# Christ's active obedience



## VanVos (May 23, 2005)

*Christ\'s active obedience*

I have encountered a lot folks recently who deny the active obedience of Christ, and to be honest it is starting to frustrate me. 
Therefore I think it would be edifying to have a discussion on this issue.

1689 London Baptist confession of faith says the following:

Chapter 11: Of Justification
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God. 
( Romans 3:24; Romans 8:30; Romans 4:5-8; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:30, 31; Romans 5:17-19; Philippians 3:8, 9; Ephesians 2:8-10; John 1:12; Romans 5:17 ) 

2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. 
( Romans 3:28; Galatians 5:6; James 2:17, 22, 26 ) 

3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified; and did, by the sacrifice of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in their behalf; yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners. 
( Hebrews 10:14; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; Isaiah 53:5, 6; Romans 8:32; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:26; Ephesians 1:6,7; Ephesians 2:7 ) 

What other scriptures prove this precious doctrine i.e. Matt 3:15, 5:17.? What else does the bible have to say on this matter?. 

VanVos

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 23, 2005)

The single best popular modern exegetical treatment of this issue is Piper's _Counted Righteous in Christ_


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 23, 2005)

As good as Piper's treatment is, there is no discussion of the covenant of works and its relationship to the biblical doctrine of imputation. I realize the imputation of Adam's sin was not the focus of his book, however, these issues are vitally connected in Scripture and a fuller (no pun intended) treatment of this issue ought to include a discussion fo the covenant of works. I also realize that Piper probably (I say probably because I do not know where he currently stands on the CW) does not hold to a covenant of works, so may not even be able to discuss it properly. The book Fred mentioned is a shift for Piper in the right direction and on many fronts is, as Fred said, very good, indeed.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> As good as Piper's treatment is, there is no discussion of the covenant of works and its relationship to the biblical doctrine of imputation. I realize the imputation of Adam's sin was not the focus of his book, however, these issues are vitally connected in Scripture and a fuller (no pun intended) treatment of this issue ought to include a discussion fo the covenant of works. I also realize that Piper probably (I say probably because I do not know where he currently stands on the CW) does not hold to a covenant of works, so may not even be able to discuss it properly. The book Fred mentioned is a shift for Piper in the right direction and on many fronts is, as Fred said, very good, indeed.



Rich,

Agreed. I should have been clearer: when I said "this issue" I meant the imputation of Christ's active obedience. Piper does not deal much with covenant theology, or systematics in general for that matter, but he does treat the relevent texts on Christ's active obedience pretty thoroughly.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 23, 2005)

I agree with Fred.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 23, 2005)

Some other good works for reference would be Berkhof's ST in the related sections. I also would recommend Hugh Martin's _The Atonement_ and John Girardeu's _Federal Theology, It's Import and Regulative Influence_. Both do excellent jobs at explaing the active obedience of Christ as not only necessary for our justification, but for any of the covenant blessing we enjoy. Christ merited and inherited all those graces for us.

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## turmeric (May 23, 2005)

First let me say that the clear teaching of the imputation of Jesus' active rightousness has revolutionized my Christian life this year. I absolutely believe in it and it figures in my presentation of the Gospel.

Having said that, I have a question; do people, like some Dispensationalists, who do not believe that this is the righteousness imputed to us, embrace what is necessary to be saved? The ones I know believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but not what He did on earth. It leads to many bad doctrinal problems, I'm asking, can they be saved?


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 23, 2005)

VanVos,

I'm only a lay person, but it seems inherent to the entire idea of justification. If sin is omission/commission of lawlessness against God's Holy Law, then it necessarily follows that to "just pay for" the act of lawless omission/commission does not fulfill the Law since the Law requires not just a neutralization of violation but a positive fulfillment, otherwise it never is fulfilled. 

When a sin is committed it is not as if one goes from a positive position of obeying to a neutral position, but rather one goes directly in the opposite direction and negatively against the Law. Thus, the Law is not only NOT satisfied but dissatisfied.

To bring us back to "ground zero", no debt, only pays for the negative violation. The positive still remains in need if the Law is to be fulfilled. 

Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, not nulify it.

Ldh


----------



## VanVos (May 23, 2005)

I agree with the thoughts being shared here. I seems that to deny the active obedience of Christ is to diminish the gospel. Here's a article I was reading today from an anti-reformed website. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/vicarlaw.htm

It makes for quite a depressing read. The authors says that we are made righteous through our union with Chirst not by imputation of Christ active obedience. It seems that these group that deny Christ's active obedience also deny total depravity....hmmm http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm

VanVos


[Edited on 5-24-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> I agree with most thoughts been shared here. I seems that to deny the active obedience of Christ is to diminish the gospel. Here's a article I was reading today from an anti-reformed website. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/vicarlaw.htm
> 
> It makes for quite a depressing read. The authors says that we made righteous through our union with Chirst not by imputation of Christ active obedience. It seems that these group that deny Christ's active obedience also deny total depravity....hmmm http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm
> ...


And you will see the consequences in their theology as they try to make up for the short fall in rejecting that righteousness by substituting their own legalism as a consequence. Man cannot escape the necessity of righteousness. It's engraved in his being. If they won't have Christ's then they try to do their own. 

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## VanVos (May 24, 2005)

Hi Patrick 

Yes I agree, that's why I believe this doctrine is so important. If one rejects the doctrine of Christ's active obedience then one opens up the door for "self-righteousness".

VanVos


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

They use the active righteousness of Christ as an example to follow - and they talk about our union with Christ in a way that is quietistic & perfectionistic. I had the misfortune, soon after my conversion, to read William R Newell's commentary on Romans, and was terribly confused when he got to Chs.5-8. I gave up on Romans for a while.


----------



## Myshkin (May 24, 2005)

Is denying the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ systematically/logically cohesive with the example theory of the atonement? Or can one hold either error without necessarily holding the other? They seem inherent to one another.


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Is denying the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ systematically/logically cohesive with the example theory of the atonement? Or can one hold either error without necessarily holding the other? They seem inherent to one another.



According to that first article VanVos quoted, John Nelson Darby held to the disbelief in the need for Christ's active obedience. I don't think that he or D L Moody believed in the governmental theory of atonement as Finney did. However, it creates an atnosphere of legalism which is conducive with what Finney was trying to do. Did you see the article by John Kennedy which was quoted here first but now it's on www.monergism.com in his topic of the month section?

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## Myshkin (May 24, 2005)

Meg-
I didn't see it.

I asked my question because something clicked in my head that I never thought of before regarding the rejection of Christ's active righteousness imputed to us. Those who deny it are certainly messing up the gospel indeed, but I am just now "seeing" how it also messes up the doctrine of atonement itself. In other words, the rejection of Christ's righteousness imputed to us seems to be an error that by its very nature destroys every other systematic doctrine, like a domino effect. It can't be held as an isolated error, at least not for long. So holding this error doesn't just destroy the gospel, our means to salvation, it seems to also destroy every major doctrine there is by logical necessity. Is my logic failing me here?

And the example theory was Pelagius' view, the governmental view was held by Grotius (the arminian view?). So is the rejection of Christ's active righteousness imputed an arminian error, or a pelagian error?


----------



## andreas (May 24, 2005)

Try this on the active obedience of Christ.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_5/book5_03.htm.

andreas.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 24, 2005)

Link corrected:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_5/book5_03.htm

And a good quote:



> It is an obedience well pleasing in the sight of God; because voluntary, perfect, superior excellency, performed in the room and stead of his people, and by which they are justified. God is well pleased with his Son, and with his people, considered in him; and with his righteousness and obedience imputed to them; because by it the law is magnified and made honorable; Christ always did the things which pleased his Father; his obedience, in all the parts of it, is acceptable to him; and so are his people on account of it, in whose room and stead it was performed; this is what is commonly called the active obedience of Christ, which he performed in life, agreeable to the precepts of the law.


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

Sorry, here's the link

http://www.pbministries.org/articles/John Kennedy/hyper-evangelism.htm


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 24, 2005)

One of the better treatments of this question is still James Buchanan, _The Doctrine of Justification_ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997).

Historically two of the principal grounds for denying the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (IAO) have been 1) moralism and 2) rationalism. 

This pattern holds presently. All of those who deny it today (N. Shepherd, Federal Vision types; Arminians etc) deny it because they believe it will lead folks not to obey the law or because its "unjust" or both. In the latter case, since the late 16th century, critics have established an a priori standard of "justice," that they then use to criticize IAO. In the former case, they tend to augment Christ's work with our own law keeping either implicitly or explicitly.

There is a chapter on this topic in the forthcoming faculty vol. _The Foolishness of the Gospel_ expected out in 2006 and we've addressed it here: 
http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification.htm

We also addressed this in our 2004 conference, The Foolishness of the Gospel: (from the seminary website)

<<THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE GOSPEL:
Covenant and Justification Under Attack

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is under attack. A series of movements threaten to undermine the good news of the gospel. Confusion and outright rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith alone exists. The doctrines of covenant and justification are under attack. It is time to respond.

Message/Speaker
- Introductory Remarks, Dr. W.Robert Godfrey
- Justification Under Fire, Dr. Steve Baugh
- Law, Gospel and Covenant, Dr. Michael Horton
- Active Obedience, Dr. R. Scott Clark
- Sola Fide, Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
- Justification and Sanctification, Dr. Hywel Jones
- Question & Answer, Discussion Panel

Available on CD or cassette with a minimum donation of $56.00 Supplies are limited. Please call WSC today at (760) 480-8474 to order your conference recordings today.>>

rsc


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 24, 2005)

A Master's Seminary prof, Andy Snider, wrote his Th.M. thesis on (well, against) active obedience. He presented a paper at an ETS meeting several years ago on it. I was present. He denied the imputation of active obedience, saw no need for it, and said there is no exegetical basis for it. The NCT guys in Mesa, AZ, used to have Snider's thesis on their site, but last time I checked it was not there. The NCT church these men are connected to were forced to leave FIRE, the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals, over this issue. You can read the NCT take on this at: http://www.ids.org/reading_room/topics/imputation.html. Their view is not that of all NCTers. However, I think it is an inevitable implication of their overall system, which is being tweeked constantly as it is challenged.

Edited to fix url. Please remember to use url tags

[Edited on 5/24/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 24, 2005)

There is a brief response to Snider in the forthcoming vol.

rsc


----------



## Robin (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> We also addressed this in our 2004 conference, The Foolishness of the Gospel: (from the seminary website)
> 
> <<THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE GOSPEL:
> ...



Wow -- what a powerful and solid study on this! Thank you Dr. Scott --- I got it....worth every penny...and then some.

R.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 24, 2005)

"There is a brief response to Snider in the forthcoming vol.

rsc"

Most excellent! Who is the publisher so I can try to get a review copy?


----------



## AdamM (May 24, 2005)

In regard to active obedience, how would Sinder reconcile his position with the seminary statement of faith shown below? Does he nuance "imputation of Christ's righteousness to us" as something other then active obedience? 



> Justification
> We teach that justification before God is an act of God (Romans 8:33) by which He declares righteous those who, through faith in Christ, repent of their sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Isaiah 55:6 7) and confess Him as sovereign Lord (Romans 10:9 10; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:11). This righteousness is apart from any virtue or work of man (Romans 3:20; 4:6) and involves the imputation of our sins to Christ (Colossians 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21). By this means God is enabled to "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 24, 2005)

Adam,

It has been some time since I heard the lecture and read other material related to this. I believe Snider limits "the imputation of Christ's righteousness" to the benefits of His death on the cross. I think he limits Christ's sufferings to His death and limits imputation to the benefits of His death alone. I do not think this is the official position of the Seminary - though I could be wrong. I know it is not the position of all the elders at Grace Community Church. Phil Johnson, my good friend, holds the traditional Reformed view on this. There may well be others, too. When I was at TMS, one of the profs, now with the Lord, vehemently denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience. This caused me to read John Murray and I've been sober ever since.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 24, 2005)

Rich,

We have it with a publisher now and are waiting for contracts. Thus, I can't say who the publisher will be yet.

We would like to get it out in '05, but it may not be able to get out until early '06. 

Here's an overview: http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification_Faculty_Symposium.htm


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

bump. I still want to know, are these folks who believe we have Christ's righteousness, but not the righteousness of His active obedience in His life on earth, Christians? (I'm not asking if they're Reformed, obviously not!) Where will they spend eternity? Do they need to be evangelized as a mission-field, or simply provided with better catechesis?


----------



## VanVos (May 25, 2005)

Thanks for the links Scott. It encouraging to know that people like your self are defending these important truths. May God continue to bless your work.

VanVos


----------



## cih1355 (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> VanVos,
> 
> I'm only a lay person, but it seems inherent to the entire idea of justification. If sin is omission/commission of lawlessness against God's Holy Law, then it necessarily follows that to "just pay for" the act of lawless omission/commission does not fulfill the Law since the Law requires not just a neutralization of violation but a positive fulfillment, otherwise it never is fulfilled.
> ...



This reminds me of something. Do Wesleyans deny that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer? Do they believe that justification is only the forgiveness of sins?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by cih1355_
> 
> This reminds me of something. Do Wesleyans deny that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer? Do they believe that justification is only the forgiveness of sins?



I'm not sure about the later Wesleyans but here is a sermon by Wesley himself.
http://www.godrules.net/library/wsermons/wsermons20.htm

Clearly he affirms it, though inconsistent with his Arminianism.


----------



## VanVos (May 25, 2005)

Here's another thought.....

Surely the active obedience of Christ is not only necessary for our justification but also for the receiving of the Spirit (The Holy Spirit indwelling a person) Eph 1:13 Acts 2:38. If the law is ordained to life Rom 7:10 then it most be perfectly fufilled in order to enter into eternal life. In redemption the gift of eternal life is giving to the elect by the Spirit. If we do have a postive imputation of Christ righteousness then how can the HOLY Spirit indwell someone as the pledge of the future inheritance? 

Is this a valid argument?

VanVos

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 25, 2005)

Dr. Clark,

I hope the publisher is P&R. I have a review agreement with them and can get a copy quickly and grata!


----------



## turmeric (May 26, 2005)

*3rd Time\'s the Charm!*

Is a person, say, a dispensationalist or charismatic, who believes in the atonement and is trusting Christ for the forgiveness of his sin, be a Christian if he doesn't understand whence imputed righteousness comes - from the *perfect life of Christ on earth?* What if he thinks incorrectly that it's Christ's *present and divine* righteousness?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Here's another thought.....
> 
> Surely the active obedience of Christ is not only necessary for our justification but also for the receiving of the Spirit (The Holy Spirit indwelling a person) Eph 1:13 Acts 2:38. If the law is ordained to life Rom 7:10 then it most be perfectly fufilled in order to enter into eternal life. In redemption the gift of eternal life is giving to the elect by the Spirit. If we do have a postive imputation of Christ righteousness then how can the HOLY Spirit indwell someone as the pledge of the future inheritance?
> ...



The Spirit was promised to Christ for us. He is the agent responsible for applying all that Christ inherited to us. Regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification were all part and parcel of the eternal life Christ inherited for us. The difference here, is that we are sinners. We must be purged from our sins, both judicially and practically if we are to enjoy communion with God in eternity. The Spirit is the one who transforms us from sinner to glorified saint. Adam would not have needed this since he was without sin before the Fall. Read Berkhof on the Covenant of Redemption in his Systematic Theology. He's really good on explaining how all the benefits of salvation were earned by Christ. Basically, not only was eternal life meritted by Christ, but also everything necessary to bring us to eternal life. 

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 26, 2005)

Meg,

Your question is very difficult to answer and reluctance is appropriate. I would judge no, i.e., that not believing in IAO is not a sufficient disqualifier. 

I good number in the history of the church did not believe IAO, even the first prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly and the highly respected Piscator. They were wrong for not believing IAO, but that does not mean that they were not justified. 

It is possible, because of the dire state of catechesis in many of our churches, that the view you describe would be held by a good number of folk in our churches. 

What folks confess with their mouths and believe with their hearts may be two different things. I think Warfield said that everyone is a Calvinist on his knees. 

Most of the patristic and medieval church believed in justification through sanctification. Now we know that is just false. Were they all condemned? I am not willing to say that. 

There is a difference between being ignorant or confused and malevolent. Trent looked at the gospel squarely and condemned it and us to eternal punishment. That is malevolence and willful blindness. 

As for those of our Reformed circles today who deny IAO, as grievous as that its, it is probably not as great an error as denying justification sola fide, sola gratia. The biggest problem is that it tends to lead follk away from the the gospel, and it tends to create the conditions for denying the gospel. Denial IAO is usually an indictor of other problems (moralism and/or rationalism). 

Tall grass around a house is unsightly and but its real danger is that it is unhealthy. It hides rats and they bring disease and snakes. If one walks in the grass, one is likely to find unhappy companions and further, it is a fire hazard. When the fire comes, it is too late to cut the grass. Better to keep the grass down in the first place.

rsc


----------



## D Battjes (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Meg,
> 
> Your question is very difficult to answer and reluctance is appropriate. I would judge no, i.e., that not believing in IAO is not a sufficient disqualifier.
> ...




What is IAO? All these acronyms in the Presbyterian camp kill me!!!!:bigsmile:


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

Imputation of active obedience.

Rich the Baptist.


----------



## D Battjes (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Imputation of active obedience.
> 
> Rich the Baptist.



Thank you Rich.


I read above that arminians deny this, I never saw that in Wesley, Van Armin himself. Is it true?


----------



## turmeric (May 26, 2005)

These would probably be later Arminians. Arminius himself made errors but not as serious as his later followers.

Thanks, Dr. Clark!

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## Theological Books (May 26, 2005)

David VanDrunen is contributing to the OPC committee paper specifically (I think) in the area of active obedience and imputation. It should be very thorough, exegetical, systematic, and orthodox.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by Theological Books]


----------



## doulosChristou (May 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> A Master's Seminary prof, Andy Snider, wrote his Th.M. thesis on (well, against) active obedience. He presented a paper at an ETS meeting several years ago on it. I was present. He denied the imputation of active obedience, saw no need for it, and said there is no exegetical basis for it. The NCT guys in Mesa, AZ, used to have Snider's thesis on their site, but last time I checked it was not there. The NCT church these men are connected to were forced to leave FIRE, the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals, over this issue. You can read the NCT take on this at: http://www.ids.org/reading_room/topics/imputation.html. Their view is not that of all NCTers.



Hi Rich. Not only is it not the view of all NCTers, it's not the view of the great majority of NCTers. As a friend to Tom Wells, I'm sure you already know that most of us view the imputation of Christ's total obedience (active and passive) as essential to NCT. I recently wrote a response to the guys in Mesa, AZ, that can be acquired at the Sound of Grace bookstore here:

http://www.newcovenantmedia.com/list_book.php?browse=true

It's titled "The Obedience of Christ." If you u2u me your mailing address, I'd be happy to send you a free copy.

Your affectionate brother in Christ,

dC


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jun 2, 2005)

Dear Greg,

Thanks so much for the further clarification. I know of your paper and skimmed it with interest when it first came out. I think soemone sent a link to me or maybe even a copy of it. I very much appreciate your efforts concerning this issue. Have the Mesa men responded?

Press on brother!


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 2, 2005)

Rich,

They've read through the paper, but no response yet from Lehrer or Volker. Thank you for the encouraging word!


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jun 2, 2005)

i'm surprised that no one has mentioned:



> Machen died untimely, January 1, 1937 of pneumonia in Bismarck, North Dakota. His last words were "So thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it."


from: http://www.two-age.org/redemptive_historians/Machen bio.htm


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 2, 2005)

Richard,

I love that quote of his and many more of Machen's. Machen was a REAL TRUE Gospel warrior and not a wantabe. His quotes often declare the Gospel in and of themselves.

That will or should be in some form or another ANY one of our death bed cries! 

Like I tell my wife the easiest way to check ANY doctrine is to:

1. Ask, "Where does it point the eyes of my soul (faith/trust)? If Christ alone then it is true and if not then it is false."

2. Take the doctrine to the persecutions, trial or death bed test. Will it render forth and strengthen faith (trusting in Christ alone) and comfort in spite of and under these pressures, or will it render forth terror, doubt and fear?

Compare Machen's death bed profession with others who worried about something else!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> i'm surprised that no one has mentioned:
> 
> 
> ...



 Wonderful last words from a true man of God.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Dear Greg,
> 
> Thanks so much for the further clarification. I know of your paper and skimmed it with interest when it first came out. I think soemone sent a link to me or maybe even a copy of it. I very much appreciate your efforts concerning this issue. Have the Mesa men responded?
> ...



Well, I just found out that they have responded in a four part audio which they have made available online here:

http://www.idsaudio.com/ids_hour.htm

The total response is two hours long, and I have not yet made the time to listen to all of it since I'm busy with an intensive Summer term at Southern. From the first bit, I gather that they were not favorably impressed with the paper.  I have, however, received favorable responses from John Reisinger, Fred Zaspel, and Tom Wells. 

Affectionately yours in Christ,

Greg



[Edited on 6-13-2005 by doulosChristou]


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jun 12, 2005)

Greg,

Good to hear of the favorable responses. I have had some contact with Fred Zaspel recently and it was, as usual, very encouraging.

I had the privilege of meeting one of the elders of the Mesa church. We had a great time poking fun at each other. He is a dear man and has a dear wife. My wife and kids loved them, at first sight, as I did. 

Stand fast!


----------

