active/passive obedience

[Brandan Kraft]

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]

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]

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]

Ian,

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

Brandan

[Eileen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Robert R. Higby]

Well, it is true that Christ 'obeyed' God only as a man--I think we can all agree on that! However, that is probably where our agreement ends. On with the "slaughter":

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.

Boy, have I said anything on this forum against those who disagreed with me that approximates THIS LEVEL of accusation? I hope not!

I find the exegesis of Gal. 2:16 entirely inadequate and out-of-context, in case anyone is interested. The very next breath of Paul states that WE believed, not that Christ believed for us in his earthly life or in us mystically (totally apart from our own volition). The context has to be that 'faith of Christ' is the faith that he owns but enables us to exercise. Likewise, Rom. 3:22 states that the 'faith of Jesus Christ' is UNTO ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE, meaning that the faith owned and gifted by Jesus Christ is poured into us by the Holy Spirit--that we might believe and live!

Christ did not believe in the atonement of another to acknowledge that he had no personal merit before the Father! He possessed faith only in the sense of FAITHFULNESS, not in the sense of the evidence of things unexperienced and unseen.

[Robert R. Higby]

I believe the following passage from the Institutes clearly refutes the notion that Calvin taught death-only imputation; i.e., the imputation of only Christ's 'passive' obedience. I only have time to copy a portion tonight but certainly recommend the whole section:

When it is asked then how Christ, by abolishing sin, removed the enmity between God and us, and purchased a righteousness which made him favourable and kind to us, in may be answered generally, that he accomplished this by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom. v. 19). And indeed he elsewhere extends the ground of pardon which exempts from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ, "When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law" (Gal. iv. 4, 5). Thus even at his baptism he declared that a part of righteousness was fulfilled by his yielding obedience to the commandment of the Father. In short, from the moment when he assumed the form of a servant, he began, in order to redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance. Scripture, however, the more certainly to define the mode of salvation, ascribes it peculiarly and specially to the death of Christ . . . {many scriptures quoted} . . . "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. v. 21). I will not search out all the passages, for the list would be endless, and many are afterwards to be quoted in their order. In the Confession of Faith, called the Apostles' Creed, the transition is admirably made from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in which the completion of perfect salvation consists. Still there is no exclusion of the other part of obedience which he performed in life. Thus Paul comprehends, from the beginning even to the end, his having assumed the form of a servant, humbled himself, and 'became obedient to death, even the death of the cross' (Phil. ii. 7). And, indeed, the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection; for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not offered spontaneously. Book II, Chap. XVI, Section 5.

[Forester07]

IDS has posted a audio response on their website to the paper written by Greg Van Court. So if you are still interested in studying this topic they add another part to the debate. If you have time to listen to their audio, post what you think about their response. The response is in 4 MP3's so I hope you have a fast connection.


Here is the link. http://www.idsaudio.com/ids_hour.htm

Later,

Forester

[Brandan Kraft]

Moving thread to "Great Past Discussions"....