cross?

4. In other words....HOW is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, but by the shedding of His blood and His being made sin for us? (and this is what is being called the passive obedience?)

"The act of obedience of the cross by which His righteousness was imputed"

He responsded by saying that the above points were a summary of his last post.

There isn't anything I disagree with in my own summary, leaving out the words active/passive and using only the word obedience....I agree.

Comments please!

Still growing in Grace,

Eileen~

P.S. Doesn't this actually agree with Bob's points made in his last post? Seems like there is mostly agreement here.

Skeuos Eleos

01-07-2005, 10:28 AM

I'm with you Eileen! I am struggling to see the difference. I agree with both your summary of Ian's position and the points in BT's last post. Can somebody tell me whether I am missing a difference between them?

Unfortunately I wasn't able to participate in this discussion originally but I have been trying to catch up over the last few days and I must admit it has been a fascinating discussion to follow and quite a blessing to read. I only wish I could understand and articulate these things more readily! But then perhaps that's why the Lord led me to these forums to benefit from the efforts and skills of others. :)

Martin

Skeuos Eleos

01-07-2005, 12:29 PM

Actually, I think there should probably be another key point in the summary of Ian's last post:
It is WHAT IS BROUGHT IN BY Christ’s obedience which is imputed, not the obedience itself (Hence all this disagreement about the IDS definitions of active and passive etc. are rather irrelevant

and

It is the righteousness of God in Christ which is imputed to us – not the obedience which He rendered in EITHER His life or death as such.

And I think this is the key difference. I think Brandan said earlier in the thread that he thinks that it IS Christ's obedience (all of it, active/passive, i.e. including His keeping of the laws) that is imputed to us whereas Ian appears to be saying it is his divine righteousness that is imputed not his actual earthly obedience. I think I could accept the distinction that it is His overall righteousness that is imputed not His actual acts of obedience although I would have to include His human righteousness in there as well as His divine righteousness (the 'righteousness of God' as Ian puts it). This is perhaps what BT is alluding to when he speaks of the "imputation of Christ's divine/human life". I certainly agree that He was obedient BECAUSE He is righteousness and that it is this righteousness that we need - not merely obedience to a set of external commands.

However, I am concerned about the practical implications of this, which I think Brandan brought out earlier in the thread, i.e. that it would imply that we could not say that Jesus fulfilled the demands of the law on our behalf or, to put it another way, although He kept the commands that we could not keep, it was not on our behalf or in our stead that He did it (this is not to deny that it was 'for us' in the sense that it was for our sakes). But this is what I have always believed! When I look to Christ it is not just because He suffered for my sake, suffered the penalty that I deserve but could not render and gave full satisfaction to God for my sins and not just because He was obedient even unto death nor just because He is absolutely righteous, Holy and good BUT ALSO because He kept all of God's commands that I could not keep. He was obedient for me, on my behalf, in my place. This is what I have been taught but I must admit I am struggling to back that up from scripture just now. So, if I am understanding you correctly Ian, I think I am going to need more study and prayer on this. Of course, I may have completely misunderstood the whole thing and be completely misrepresenting many people in one go! If so, I hope somebody will put me right!

No matter how little I understand this or how much I may have misunderstood, in fact, precisely because I feel so unable to properly understand these things in spite of it being my earnest desire to do so, one thing I CAN say is "thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!"

Martin

Robert R. Higby

01-07-2005, 01:30 PM

Ian:

HOW is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, but by the shedding of His blood and His being made sin for us? (and this is what is being called the passive obedience?)

To answer Martin's question regarding what the real difference is, I think interacting with this point will explain it.

God's sovereign determination to give us his righteousness as an everlasting inheritance, which can never be contained within our own person or experience, is not tied to notions of abstract eternal law and justice (a principle of law to which God's own actions are subject). If it might be tied to such ideas, God would not truly be sovereign--he would be subject to Anselm's notion of feudalistic law and justice projected into the infinite functions of divine and universal law. Anselm (like all medieval Romanists) believed in extreme free-will: both in God and all of his creatures.

If the benefits of the atonement are all grounded in strictly in God's sovereign purposes, there is no logical reason to confine these benefits exclusively to the sufferings and death of Christ. The events of Golgotha certainly comprise the heart of the atonement; this is where God determined to cancel his wrath toward unworthy sinners through a substitute. However, God equally desires in his sovereign wisdom to impute his divine/human impeccable and indestructible life to his people. This includes the entirety of Christ's human obedience while on earth and every one of his victories over the temptations of the devil.

Ugly_Gaunt_Cow

01-07-2005, 01:33 PM

I think the biblical account of the need for a lamb without "spot or blemish" to be sacrifcied makes the topic of active/passive obedience a moot point.

I apologize for putting in my 0.225674 pesos and not lending more to the discussion.

Brother Scott.

harald

01-07-2005, 01:33 PM

I shall add a few rambling thoughts, and at the same time I hope not to bring in any erroneous reasoning this time.

I wonder whether Ian is right or not. He seems to say that "the obedience of one" (KJV; ROM 5:19) was NOT the very thing which constituted the elect righteous. Rather he seems to me to say that the very thing which constituted God's elect righteous in God's sight was what is called (by Paul first of all) "God's righteousness". How Ian precisely defines "God's righteousness" is not yet altogether clear to me.

In connection with this thing of justification it may be of some help to look at Rom. 5:19. The Greek word translated "obedience" does not refer to any blind obedience. Nor to any stubborn obedience. I do not think any here has even argued such. The word here is "hupakoê". According to Zodhiates it is from the cognate verb "hupakouô", which is made up of "hupo" and "akouô". HUPO is "under". AKOUÔ is "I hear/hearken". Strong's Greek lexicon as one definition for the noun "hupakoê" gives "attentive hearkening". I think this is pretty close to Paul's sense here in connection with Christ's "obedience". If myself would define the noun a bit more expandedly I would venture to say it is (here in this context) a submissive and attentive and humble hearkening or heeding which springs from absolute trust and confidence in God, His character and promises. I believe here in this verse under consideration the "obedience" may mean the consummation (in the giving of His spotless life on the dry tree) of the whole life-obedience of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, in v. 19 the "by" (KJV) translates the preposition DIA. This might be taken to mean that the "obedience" is the means through which "the many" shall be (possibly here a future perfect sense "shall have been") constituted (not "made") righteous. From the construction of the Greek I do not at this moment see here (in this verse) that the "obedience" is that very thing which equals the "righteousness" which justifies before God. For one to be righteous before God one must have a "righteousness" which avails with the holy God. The Scripture calls this (in Paul) "dikaiosunê Theou" ("righteousness of God"). I do not know of any explicit passage which would state that "dikaiosunê Theou" is one and the same with "the obedience of one", i.e. an act or instance of obedience on the part of the Messias. But, if "the obedience of One" is one and the same with "pisteôs Christou" (Gal. 2:16b) then to me this would mean that Christ's faith(-fulness)/obedience is that very thing which is said to be "dikaosunê Theou". Because it is "(the) righteousness of God" which is the justifying rightoeusness for God's elect. In Gal. 2:16 Paul interestingly uses two different prepositions in connection with "Christ's faith". In 16a he uses DIA in connection with the formula "pisteôs Iêsou Christou". In 16b he uses EK in connection with the formula "pisteôs Christou". I perceive the difference is as follows:

DIA denotes "by the instrumentality of", possibly including the sense of "at the point of". On the other hand EK denotes "by", NOT in the sense of "through" or "via". But "by" (here) in the sense that the "pisteôs Christou" is that very thing which constituted God's elect righteous in God's eyes. What I say is that by "ek pisteôs Christou" Paul is saying that "Christ's faith(-fulness)" is the righteousness which justifies before God. Christ's faith(-fulness) was what was "imputed" to God's elect. And this faith(-fulness) equalled what is called (by some) "justifying righteousness". Christ's faith-faithfulness (having been) imputed/reckoned to God's elect at the cross is what constituted them perfectly righteous in the sight of God. This is how I interpret Paul's very words in Gal. 2:16. EK does not have the sense or meaning of "through", "via". Rather "by", as in the saying "I was nourished BY the food I just ate". Which is in other words to state that "the food itself nourished me". Not "the food was the instrumentality through which nourishment was given me". I hope I make some sense.

I positively believe that God's elect were justified (constituted righteous, forensically) before God at the point of "pisteôs Iêsou Christou" coming to its fulfillment, which was on the cross of Calvary when Jesus the Messias expired. And furthermore I believe that this "faith/faithfulness of Christ" was also that very thing which was (became, was made) their justifying righteousness (before and in relation to God the Judge of all men). As soon as that "faith of Christ" was reckoned theirs they were constituted perfectly just and righteous in God's sight, and the law could find no flaw in them, nor could God the Judge for that matter, needless to say. And it was God Himself who reckoned or imputed it to them, by a sovereign, self-sufficient, and independent act of legal imputation. God used no instruments or means in that act of imputing. He simply imputed, strictly by Himself, to the elect what He had at hand - "Christ's faith/faithfulness"; and no other thing was in any way needed for that Divine imputation. To argue or reason or claim that imputation of justifying righteousness must involve "faith in Christ" (as "instrument") is to prove one has not believed the Pauline gospel. To have believed a message which teaches such is to have believed a satanic lie. This is one of the negative implications of the positive truth regarding the forensic imputation-transaction which took place at the cross. To condition or predicate justification before God in any sense or measure on "believing on Christ" is to hold to a lie no better than the popish heresy on justification.

What someone said (Ian?), that "Christ's righteousness" which is imputed to God's elect is not the obedience exhibited but rather the spring (the person and character of Jesus the Righteous) of that obedience - this sounds good. But what ought we to think, in light of this, of the saying in Hebrews which says Christ learned "the obedience"? Hebrews 5:8. If this learned "the obedience" was not necessary in order to the justification of God's elect, which seems to be the case if "God's righteousness" is/equals NOT "the obedience of one" but rather only His righteous person and character as "God-man", was not then this "obedience" learned in vain? Or, was this "obedience" not rendered to God with any linking to the justification? Was this obedience unnecessary altogether as respects the justification? If this obedience learned was not imputed for justification, then what was its purpose?
Some might say this "the obedience" in Heb. 5:8 was only some thing which took place at the cross exclusively. I don't think the context allows that.

So, the questions is, what shall one think of "the obedience of one"?? In light of this discussion.

Myself has a hard time with the view of some which says that "God's righteousness" includes Christ's pre-incarnate obedience in the Deity. I do not see the Scripture as supportive of such. I know not if some here hold to this. Myself has believed, and still does believe, that as to time period "God's righteousness" which was imputed for justification to God's elect had a beginning earliest at the incarnation of the Word of God, and it was consummated latest at the expiring of Jesus Christ on the cross. There took place no forensic imputation of a justifying righteousness after the cross-death. It took place when Christ hung on the cross or not at all. To err here is to err fundamentally as touching Paul's gospel.

More could be said, but maybe later.

Harald