# Imputation of active obedience among theologians



## arapahoepark (Nov 26, 2014)

How widespread was the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in the reformation and post reformation? I know that Baxter, Twisser, Vines and Gataker did not hold to it. Were there reasons that they thought it would lead to antinomianism?


----------



## KMK (Nov 27, 2014)

arap said:


> How widespread was the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in the reformation and post reformation? I know that Baxter, Twisser, Vines and Gataker did not hold to it. Were there reasons that they thought it would lead to antinomianism?



The Reformers spoke of Christ's 'whole' and 'perfect' obedience as consisting of both active and passive obedience. Are you saying that the above denied the active obedience of Christ? Or did they simply not distinguish between the two? Can you provide some quotations?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2014)

arap said:


> How widespread was the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in the reformation and post reformation? I know that Baxter, Twisser, Vines and Gataker did not hold to it. Were there reasons that they thought it would lead to antinomianism?



Both our own Professor Alan Strange (in a CPJ article) and Dr John Fesko (in his latest book on the Westminster Standards) argue that the original intent of the Westminster Confession was to affirm the imputation of Christ's active obedience, though some might prefer to say that the Confession requires us to believe in the imputation of the whole obedience of Christ, both active and passive. Dr Fesko makes a lot of the fact that early editions of the Confession say "obedience*,* and satisfaction", as opposed to "obedience and satisfaction", which is the reading found in most modern editions of WCF 11.1. The use of a comma in the original, so he argues, is taken to indicate that the divines believed in the imputation of Christ's obedience as something distinct from his satisfaction, i.e. they distinguished between Christ's active obedience and Christ's atoning death.


----------



## MW (Nov 27, 2014)

arap said:


> How widespread was the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in the reformation and post reformation? I know that Baxter, Twisser, Vines and Gataker did not hold to it. Were there reasons that they thought it would lead to antinomianism?



Antinomians used "the imputation of active obedience" as part of their polemic in denying the obligation of believers to obey the moral law. Since Christ has obeyed for the believer they concluded that there is nothing left for the believer to do. The orthodox maintained that this was true for justification, but not for sanctification.

Baxter was neonomian and did not teach the reformed orthodox doctrine of justification (although there might be evidence he came around later in life).

The orthodox spoke of the imputation of Christ's righteousness and included His active obedience as part of that righteousness. Rejection of this teaching has probably led its advocates to speak of the imputation of active obedience as if it were some distinct benefit in itself, but it creates a wrong impression and probably ends up weakening the doctrine in the end. Its vitality lies in being part of that "all righteousness" which Christ came to fulfil on behalf of His people in His obedience and satisfaction to the law and justice of God in His conception, birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and glorification. Fruit grows on the branch of His active obedience because the branch is an outgrowth of the tree of righteousness.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 27, 2014)

"early editions of the Confession say "obedience*,* and satisfaction", as opposed to "obedience and satisfaction"? Do you mean the reverse? The first edition with proof texts has no comma at 11.1 (imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ) and Carruthers does not even note a variation here. I don't find the comma in the first two attempts at a critical text, Dunlop and Lumisden and Robertson.


Reformed Covenanter said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > How widespread was the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in the reformation and post reformation? I know that Baxter, Twisser, Vines and Gataker did not hold to it. Were there reasons that they thought it would lead to antinomianism?
> ...


----------



## KMK (Nov 28, 2014)

MW said:


> Fruit grows on the branch of His active obedience because the branch is an outgrowth of the tree of righteousness.



Great quote! It seems the distinction has also been emphasized in debates with FV/NPP.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 28, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> "early editions of the Confession say "obedience, and satisfaction", as opposed to "obedience and satisfaction"? Do you mean the reverse? The first edition with proof texts has no comma at 11.1 (imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ) and Carruthers does not even note a variation here. I don't find the comma in the first two attempts at a critical text, Dunlop and Lumisden and Robertson.



I will try to check this point when I get home, but I distinctly remember John Fesko arguing that the edition that Old Paths reprinted included the comma.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 28, 2014)

This 1658 edition has "obedience and satisfaction": https://archive.org/stream/TheHumbl...ntSittingAtWestmins/Binder1#page/n65/mode/2up


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 28, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The first edition with proof texts has no comma at 11.1 (imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ) and Carruthers does not even note a variation here.



Chris, sorry, but I have probably got my wires crossed (I was speaking from memory and did not have the John Fesko book in front of me). Having just looked at the early editions on archive.org, I probably got WCF 11.1 confused with 11.3. In the latter paragraph it begins by saying that, "Christ by his obedience*, *and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified". Whereas a modern edition omits the comma after obedience in 11.3 and reads, "Christ, by His obedience and death". Thanks for your correction.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 28, 2014)

No problem Daniel; I'm not sure the text history of 11.3 is any clearer. Carruthers has no comma and he's all about noticing punctuation variations. Are you thinking of a place in the WLC? I don't have the Fesko either; but thankfully this is not the argument anything hinges on.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 28, 2014)

I will try to check the book again this weekend. I did notice that there is a comma after obedience in this 1647 edition (p. 23): https://archive.org/stream/humbleadviceofas00west#page/22/mode/2up


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 28, 2014)

Okay; the edition at the link is the Evan Tyler Edinburgh edition (Carruthers' edition 5) so we are beyond the official printings for the Assembly and in the first public edition. Edition 4 was printed in Scotland for the Kirk to consider and Tyler set from that. With the freedom of the printer to set punctuation and spelling and the lack of the comma in edition 3 (one published in London for the Assembly; the one republished by Old Paths), it just seems to be a hard case to make that there is any intended significance in the comma. Again, happily any argument is not dependent upon making that case; but it does seem like an oversell. Now, if Edition 1 (first 19 chapters no proofs) and 2 (all chapters and no proofs) have the comma that would help the case; but Edition 3 sort of undoes the significance as there would be the possibility the scribe made the change. Again, the freedom of the printer to set spelling and punctuation has to be a consideration which puts this fine of a point in doubt.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 28, 2014)

Trent:

To answer your OP: Yes, in a general way, those in Reformation and post-Reformation times who denied the IAOC in our justification tended to do so out of a concern (obviously misguided in several respects) that to do so would imperil the need for any obedience on our part and promote antinomianism.

But what I find interesting is this: many suppose that the matter of Christ keeping the whole law on our behalf was never in view before the Reformation. It is quite true that many matters pertaining to Christ's work (as opposed to His person) were not in view until the Middle Ages and then the Reformation. When His person was still the predominate concern, in the ancient church--especially as that came to expression in the fourth and fifth centuries--it is assumed that both His active and passive obedience were not in view. While His passive obedience did await clearer development in Anselm and afterwards, aspects of His active obedience were brought into view by Irenaeus (in his Recapitulation theory, for example), Athanasius (in his _De Incarnatione_, e.g.) and others. 

In other words, the necessity for and fittingness of Christ keeping the whole law for us, which we violated in Adam and in our own lives, was in view in the ancient church and not merely in the latter part of the Reformation. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Nov 28, 2014)

I have just had the opportunity to check Dr. Fesko's presentation. The punctuation argument relates to "obedience, and death." I find it irrelevant to the point being presented. It presumes "death" stands for "passive obedience," which would then make "obedience" itself to be "active obedience," but this is definitely not the way the terms were used in the discussion at the time. These terms relate to what Christ has done in making satisfaction to divine justice and paying the debt which was owed. "Satisfaction" required a willing obedience to suffer the penalty of the law, as well as His death. The fact is, Christ's passive obedience extended throughout His life and culminated in His death. This statement, therefore, has no bearing on whether "active obedience" is imputed to the believer for his righteousness.

Dr. Fesko brings pertinent information to bear on the question when he discusses the Larger Catechism. That is where the case can and should be made: in the context of a teaching instrument, not in the context of a confession of faith. The Confession itself is silent because such matter should not be included in a Confession. That appears to have been the conclusion the Assembly reached in its discussion on the 39 Articles.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 28, 2014)

Matthew:

The discussion about Article 11 by the Divines, before they turned to the new business at hand occasioned by entering into the SLC (in Sept/Oct 1643), yielded, in fact, a decision to add "whole obedience" to the Article that is widely viewed (from the debate) as affirming the IAOC in our justification. 

CVD treats this at length in his dissertation and one can check out the minutes as well to see that the debate about that indicated that when revising the 39 Articles the Divines affirmed the IAOC (over the objections of at least Gataker, Vines, and the prolocutor).

I argue in my article cited by D. Ritchie, above, that the same ethos was taken over into all the documents, though not put in those same terms nor ever expressed, obviously, by using the explicit language of "active obedience." Jeff Jue argues similarly in his article in _Justified in Christ _. Thus a few of us argue that in sum the WS as a whole, including the WCF, appear to affirm the IAOC with respect to our justification.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2014)

From A Puritan Theology:


> Imputation and Surety
> 
> In defending the doctrine of imputation, especially the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, Owen stands squarely within the Reformed theological tradition.49 Alan Clifford wrongly posits a sharp dichotomy between Owen’s formulation of justification and Calvin’s by arguing that Owen’s emphasis on the active obedience of Christ “reflects the high orthodoxy of a later generation.”50 Interestingly, while Owen uses the classical Reformed terminology of “active obedience,” he regards the expression of “passive obedience” in reference to Christ’s work as improper because obedience, by its very nature, could never be merely passive.51 Central to Clifford’s argument is the contention that Calvin’s doctrine of justification speaks only of the remission of sins, not the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. “Clearly, then,” Clifford alleges, “the high Calvinists of Owen’s generation departed significantly from the Reformers.”52 This, however, is a misreading of the Reformer. Calvin says,
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Nov 30, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The discussion about Article 11 by the Divines, before they turned to the new business at hand occasioned by entering into the SLC (in Sept/Oct 1643), yielded, in fact, a decision to add "whole obedience" to the Article that is widely viewed (from the debate) as affirming the IAOC in our justification.



That is correct with regard to the revision of the Articles, but Dr. Fesko is arguing for its inclusion in the Confession. The speeches recorded in Daniel Featley's Dipper's Dipt indicate that after the vote was taken concerning the revision, he brought up the advice of King James relative to the unfitness of including a doctrine of this intricacy in a confession. As "whole obedience" is not included in the Confession it would appear that this advice was taken. This is the view which Alexander Mitchell presents in his lectures on the Westminster Assembly.

The idea of "active obedience" being imputed as if it were a distinct benefit is something more than the imputation of "whole obedience." It cuts up the organism being imputed into parts which were never intended to function on their own.


----------



## MW (Nov 30, 2014)

William Cunningham, The Reformers, and the Theology of the Reformation, 405: "But many eminent divines have been of opinion that the controversies which have been carried on upon this subject, have led some of the defenders of the truth to press these distinctions — especially that between Christ’s passive and active righteousness — beyond what Scripture warrants, and in a way that is scarcely in keeping with the general scope and spirit of its statements. There is no trace of this excess, however, in the admirably cautious and accurate declarations upon this subject in the Westminster Confession; where, while pardon and acceptance are expressly distinguished as separate elements in the justification of a sinner, they are both ascribed, equally and alike, to the obedience and death of Christ, without any specification of the distinct places or functions which His passive and active righteousness hold in the matter.

George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement as taught by Christ Himself, 196: "Had the Church been left to herself without the attacks of error, the two elements of Christ's obedience probably would not have been so much sundered as they have often unduly been. We may distinguish, but not divide, the parts of that obedience which is one."

James Buchanan, The doctrine of Justification, 307: "the distinction may be understood in a sense which serves to discriminate, merely, one part of His work from another, without destroying their indissoluble union; and to exhibit them in the relation which they severally bear to the penal and preceptive requirements of the divine Law. That Law required the punishment of sin, and in the sufferings and death of Christ we see its penalty fulfilled; it required also perfect righteousness, and in the lifelong obedience of Christ, — but especially in His death as the crowning act of His obedience, — we see its precept fulfilled; and by thus connecting His penal sufferings with the evil desert of sin, and His vicarious obedience with the righteousness which the Law requires, we are enabled to apprehend more clearly our need of both, and also the suitableness and fulness of the provision which has thus been made for our acceptance with God."


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 1, 2014)

MW

I am familar with the counsel of James VI with respect to the narrow question of "active obedience" (to the English delegates at Dordt). I also realize that the words "whole obedience" do not appear in the WCF (or the WLC or WSC). The point of my (and others') writings on this has been to argue that the weight of evidence favors that there was no essential change of mind from the adoption of "whole obedience" with respect to Article 11 to the multiple expressions found in the Westminster Standards which are very much to the same effect. The burden, I believe, would be on someone to prove that what the Assembly clearly affirmed by certain language (in September 1643), it did not essentially re-affirm with richer more diverse language later as the Standards provided the occasion for such. 

If the contention here is that the Divines originally affirmed active obedience as an integral and inseparable part of his "whole obedience" (I know of no scholars that deny this), but subseqently either failed to do so or refused to do so in essence, though not using those words (for some reason or reasons), I do not agree and believe, as I argue at length in my article, that the thrust of the Standards, in several respects, is to continue to affirm what the Assembly already had affirmed. In this case, the addition of the (non-voting) Scottish commissioners certainly would not have caused them to take up Gataker's and Vines's cause and deny the IAOC. 

I, of course, agree with and appreciate all the citations in #18 (above) and would point out that the necessity of even speaking so distinctly about the "active obedience" arises from the need to respond to Piscator and others who had denied it. I prefer to emphasize the integrity of his obedience as the cited sources do.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2014)

Prof. Strange, I appreciate what you are saying re. the Confession, and for my part I think the Confession's use of "obedience" would take in "active obedience" as a matter of course, but as a point of historical interpretation the omission of "whole" cannot be regarded as an oversight or accident. There is wisdom in speaking of the simple and undivided obedience of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2014)

Matthew,

I think what I read Alan as saying is that he essentially agrees with you and that his articles have been designed to show that the Westminster Assembly did not move away from this opinion. As I read him, I think he's writing that some modern folk make the claim that the Westminster theologians changed the language due to the influence of some of its commissioners who were of another opinion regarding the IAOC.

In other words, as we've seen regularly, some like to read the Westminster Standards in such a way as to agree with their idiosyncratic notions. In this case, I believe there are those who are applying their idiosyncracies as a grid through which one must read the change in language that removed "whole" from obedience to indicate some sort of capitulation to some of the commissioners at the Assembly. Alan is essentially pointing out that there's no historical basis to support this idiosyncratic theory.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I'm reading you Alan.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Alan is essentially pointing out that there's no historical basis to support this idiosyncratic theory.



Rich, that is how I am reading Prof. Strange also; but the way I see it, the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (IAOC) is one of those idiosyncratic theories. There is no imputation of active obedience. The active obedience is part of that righteousness which is imputed to believers. As the Free Church professors observe, to separate active obedience would divide the undivided obedience of Christ and press it in an unscriptural direction. Antinomians argued that "active obedience" was imputed as an individual benefit, and they argued that Christ had thereby delivered believers from the obligation to obey in the same way that His satisfaction delivers us from the obligation to satisfy justice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2014)

Interesting...I guess what you're pointing out is the idea that passive and active obedience are aspects that can't really be "teased out" of Christ's obedience where we can say: "Here's an example of Christ's passive obedience" in one column while we can say: "Here's an example of Christ's active obedience" in another column. I suppose the point is, whether or not one thinks that there is some way to speak about obedience in one category or another, there are some who divide the two and then deny that Christ's obedience to the Law is imputed to us while others abuse that notion altogether.

I think I understand your point but I also think that we sometimes need categories to underline what others did not used to deny. For instance, we distinguish between regeneration, conversion and progressive sanctification in ways that prior theologians did not precisely because some aspect of the entire spectrum has been denied by some.

That said, I appreciate the opportunity to reflect upon it more deeply and not divide his obedience in ways that Scripture does not simply because some divide it and we are forced to affirm that Christ's whole obedience includes some aspects that we may denote as "active" or "passive".


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Interesting...I guess what you're pointing out is the idea that passive and active obedience are aspects that can't really be "teased out" of Christ's obedience where we can say: "Here's an example of Christ's passive obedience" in one column while we can say: "Here's an example of Christ's active obedience" in another column. I suppose the point is, whether or not one thinks that there is some way to speak about obedience in one category or another, there are some who divide the two and then deny that Christ's obedience to the Law is imputed to us while others abuse that notion altogether.
> 
> I think I understand your point but I also think that we sometimes need categories to underline what others did not used to deny. For instance, we distinguish between regeneration, conversion and progressive sanctification in ways that prior theologians did not precisely because some aspect of the entire spectrum has been denied by some.
> 
> That said, I appreciate the opportunity to reflect upon it more deeply and not divide his obedience in ways that Scripture does not simply because some divide it and we are forced to affirm that Christ's whole obedience includes some aspects that we may denote as "active" or "passive".



To build off of Rich's point, while recognizing that perhaps some (i.e. the antinomians) have made more of the distinction than they should, it seems to me that in general it is those who _deny_ the IAOC that are dividing Christ's obedience. In the main, those who are affirming the IAOC appear to me to be using that distinction in order that they may actually affirm the organic unity of Christ's obedience clearly over those who may deny it by omission.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> To build off of Rich's point, while recognizing that perhaps some (i.e. the antinomians) have made more of the distinction than they should, it seems to me that in general it is those who _deny_ the IAOC that are dividing Christ's obedience. In the main, those who are affirming the IAOC appear to me to be using that distinction in order that they may actually affirm the organic unity of Christ's obedience clearly over those who may deny it by omission.



I can appreciate the aim; but the means are not suited to accomplish it. Simply by speaking of IAOC one part of the obedience of Christ is divided off from another. The opposers are denied simply by asserting the active obedience is part of the righteousness imputed to believers. Nothing more needs to be said.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2014)

Consider how simply David Dickson deals with the opponents, in his Truth's Victory over Error.



> Well then, do not some, otherwise orthodox, err, who deny Christ's active obedience to be a part of his satisfaction, performed in our place?
> 
> Yes.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2014)

The following is from David Dickson's Therapeutica Sacra, 56-57:



> By Christ's Obedience we understand not only that which some call His Actlve Obedience, nor that only which some call His Passive Obedience: for, His Active and Passive Obedience are but two Notions of one thing; for, His Incarnation, Subjection to the Law, and the whole Course of His Life was a continued Course of Suffering, and in all His Suffering He was a free and voluntary Agent, fulfilling all which he had undertaken unto the Father, for making out the promised Price of Redemption, and accomplishing what the Father had given Him Command to do.


----------



## chuckd (Dec 4, 2014)

MW said:


> Antinomians used "the imputation of active obedience" as part of their polemic in denying the obligation of believers to obey the moral law. Since Christ has obeyed for the believer they concluded that there is nothing left for the believer to do. The orthodox maintained that this was true for justification, but not for sanctification.



What does Scripture mean when it says God "works in us" and "ordained that we should walk in good works" and "yet not I, but Christ lives in me"? I agree this does not mean "Christ obeys for the believer" or that it removes any obligation of the believer to obey the moral law, but what is going on?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2014)

Chuck,

Those verses that you quoted articulate the believer's union with Christ. Union with Christ not only entails the imputation of Christ's whole obedience to us as the basis of our right standing with God but also entails that we now live in vital union with Christ such that we have died to the power of sin in His death and now live by the power He supplies. Consequently, in good works, it is not merely that Christ has obeyed for me to atone for me sin but also that we have the power to resist sin and to obey God in light of our union with Christ.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 4, 2014)

Ok one other question.
I remember Rev. Winzer putting a quote down by either Thomas Brooks or Thomas Watson (maybe it was someone else) who put down imputation logically being drawn from union. I have been laboring to find the quote but I have been at a loss to find it.


----------

