# Is Imputation Necessary for the Gospel?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2005)

Is it really that big of a deal? Debatable or unquestionable? Is N.T. Wright on to something more intellectual and closer to Scripture than this traditional view?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

What basis do I plead when I stand before a holy Judge?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

I have interacted with NT Wright's work and sought the best in it. I have employed many of his arguments against real liberals with much effectiveness. I am agree with him a thousand percent that the gospel cannot be privatized into my own neo-Platonic sphere. His discussion of the Kingdom is exhilirating.

However,
At the end of the day there are several foundational issues that I have to deal with:

The horridness of sin
and
The Holiness of God

Several options face us:
1) Embrace the Kingdom at the expense of imputation (traditional liberalism)

2) Embrace imputation and deny the collective outworking of God's kingdom (Pietism)

One is definitely out of the question. Two is a truncated worldview.
I have evaded the horns of this dilemma with help from the writings of Dr Rushdoony.

Reading Rushdoony I was able to see powerful presentations of predestination and the utter sovereignty of God mercifully displayed in the lives of his saints. I then understood that I can embrace the righteouness of Christ imputed to me by faith alone simultaenously pressing the Crown Rights of King Jesus in the public realm (ala Van Til).

Yes, imputation is important for only it can deal with the foundational issues of the day.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 3, 2005)

No FV! However, I know of people who don't understand imputation correctly who I'm sure are Christians. After all, it isn't our perfect theology which is imputed to us - it's Christ's righteousness. Good thing, I'd be in trouble otherwise.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 3, 2005)

If imputation is not necessary then for what reason did Paul waste his time with writing Romans five? Or, the entire book for that matter other than the personal greetings.


----------



## Herald (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> What basis do I plead when I stand before a holy Judge?



And the answer is?!! BINGO!! Yahtzee!! 'Nuff said.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 3, 2005)

Is there a sin debt against my account?
Yes.
Do I need to have the sin on my account removed?
Yes.
Does it have to go on someone else's account?
Yes.
Can't it just go "into the ether"?
No.
Is it OK just to have my sins imputed to Jesus?
No.
Do you need righteousness to go to heaven?
Yes.
Does the righteousness have to be perfect and entire?
Yes.
Do you have it?
No.
Can you create it?
No.
Can you start over?
No.


OK. Double Imputation, or the debit of your sin to another and the credit of somebody else's perfect righteousness to you, is what you need.

"So thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it."
Last recorded words of J. G. Machen, a telegram from his deathbed.


----------



## Augusta (Sep 3, 2005)




----------



## turmeric (Sep 3, 2005)

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. We are expressly told in romans 7:1 - 6, that even Jewish believers who have been under law were made dead to the law by the body of Christ, that they might be joined to Another, even to Him who was raised from the dead. One has beautifully said, "Christianity begins with the resurrection."

This was taken from William R Newell's commentary on Romans. This guy was definitely a believer, a little bit too Keswickian, to be sure, and very dispensational, but a believer. He spent a lot of time pointing out that we are not saved by anything we do, but by what Christ has done.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Is there a sin debt against my account?
> Yes.
> Do I need to have the sin on my account removed?
> ...



I might just make this my screensaver! Love the presentation in this. Now why don't I see that on church signs?!?!?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 3, 2005)

Traditionally the choice has been between a justification based upon my intrinsic righteousness/justice or imputed righteousness. 

Anyone who denies the imputation of Christ's active and passive (whole) obedience necessarily must turn to his intrinsic righteousness. Rome called this "iustitia inhaerens" (inherent righteousness). They said that this is "Spirit wrought" with our cooperation. 

It was this view, justification grounded on inherent righteousness, that the Reformation rejected and replaced with their doctrine of imputation.

Tom Wright, having re-defined justification in terms of membership in the community, has created serious problems in the doctrine of justification before God. This aspect of his work has come under signficant criticism. Chuck Hill's critique, that it is impossible to think that Paul is more concerned about membership in the community than he is about appearing before the living God, is particularly trenchant in this regard. 

Unless one is a perfectionist Anabaptist (they communicated it to the modern world) or Wesleyan "the good news is that I am being sanctified and on the basis of that sanctity I shall appear before God" is not good news at all. Who among us is so sanctified? 

For this reason the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism teach that either we have in Christ a complete Savior or not at all.

rsc

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 3, 2005)

Isn't imputation the gospel?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

If someone voted no, wouldn't they be banned from the board?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 3, 2005)

Now the question is: since the early church did not clearly teach imputation, was there a gospel after Paul and before the Reformation?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Now the question is: since the early church did not clearly teach imputation, was there a gospel after Paul and before the Reformation?



It's true that the early, post-canonical, church was not absolutely perspicuous about the ground and instrument of justification, but it doesn't follow that no one believed it or taught it. 

We can think of analogous situations today. There are many congregations where the gospel is believed but where it is not taught with the sort of clarity one would hope to see. This is true in too many Reformed churches not to mention the evangelical/revivalist churches where the focus is on religious experience. 

The situation was muddled and unhappily so. Yet there are hints and shadows (almost like the OT) of a doctrine of imputation that became clearer in reaction to Thomas' (Aquinas) strong realistic doctrine (God says what he says because we are what we are) that opened the way for an explicit (confessional Protestant) doctrine of imputation.

The Protestant doctrine of imputation did not simply fall from the sky. It had forebears in the broader Christian tradition.

rsc


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 4, 2005)

It should be remembered that simply because a topic was not prolifically written on does not mean that it was not preached or taught. Historically, it means it was not time for it to be _defended_.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 4, 2005)

The doctrine of the Holy Spirit wasn't discussed in the early church as the doctrine of the Father and the Son. Does that mean it wasn't believed in the early church. Matt is correct in assessing that doctrines not discussed were just not in dispute yet.

St. Paul obviously wrote about it. It is in the word.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is Imputation Necessary for the Gospel?



Do you need chocolate chips to make chocolate chip cookies???


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2005)

I think that not only "double imputation" (as it was labeled above) is a necessary element of the gospel, but there is a third imputation that is necessary for a proper UNDERSTANDING of the gospel. That is the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity.



> WLC Question 72: What is justifying faith?
> Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, *being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,* not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.



The idea of imputation, or an alien righteousness is what seperates the wheat from the chaff. Those who trust in their own righteousness will get just what they want when called to give an answer.



> Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
> Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'



Notice how people are defending themselves according to their own works and good deeds. They are appealing to what they could do for God, instead of the perfect work that Christ did for his people.

Only the works of Christ can stand the awesome judgment of our Father on that great day.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 4, 2005)

Would it be a correct understanding to say that orthodoxy teaches imputation of Christ's satisfaction *and* righteousness, while NPP teaches imputation of only Christ's satisfaction?


----------



## doulosChristou (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Would it be a correct understanding to say that orthodoxy teaches imputation of Christ's satisfaction *and* righteousness, while NPP teaches imputation of only Christ's satisfaction?



I've never come across NPP writings that use the term imputation at all. It's just absent. It appears the closest some get to the concept is _union_ with Christ, but all notions of forensic justification and imputation seem foreign to NPP exegesis of Pauline texts to the extent that I have read on the subject.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 5, 2005)

Without the _general_ understanding of imputation, you have no fall, and no Gospel. Both the bad news and the good news disappear.

Imputation is essential to understanding the Gospel _rightly_.
Yes, that means those who do not understand it are in dire need to understand it lest they perish. Even the thief on the cross understood that Christ must remember him when He comes into His kingdom. The absolving right of the Kingship of a pure and holy Christ was the thief's only hope.


----------



## pduggan (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
> ...


But how does saying that (truth) account for the context, where Christ is speaking of the way his actual people will be known by their good fruit (deeds) revealing their status, and that it will be those who "do" and put into practice the teachings of Jesus (all the putative 'law' proclamations of the Sermon on the Mount) who will find they can stand on the Day of judgment.

As Bunyan said


> The soul of religion is the practical part: Pure religion and undefiled, before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. This Talkative is not aware of; he thinks that hearing and saying will make a good Christian, and thus he deceiveth his own soul. Hearing is but as the sowing of the seed; talking is not sufficient to prove that fruit is indeed in the heart and life; and let us assure ourselves, that at the day of doom men shall be judged according to their fruits. It will not be said then, Did you believe? but, Were you doers, or talkers only? and accordingly shall they be judged. The end of the world is compared to our harvest; and you know men at harvest regard nothing but fruit.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 15, 2005)

To understand imputation is to GET the Gospel, to not is to adhere to another Gospel. This IS the hill to die on absolutely no compromise.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 15, 2005)

So does that mean my perfectionistic anabaptist friends are unsaved? They think it's Christ's resurrection life imputed to them - i.e. his present righteousness - they don't get that it's his active obedience while here on earth. So do I have to die on this hill with them or they're going to hell?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 15, 2005)

If our debt is paid for by Christ's death and resurrection (as believers), then why do we need righteousness as well? The debt has already been paid for us. Nothing more is owed, is it?


----------



## pastorway (Sep 15, 2005)

Just because the debt is paid does not mean heaven is now open. There is more to getting to heaven than just paying our sin debt. With our sin paid for we are a blank slate, so to speak. We must then meet the rest of the eligibility requirements for membership in the Kingdom - which include complete righteousness and holiness. With Christ's rightesouness imputed we now have the requirements for fellowship with the Father. 

Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.



Phillip


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 16, 2005)

But the reason we needed the sin debt paid was because we weren't righteous enough.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> But the reason we needed the sin debt paid was because we weren't righteous enough.



No, the reason we need the sin debt paid is because we were unrighteous. We were not merely lacking a quality, but had actual guilt.

It would be helpful to review the Romish doctrine of the _donum superadditum_ and the Protestant refutations of it (especially William Cunningham's)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 16, 2005)

What is the difference between being unrighteous and needing to become righteous?

Being unrighteous -> Death

Christ paid our penalty, by dying the death for us.

Now our debt is paid.

If we still needed to be righteous, wouldn't we be needing ANOTHER messiah to die for us??

*confused*


----------



## brymaes (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> What is the difference between being unrighteous and needing to become righteous?
> 
> Being unrighteous -> Death
> ...



This is why we believe in the COMPLETE obedience of Christ, i.e. his passive obedience on the cross that removed our guilt, and his active obedience, fulfilling the Law on our behalf.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> What is the difference between being unrighteous and needing to become righteous?
> 
> Being unrighteous -> Death
> ...



It is the difference between being not guilty and innocent. The difference between not convicted and a son. The penalty is paid for our sins, but that would merely place us in the same place as Adam. We are righteous because of the work of Christ. We don't need another Messiah, but have one Messiah who accomplished both in His finished work.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 16, 2005)

*Propitiation!*

He took our sin and its penalty upon Himself and gave us His complete obedience (righteousness) so that we could be adopted as sons!

He became our substitute, both in His life and His death.

Phillip


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 16, 2005)

And he rose again!


----------



## pduggan (Sep 16, 2005)

How sharp is the division between what we "get" from the active and passive obedience though?

Is not Christ's passive obedience reckoned to our account not merely to cleanse our guilt, but also as actual righteousness for our justification? Is it completely seperate from the idea of fulfiling the law in and of itself? It is obeying a command of the father after all.

I'm trying to recall where the idea originates that the 'passive obedience' is for covering sin, excluding from it any idea of righteousness itself.


----------



## pduggan (Sep 16, 2005)

See the strange thing to me is that the most worthy meritorious righteous act that Christ performed on my behalf is not his perfect tithing, his avoidance of lust, his proper use of righteous anger, and his honoring of his father and his mother. 

It was his accepting the "one act of righteousness" of dying on the cross, performing an act at the father's demand that by the torah results in curse, not blessing. He followed a command for us that according to God's law brings curse.

Is this not the most meritorious thing Christ did in his earthy life? How, then do we claim that we are in absolute need of all the lesser righteous acts of Christ imputed to our account for our justifcation?

Not sure of the answer, but it seems odd to me.


----------



## Brian (Sep 16, 2005)

Pduggan,


> It was his accepting the "one act of righteousness" of dying on the cross, performing an act at the father's demand that by the torah results in curse, not blessing. He followed a command for us that according to God's law brings curse.


 Christ´s death was not the "œone act of righteousness."


> Rom 5:17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
> Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
> Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.


Paul literally says of Adam "œas one disobedience (_paraptomas_ "“ error, transgression)" in v. 18 and then in v. 19 "œone man´s disobedience (_parakoes_ "“ inattention, mishear, disobedience)." Of Christ, Paul says "œone act of righteousness (_dikaiomatos_ "“ equitable or just deed) and then in v. 19 "œthrough one understanding (_hupakoes_ "“ correct listening, obedience)."

Adam´s sin culminated in eating the fruit. However, this was not his first or only sin. He failed to drive the serpent from the garden. He didn´t protect and lovingly lead his wife in the face of error and temptation. He didn´t keep God´s command to subdue the garden, or to have dominion as man over the snake. He conspired with the woman to rebellion in eating and making clothes. He listened to the woman instead of God. 

You cannot boil any one of these down to his disobedient act. What God required of him was a life of obedience and loving submission to his creator. What Adam offered was an untrusting trajectory of self-reliance and disbelieving wilfullness.

Similarly, Christ offered a life of obedience (if you were going to pick one act, I´d pick resurrection, by the way). As second Adam, he tended the garden from the serpent and laid His life down to protect His bride. Born under the law, He perfectly and faithfully kept every jot and tittle. The act God required of Him was a lifelong devotion to Torah. When God says, "œThis is My Son in whom I am pleased" He overarches all the patriarchs, David, the prophets, etc, and says "œTHIS IS THE ONE!"


> See the strange thing to me is that the most worthy meritorious righteous act that Christ performed on my behalf is not his perfect tithing, his avoidance of lust, his proper use of righteous anger, and his honoring of his father and his mother.


 This kind of theology does not know what to do with Christmas. It just has to jump straight to Easter. You and I need Jesus to be a righteous baby for when we were babies, a righteous toddler for when we were toddlers, a righteous adolescent, teen, adult, etc. When Simeon saw baby Jesus, he could truly say "œNow mine eyes have seen salvation."


> Is this not the most meritorious thing Christ did in his earthy life?


 No.

Christ´s death did not procure ANY merit. It was required. When He imputed sin onto Himself, He deserved every ounce of God´s wrath. It produced no righteousness, whatsoever. He drank the cup to its dregs.

(It is true that it was merit-producing of Christ to submit to this. But technically, that is another issue.)


> How sharp is the division between what we "get" from the active and passive obedience though?


You´re right here to wonder this. While it is good and necessary to talk about these two distinctions, they are exegetically difficult to distinguish. However, their respective pay-offs, while completely harmonious and correlated, are vastly significant separately. 

*For the thread*

_The requirement for entrance into paradise and enjoying God as your God and living in His presence is 1000 merit points. It just so happens that correctly keeping the Law will pay you 1000 merit points down at the merit bank, which you can then bring and present to God. 

Through your own various efforts at keeping the law, things haven´t been going very well. In all of your energetic law keeping, you notice you are not ever getting it right, and you keep getting dirty hands, and you always spill on your clothes. You curse in your frustration at vainly keeping the law, and just realize "“ whoops, there´s another mistake.

Every now and then you go to the merit bank to cash in on your earnings. This is a bit embarrassing, especially since your hands are dirty when you hand over the paperwork, and its embarrassing being seen in such filthy rags for clothes. However, what is even more discouraging is when the cute-looking teller comes back. She announces that your paperwork is pretty shoddy, and you end up owing the bank money. How disappointing.

Years go by at this vain process, and you manage to acquire yourself massive amounts of debt. Things are not getting better, and you are in way over your head.

Turns out, however, that this guy down the block "“ Jesus "“ is running a deal where He takes your bank PIN and takes all of your debt. What is more, He´ll put you as co-signee on His account. Rumor has it, and a quick look at the clean robes Jesus is wearing confirms, that this Jesus guy is quite good at Torah observance.

You know of a few people who have this certain theology that won´t allow them to take anything for free. Nevertheless, they do enjoy getting their debt reduced by making a visit to Jesus. However, they often have to come back, because no matter how often they start over fresh with no debt to the bank, its only a matter of time before they manage to accumulate a staggering amount of debt at their own vain attempts at righteousness.

You, however, are not so foolish, and gladly turn in your debt card to Jesus, who in return makes you joint-trust members on His bank account. You have the required merit points necessary to gain God, and all the glory of His presence._

With Paul, may we follow a righteousness not of law keeping, but a righteousness accumulated by faith.

For Christ,
BRIAN


----------



## pduggan (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Brian_
> Christ´s death did not procure ANY merit. It was required. When He imputed sin onto Himself, He deserved every ounce of God´s wrath. It produced no righteousness, whatsoever. He drank the cup to its dregs.



That seems like a very strange way to put things.

Under the law, atoning sacrifices were still 'pleasing aromas' to God.

And of course, all torah obedience is 'required' and when you have done it all you are still an 'unprofitable servant' because you have done that which was not required. Heb 9:14 and 10:14 talk of the offering he made (his death on the cross) perfecting us, and how in his crucifiction he was offered 'without spot'. 

And Romans 3:25 seems to speak of a propitatory righteousness that remits sins coming to us from his death and shed blood.

Even favoring the later developments of Reformed confessionalism like the Savoy moving to state


> by imputing Christ's active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness,


seems to indicate that we have something credited to our account that comes from the obedience of death on the cross.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 16, 2005)

His death was not passive obedience, you know! He was obedient even unto (all the way to) the point of death. He willfully, actively, and voluntarily laid down His life (so that He could take it up again). His death was the last act of His active obedience to God - so ALL of Christ's rightesouness is ACTIVE. And it is ALL necessary for our salvation. John 10:11-17.

EVERY particle of His righteousness (whatever terms we use to define it or delineate it) is imputed to us when we are justified. Without it all we have no savior and no salvation. We are without total holiness, and anything less than total holiness is unholy and unfit for fellowship with the Holy, Holy, Holy Father!

Phillip


----------



## pduggan (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> His death was not passive obedience, you know! ... His death was the last act of His active obedience to God - so ALL of Christ's rightesouness is ACTIVE



Why are they distinguished in reformed theology then?

Is Christ's death on the cross a meritorious act of lawkeeping?

How, if going to the cross brought on the curse of the law?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



Active refers to His intentionalperfect obedience to the law. He loved the law of God, and kept it perfectly, from the heart. 
Passive, refers more to his submitting to the work of atonement, accepting the humiliation of his status on earth, being slain for sinners, and quenching the wrath of God, just as a lamb before the slaughter. 
But His passive righteousness would be worthless without the active righteousness. The OT required perfection, as pictured by the sheep without blemish. 
They are intertwined certainly in the consciousness of Jesus. He actively submitted to the humiliation. But the humiliation was required in order to satisfy God's wrath against us, while the active obeying of the law by Christ was required for God to declare us righteous, as if we perfectly kept the law on our own.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 17, 2005)

This is about like a poll that asks "Is Christ the way, the truth and the life?"


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> This is about like a poll that asks "Is Christ the way, the truth and the life?"



What would you say...2%? Maybe Skim....


----------



## turmeric (Sep 17, 2005)

Here's a question for those struggling with the necessity of Christ's active righteousness - and no, I wasn't smart enough to think of it myself - it's an R.C.Sproul thing. Here it is: If His active obedience wasn't necessary for our salvation, if all we needed was a pure sacrifice, why did He come as a baby, why didn't He just appear as a perfect sinless adult human, go straight to the Cross, rise again and leave?


----------



## pduggan (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Here's a question for those struggling with the necessity of Christ's active righteousness - and no, I wasn't smart enough to think of it myself - it's an R.C.Sproul thing. Here it is: If His active obedience wasn't necessary for our salvation, if all we needed was a pure sacrifice, why did He come as a baby, why didn't He just appear as a perfect sinless adult human, go straight to the Cross, rise again and leave?



That's not much of a point, as someone like that wouldn't be a natural human being, and wouldn't have a basis (natural descent)) for being a covenant head.

I mean, you could answer that point by saying that while the atonement is sufficient for our salvation, we also need the example of his holy life to imitate, so he comes with full natural human life.

But does the Torah require animals of X years of age because the worshipper needs the imputed life of X years of animal goodness?


----------



## pduggan (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> They are intertwined certainly in the consciousness of Jesus. He actively submitted to the humiliation. But the humiliation was required in order to satisfy God's wrath against us, while the active obeying of the law by Christ was required for God to declare us righteous, as if we perfectly kept the law on our own.



But his being made "under the law" was also part of his humiliation. And when he died under the law, he also canceled the 'written code which was against us', because he suffered death (the penalty) under the law as our representative. If the written code is canceled, how is it that we need his obedience to it to be accepted?

Is the active submission to the humiliating death (called 'passive' obedience) then NOT something that is also imputed to us as our righteousness? The Savoy says it is, and I'm curious if anyone disagrees.

[Edited on 9-19-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Here's a question for those struggling with the necessity of Christ's active righteousness - and no, I wasn't smart enough to think of it myself - it's an R.C.Sproul thing. Here it is: If His active obedience wasn't necessary for our salvation, if all we needed was a pure sacrifice, why did He come as a baby, why didn't He just appear as a perfect sinless adult human, go straight to the Cross, rise again and leave?



This point speaks to those who think of Jesus death as his only passive obedience. It does not address, as someone has already noted, however, the question of Jesus' qualification to be our Savior.

This problem goes back, at least as far as Anselm's _Cur Deus Homo_ (Why the God-Man_; which we're reading [or re-reading] as part of a course in medieval theology this semester. Anselm wanted to defend God's honor and the incarnation and death of Jesus against Jewish/rationalist criticism that such is not "fitting" for God. As part of his case he argued that (e.g., 1.9-10) all human beings, sinful or not, federal representative or not, owe a life of obedience to God full stop. Therefore, as a true man, Jesus owed a life of obedience to God in order to qualify himself to be a Savior, therefore only his death on the cross is accepted "for us." 

This was the basis for those among the Reformed (and a few Westminster) divines who rejected the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. The response was and is that Jesus did not need to qualify himself to become a Savior, because he was not born sinful (this is the point of the virgin conception) and, contrary to Anselm's assumption, it is the sinner who must satisfy God's law. The covenant of works, a version of which Anselm seems to have more less assumed without calling it that, is no longer a possible way of salvation after the fall. Anselm didn't account for this. Jesus did need to keep the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption, but not for himself, but for us.

Therefore Jesus was qualified from birth to serve as our second federal head (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15) and to carry the burden of God's wrath all his life (Heidelberg Catechism 37), to be born "under the law" (Gal 4:4). 

Further, Jesus had (and has) his divine righteousness which was also, as it were, put to the service of our salvation. This also qualifies him to be a Savior ab initio (from the beginning). Thus, virtually all, but a handful rejected Anselm's assumptions in favor of the Reformed three- covenant, federalist (two-Adam) scheme and saw that Jesus obeyed not for himself, but for us and that his "whole obedience" (Abp Ussher's phrase) was for us and it was entirely active and passive, for us.

The confessional Reformed and Presbyterian world has accepted Anselm's argument for the substitutionary nature of Christ's death and the necessity of the incarnation (those are brilliant) but not his argument regarding what Jesus needed to do to qualify himself to be our Savior.

rsc


----------



## pduggan (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_The covenant of works, a version of which Anselm seems to have more less assumed without calling it that, is no longer a possible way of salvation after the fall. Anselm didn't account for this. Jesus did need to keep the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption, but not for himself, but for us.



But Adam was not born sinful either, and the covenant of works was given for him to perform. As a true man, how does he avoid coming under the covenant of works for himself?

I've usually heard that Jesus obedience to the law was BOTH for us AND qualified him to be our savior, not that there would be an either/or here. So this seems new to me.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 19, 2005)

John Owen - Justfication by Faith "“ p.163, SGP



> Those by whom this imputation of righteousness is rejected, do affirm that the faith and doctrine of it do overthrow the nedcessity of gospel obedience, of personal righteousness and good works, bringing in antinomianism and libertinism in life. Hereon it must, of necessity, be destructive of salvation in those who believe it, and conform their practice thereunto. And those, on the other hand, by whom it is believed, seeing they judge it impossible that any man should be justified before God any other way but by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, do, accordingly, judge that without it none can be saved.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_The covenant of works, a version of which Anselm seems to have more less assumed without calling it that, is no longer a possible way of salvation after the fall. Anselm didn't account for this. Jesus did need to keep the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption, but not for himself, but for us.
> ...



I could live with this, though a little unhappily, as long as one includes the "for us" (pro nobis) which is at the heart of the biblical and Reformation gospel.

To say, however, that he owed obedience for himself is to follow Anselm where we should not follow him. Why did Jesus owe obedience for himself? Yes, he is true man and humans owe obedience to God by nature, but there are discontinuities between Jesus and Adam. The first Adam was created in righteousness and true holiness but he wasn't the God-Man. Jesus is. 

If we follow Anselm (and this is where a lot of folk seem to want to go; any half-way house such as is proposed above is inherently unstable since it has within it competing views) then we cannot say with Q. 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism that, as a believer, it is as if I have kept all of God's law and have never broken any of them. In other words, there is never any positive righteousness. 

This actually does not correspond with the covenant of works. Under the covenant of works, Adam was capable of meriting his reward. If Jesus gave what owed for himself, then he could not MERIT anything for us, and yet our understanding of Scripture is that indeed he merited positive righteousness to be imputed to us.

So why the concern? Folks want to put Jesus under the law for himself because they think it is unjust for God to punish for the same sin twice. This is, as I argue elsewhere, a rationalist argument. 

The covenants of redemption and works function as they were constituted not according to some universally accessible (to God and man) principle of rationality. 

In other words, contrary to those who argue that either the reward of the covenant of works or the punishment was disproportional (proponents of prelapsarian grace often appeal to the notion of disproportionality), God gets to determine what is and is not just. He himself is the standard of justice. We must measure justice by God's self-disclosure not by what seems just to us.

That is why the divines spoke of God's "voluntary condescension" and not "grace." The will of God, which is wholy just, holy, perfect in every respect, is the standard of measure.

This is all to respond to the implicit and explicit criticism by those opposed to the imputation of active obedience (not in your post) that "its not fair that Jesus didn't have to obey for himself." 

rsc


----------

