# Justification: The Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ Imputed



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 14, 2005)

With the rise of the heresy of the Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul, and the Auburn Avenue Theology, there stands a continued need for reproclaiming the truth of historic Christianity. Contrary to modern liberal theologians who are continually trying to appeal to the masses with new fangled theological ideas, such a reproclamation of orthodox theology is in accord with both the Gospel, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and needs no revision, updating or change. Reformed Theology does not need to be modernized; it simply needs to be understood....

More here:
The Active and Passive Obedience of Jesus Christ
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Justification/McMahonActivePassiveObedienceJesus.htm

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway (Nov 14, 2005)

The Obedience of Christ by Greg Van Court answers the idea that it was only the passive obedience that mattered.

Phillip


----------



## turmeric (Nov 14, 2005)

Go git it guys!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> The Obedience of Christ by Greg Van Court answers the idea that it was only the passive obedience that mattered.
> 
> Phillip



He says some good things, but I think his rejection of the Covenant of Works is detrimental to the view he is trying to espouse.


----------



## BrianBowman (Nov 14, 2005)

> Reformed Theology does not need to be modernized; it simply needs to be understood.


 - from Matt's article.

Absolutely - and for so many of us this is a life-long pursit. We don't need to waste time chasing "new-fangled" ideas, but to devote ourselves to truly understanding and reinforce the foundational truth of the faith we espouse. This is the only true safeguard against error and the continual danger for heresy to creep into the Church.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



Matt or Phil,

Do New Covenant Theologians reject the Covenant of Works?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

Dr. McMahon,

First, thank you exceedingly for your representation of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. 

Question: Can you please define the "Covenant of Works," its requirements, scope, and purpose, and explain whether or not it contains the necessity of the "obedience of faith" ?


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Nov 16, 2005)

Good timing!!!

I am reading "Justification VIndicated" by Robert Traill right now.....
keep up the work


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2005)

> "Covenant of Works,"



The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. (Gen. 2:16-17; Hosea 6:7; Gal. 3:12; Gen. 3:22: Rom. 5:12-20; 10:5; Gen 2:17; Gal. 3:10)



> its requirements



"upon condition of perfect and personal obedience"




> scope



"to Adam; and in him to his posterity"




> whether or not it contains the necessity of the "obedience of faith"?



"upon condition of perfect and personal obedience"


----------

