# The imputation of Christ`s active obedience



## Michael Doyle (Apr 21, 2010)

So upon listening to the Heidelcast with our own Scott Clark and Reverend Keister I am curious. What position must one argue to deny this essential truth, the imputation of Christ`s active obedience? 
Where has this argument stemmed from? (Arminian, Charismatic, etc)
Upon hearing the great program I ask, is this essential Christian doctrine? Why or why not?

I am convinced of this truth and yet find it amazing that it is disputed.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 21, 2010)

I'll be interested in the more informed responses that follow mine, but I'd say it is essential. There is no hope without it. And it should be noted that its denial is at the heart of the NPP and FV heresies.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 21, 2010)

Michael, the dispute is far older than Charismatics, and even Arminians. Though the opinions were not monolithic among the various Reformed theologians who denied it, I think it not far off the mark to ascribe the cause chiefly to the disputes with Rome. Over and against the Romanists, various Protestant theologians were keen to emphasize that justification consisted in the forgiveness of sin. These theologians did not deny the usefulness or profit of Christ's active obedience, maintaining rather that his "active obedience" was necessary for his "passive sacrifice" to be acceptable and imputable unto us. Though I certainly do not agree with their position, nevertheless (as I think has been noted here on the PB a few times), there is much misunderstanding as to what the controversy actually was. 

*Edit*
I would add that, more particularly concerning the Westminster tradition, many of the English theologians who were wary of speaking of imputation of Christ's righteousness as involving his active obedience did so out of fear of concessions to the Antinomians.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 21, 2010)

This seems humorous to me, but I have believed in the importance of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience for so long now that I can't remember what, exactly, the objections to it are from the perspective of dispensationalistic evangelicalism.


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2010)

Michael Doyle said:


> Upon hearing the great program I ask, is this essential Christian doctrine? Why or why not?


 
First, the "doctrine" is not stated correctly. Christ's righteousness is imputed, of which active obedience is a part. "Active obedience" is not and cannot be imputed for the simple reason that a person cannot be reckoned a law keeper while he is considered a law breaker.

Secondly, were it stated correctly, it would be very difficult to argue that it is essential Christian doctrine when it is acknowledged that the first reformed teachers did not insist on it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 21, 2010)

Not long before he died (January 1, 1937), the famous Westminsterian scholar, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, expressed his own support for the active obedience of Christ. In a final telegram to his friend Professor John Murray, Machen wrote: "I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it." Amen!


----------



## TimV (Apr 21, 2010)

The more immediate concern in today's Reformed circles is whether the confessions insist upon it. Many FVers say, for instance, WLC 70



> Q. 70. What is justification?
> 
> A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience *and* full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.



is only talking about His passive obedience. Notice the "and", which seems to make it obvious that at least in Presbyterian denominations that use the Westminster Standards you'd have to take an exception to deny Christ's AO is part of our system of doctrine.


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2010)

TimV said:


> The more immediate concern in today's Reformed circles is whether the confessions insist upon it. Many FVers say, for instance, WLC 70
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

One would have to equate "perfect obedience" with "active obedience" and "satisfaction" with "passive obeidence" in order to arrive at this interpretation, which would be both a theological and historical mistake. Obedience has reference to law while satisfaction relates to justice. "Passive obedience" was rendered to the law, so that "perfect obedience" does not necessarily require "active obedience" in order to make sense. It undoubtedly makes sense to include "active obedience" in "perfect obedience" if the teaching is accepted (and many of the divines would have accepted it); but the wording itself does not necessitate that understanding.


----------



## TimV (Apr 21, 2010)

> but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.



It would help me if you could explain how one could defend this as not including active obedience. When you say



> "Passive obedience" was rendered to the law,



Do you mean that "passive" or paschal, i.e. paying the penalty for sin, was rendered in the sense that Christ paid the penalty of the law, or do you mean that "passive" includes the keeping of the law? My understanding is that passive obedience is Christ's payment for our sins, while active obedience means law keeping.

Thanks.


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2010)

TimV said:


> It would help me if you could explain how one could defend this as not including active obedience.



I thought I did that in the previous post. As "passive obedience" is "perfect obedience" it is not necessarily the case that "perfect obedience" requires "active obedience."



TimV said:


> My understanding is that passive obedience is Christ's payment for our sins, while active obedience means law keeping.



This is, perhaps, the reason for the confusion. "Passive obedience" is "obedience" to the "punitive" claims of the law. "Satisfaction" is the effect which follows from Christ's obedience, but the act of obedience itself refers to the voluntary offering and giving of Himself and suffering the penalty of the law in the place of His people.


----------



## DTK (Apr 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> but the act of obedience itself refers to the voluntary offering and giving of Himself and suffering the penalty of the law in the place of His people.



Indeed, which is why John Murray emphasized rightly (I think) that...



> The term "passive obedience" does not mean that in anything Christ did was he passive, the involuntary victim of obedience imposed upon him. It is very obvious that any such conception would contradict the very notion of _obedience_. And it must be jealously maintained that even in his sufferings and death our Lord was not the passive recipient of that to which he was subjected. In his sufferings he was supremely active, and death itself did not befall him as it befalls other men. "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself." See _RA&A_, p. 20.



Thus, obedience to the holy law of God was not the extent of our Lord's active obedience, for He actively obeyed God to the point of death, even the death of the cross.


----------



## TrueConvert (Apr 21, 2010)

Here's an old thread that may be of some help:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/does-wcf-teach-imputation-christs-active-obedience-23626/


----------

