# Does the WCF teach the Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience?



## Semper Fidelis

From an FV-friendly source:


> My argument is that the WCF itself does not require anyone to believe in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Now, let me go even farther: Not only does the confession not teach that doctrine; it is logically impossible for it to teach that doctrine . The WCF cannot require that doctrine!
> 
> 1) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker helped *author* the WCF, and . . .
> 2) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker rejected the imputation of Christ's active obedience . . .
> 3) The WCF does not teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience?


Discuss please...


----------



## RamistThomist

The conclusion says more than the premises allow. All that the conclusion can logically say is that Twisse/Vines/Gataker did not teach active imputation. This is what the argument should look like:

1) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker helped *author* the WCF, and . . .
2) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker rejected the imputation of Christ's active obedience . . .
3) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker represent the dominant view of the WCF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion 1: The WCF does not teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience?

They are missing premise 3. But there argument doesn't say whether those three repreent the dominant view.


----------



## wsw201

J. is correct. They would have to prove that the views of these men was the dominant view, which it wasn't.

Chapter 11 on Justification notes in section 1 : *...but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them...* or from section 3 : *Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf .*

Notice it says "obedience and satisfaction" and "obedience and death". Otherwise known as active and passive obedience. How does the FV friendly person deal with this?


----------



## Scott

Why is it important to the FV guys to deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ? (I have not really followed this debate or the FV much).


----------



## Poimen

Wayne:

Speaking from (not _for_) the other side, couldn't they say that Jesus' obedience to His Father was by or through His suffering (which led up to His death) and not necessarily positive law keeping?


----------



## RamistThomist

Scott said:


> Why is it important to the FV guys to deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ? (I have not really followed this debate or the FV much).



Because they say the formulation is a throw-back to Rome because of "merit theology" (this was Norm Shepherd's essay in Backbone of the Bible)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Some young lady who use to post here put this together. 

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;* discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.* It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.
(WCF 19.6)

from the larger catechism:
Q. 55. How doeth Christ make intercession?

A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

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.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God?s free grace?

A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God?s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?

A. 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 assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth 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.


----------



## MW

The way the question is framed is now the usual manner of stating it, but to speak of the imputation of active obedience is a misnomer. This is part of the problem with the reaction to the FV. Statements are made which are themselves an over-reaction. We say that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, and this includes His active and passive obedience.

As to the WCF, it does not require a person to maintain that Christ's active obedience is a part of the righteousness which is imputed to believers. The mention of "obedience" might allow one to maintain that Christ suffered and died in compliance with the Father's will. This is what is meant by "passive" obedience in distinction from "active" obedience, which is made to the precepts of the law.

Concerning the allegation that it is impossible to maintain the doctrine of active obedience and uphold the WCF, this is simply absurd. What does this person do with the fact that men like Samuel Rutherford, Anthony Burgess, and a host of others explicitly taught it. Not to mention the fact that Gataker declined to publish his work on justification because he knew it was out of accord with his brethren's views. Moreover, the divines explicitly debated this point in their discussion on the thirty-nine articles, so we do not need to base our conclusions on what a few men did or did not hold. According to Dr. Featley's account of the proceedings, the final determination was in favour of the doctrine of active obedience, but that reformed divines had refused to make it a test of orthodoxy, and so they forebore including it in their revision.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thank you Rev. Winzer.

I think there is something highly instructive to the attitude of Gataker regarding the doctrine. This is an attitude that the FV men do not have which, in my mind, is one of the primary cancers of their movement.

Because Gataker knew his was a minority position and would lead to rancor he kept silent regarding a position he knew would bring division. In contra-distinction, men use his position and the liberty of the Confession in this point as an _excuse_ for teaching something they know causes rancor and divides the Church.

I find that attitude deplorable.


----------



## Romans922

Spear Dane said:


> The conclusion says more than the premises allow. All that the conclusion can logically say is that Twisse/Vines/Gataker did not teach active imputation. This is what the argument should look like:
> 
> 1) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker helped *author* the WCF, and . . .
> 2) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker rejected the imputation of Christ's active obedience . . .
> 3) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker represent the dominant view of the WCF.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Conclusion 1: The WCF does not teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience?
> 
> They are missing premise 3. But there argument doesn't say whether those three repreent the dominant view.



And in fact, given what we learn from WLC and WCF it is obvious that the Standards teach the Active obedience of Christ and since it does it shows that the majority of the Divines agreed with this doctrine. 3 people definitlely do not make a majority (or even anywhere close to a majority) with the number of the Westminster Divines. And because 3 divines disagree with the Active obedience of Christ does not mean that someone (a FV advocate) can say that the Confession does not teach it. It clearly does, the divines are not the Confession. The Confession is the Confession. Whoever this person is has no logic whatsoever given the true facts. And I am saying this, one who has no formal training in logic!!! It is just common sense. Oh, wow, common sense realism...right? No?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

See a previous discussion of this subject here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> See a previous discussion of this subject here.



Andrew,

Thank you for this link. I want to interact on something that you quoted in that previous thread:



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Additional historical information for consideration:
> 
> Peter J. Wallace, _Whose Meaning? The Question of Original Intent_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were several matters on which the Westminster Divines were not fully agreed. In some cases, like the matter of the supralapsarian versus infralapsarian debate or with respect to the timing of the millennium, the Confession remained more or less silent. Others, however, had to be addressed. It is interesting to note that wherever they could, they found ways of allowing for a diversity of views among sound Reformed men. They did this by adopting wording that could be interpreted in different ways.
> 
> Perhaps the best known example is in the chapter on justification. The Thirty-Nine Articles asserted that the "whole obedience and satisfaction" of Christ was imputed to the believer in justification, but William Twisse, Richard Vines, and Thomas Gataker objected to this language being included in the new confession. *They did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead.* After some debate, the Assembly decided to use simply the language of "the obedience and satisfaction" of Christ, which could be interpreted either way. Twisse, Vines, and Gataker would understand this to refer solely to the passive obedience of Christ, while the majority would understand it to include both the active and the passive obedience of Christ.(2)
> 
> 2. Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, (Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1897) 154-160; William S. Barker, Puritan Profiles (Mentor, 1999), 158, 178.
Click to expand...

Now that bolded portion was an interesting bit of information and I need this fleshed out a bit for me.

This is where the FV proponents cannot simply wiggle out of this issue and say they are Confessional, per se, on this point.



> Chapter VIII
> Of Christ the Mediator
> 
> 
> VIII. *To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same;*39 making intercession for them,40 and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation;41 *effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His word and Spirit;*42 overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.43



In other words, the dissenters would have had to see sanctification as part of Union with Christ - a benefit that only the Elect receive.

Thus, it's not accurate to state, according to the original post that the dissenters denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience but only that they placed it under the heading of Sanctification vice Justification both of which are benefits that only the Elect enjoy in their Union with Christ.


----------



## MW

I honestly don't know what Mr. Wallace is driving at with that statement.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> I honestly don't know what Mr. Wallace is driving at with that statement.


I'm not sure I understand. Do you disagree with him that the dissenters "...did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead...."?

Or are you simply unsure that what he is saying is true?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not sure I understand. Do you disagree with him that the dissenters "...did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead...."?
> 
> Or are you simply unsure that what he is saying is true?



I'm unsure what he could mean by saying that they claimed it was part of sanctification. It must be that he is thinking in terms other than imputation; impartation, perhaps.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Right, I see what you're saying.

I guess we'd have to check the footnote that was cited in Mitchell's work.

I asked Chris if he had the reference.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Rich -- You can read Mitchell's work online here (pp. 149-156 of this edition).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Doh! Thanks Andrew!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I followed the link and it says it's a digitized book but I can't figure out how to read it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

SemperFideles said:


> I followed the link and it says it's a digitized book but I can't figure out how to read it.



You just click on "read this book" and then scroll down to page 149 and/or do a word search on "active obedience."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think my overseas IP limits what I can see for that link. Google must have some deal with the people who digitized it. Someone's trying to copy it for me who has access.

Thanks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

FYI. I think Alan Strange did the seciton in the OPC Justification report on the active obedience of Christ. 
http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
Also, my recollection is that Chad Van Dixhoorn's dealing with this question is quite a bit more extensive than Mitchell. But of course that is in his minutes; he has some comments in online in his WLC article.
Alan Strange I think is supposed to be writing more extensively on the subject; I think he did the section in the OPC report but am not certain at this late hour; I need to turn in in a bit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Page 153:


> ...On the text I Cor i. 30, Christ is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, etc., Gataker had argued that Christ is made to us righteousness as he is made wisdom, but he is not made to us wisdom by imputing his wisdom to us, but by instructing us; so neither is he said to be made righteounsess because his righteousness is imputed to us, but because by his grace he makes us actually righteous....



That's all I could find. I don't see how this connects Christ's obedience to our own except as instruction vice imputation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Page 156:


> ...they left out the word _whole_ to which Gataker and his friends had most persistently objected, so that the clause, which in their revised verson of Article XI. had stood in the form 'his _whole_ obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed to us,' was in the confession changed into 'imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ,' which though it hardly seems to us to include, still less to favour their view, they were content to accept as less rigid than the other. At least on its being conceded Gataker and his friends agreed to drop further controversy on the question, as has been distinctly recorded by Simeon Ashe in his funeral sermon for his old friend Gataker.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Just to hammer a few things home.

1. The majority position of the Assembly was in favor of clearly teaching the active obedience of Christ.
2. The language was left ambiguous out of respect for the dissenters.
BUT
3. The dissenters did not then use this as license to continue to teach something they knew the majority of the Assembly disagreed with. In other words, they did not sow discord by teaching against the active obedience of Christ in the Churches. This is a spirit solely lacking in FV men.

Finally, this should be noted:


> II. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.4


The PCA and OPC have now specifiically dealt with this controversy. In other words, they more clearly defined this matter of controversy as is their authority to do so.

Thus:
1. On the point that they are not Godly men like Gataker who remained silent on an opinion that would spread discord in the Chruches, the FV men failed.
2. On the point where a Synod has settled a matter of controversy regarding the active obedience of Christ, these men again have failed.

They ought to doubly repent.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(Gal 3:10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

(Gal 4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

(Gal 4:5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


I mean to divert here. I was following another discussion on another list and I brought this up and it was not adequately answered in my opinion. I can't remember all of the details but it seemed the FV guy was shying away from the need of Christ to earn anything. Their argument was that He was always in the Fathers bossom and needed not to earn God's favor. 

I then mentioned that would have been true if you only looked upon Christ in his divine nature but when he became man his person had two natures. He was fully God and fully man. His divine nature needed not earn anything but when He took upon himself a human nature he was placed under the law and had to earn or fulfill the the Covenant of Works so that we could be imputed with both his perfect (active and passive) obedience. He was born under the law it says. The law to me is fulfillment of all of the Covenants starting with the Covenant that Adam broke. It needed to be earned by continuing in all things of the law or there would have been a curse. 

What is so hard about this. I just don't get why they want to get away from this? I don't understand why they want everything to look like the New Covenant... saying grace grace. They seem to hate the law.


----------



## Civbert

I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is _ambiguous_. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was not that specific - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the _whole _obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.


----------



## VictorBravo

Civbert said:


> I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is _ambiguous_. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was not that specific - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the _whole _obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.



I think that is a very good point. At least in our day, "ambiguous" means susceptible to multiple interpretations. That implies what Rich was condemning: taking a possible interpretation and running with it.


----------



## KMK

Civbert said:


> I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is _ambiguous_. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was not that specific - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the _whole _obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.



This is a good point! After all, they chose to use both 'sit about it' and 'at it' when referring to the Lord's Table in the Directory of Worship. They did not, however, choose to say something like, "but by imputing the *active and/or passive* obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them..."

The wisdom of the Divines never ceases to amaze me. (Where is the 'we're not worthy' emoticon?)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is *ambiguous*. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was *not that specific* - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the _whole _obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.



I re-highlighted a couple of words Anthony.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> I re-highlighted a couple of words Anthony.



Is this what you meant by ambiguous:


> ambiguous
> 
> 1. *having more than one meaning: having more than one possible meaning or interpretation*
> an ambiguous response
> 
> 2. causing uncertainty: causing uncertainty or confusion
> an ambiguous result
> 
> Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.



I believe the 1st definition is what Peter J. Wallace seems to be saying in "Whose Meaning? The Question of Original Intent":


> It is interesting to note that wherever they could, they found ways of allowing for a diversity of views among sound Reformed men*. They did this by adopting wording that could be interpreted in different ways.*



I do not believe Wallace is correct. They did not intend the WCF to be "interpreted in different ways" but to be carefully silent on points where there was no clear consensus. 

They would not have wanted to be ambiguous and make it easy for readers to "read into" the text what they wanted to get out of it. If that were the case, then the FV guys could easily be considered confessional.


----------



## wsw201

> As to the WCF, it does not require a person to maintain that Christ's active obedience is a part of the righteousness which is imputed to believers. The mention of "obedience" might allow one to maintain that Christ suffered and died in compliance with the Father's will. This is what is meant by "passive" obedience in distinction from "active" obedience, which is made to the precepts of the law.



I would beg to differ. As far as the language noted in Chapter 11 on Justification, they use the conjuction "and" ((used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover). Obedience and Death, Obedience and Satisfaction. If obedience were to refer only to Christ's passive obedience then why use and? To interpret it any other way would require, at least to me, some grammatical gymnastics.

I would agree that we normally say that "Christ's righteousness is imputed". His righteousness would not only include His passive obedience but also his active obedience since one dovetails into the other. But to say that His active obedience was not required just doesn't make since. Christ had to fulfill the law in regards to the Atonement. Otherwise how would a sinner dying on a cross satify God's justice?


----------



## Civbert

wsw201 said:


> I would beg to differ. As far as the language noted in Chapter 11 on Justification, they use the conjunction "and" ((used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover). Obedience and Death, Obedience and Satisfaction. If obedience were to refer only to Christ's passive obedience then why use and? To interpret it any other way would require, at least to me, some grammatical gymnastics.


How would you phrase it if "obedience" and "death" refereed to the same thing? I think the phrase would be "obedience and death". The conjunction does not imply that the reference is to two different things (active and passive obedience). The Westminster Divines were aware of the idea of passive and active obedience. It's been shown that they left out the term "whole" in "whole obedience" so that the reader would understand that the WCF was _not _taking a position on the issue. "Obedience and death" certainly referrers to Christ's passive obedience - but does not necessarily exclude nor include his active obedience.


----------



## wsw201

If they were to mean the same thing I would tie them together by saying "obedience in his death". 

I believe that it does imply two different things and it would appear that the PCA and OPC would also agree based on their analysis in their respective papers on the subject of Justification.


----------



## DTK

Perhaps this comment is not needed, but thought I might offer it anyway. When we speak of Christ's active obedience, I understand that we usually mean by that term His perfect obedience to God's holy law. But John Murray has pointed out (and I tend to agree with him) that Christ's suffering itself involved both active and passive aspects. For in His atonement, Christ became at one and the same time both offerer and offering for the sins of His people. In other words, He acted as both priest and sacrifice in the offering up of himself on the cross.

I would not say that the WCF is ambiguous in its language, but I would tend to agree with Rev. Winzer that the Confession itself does not delineate this distinction between Christ's active and passive obedience, and I say that as one who would want to believe that it does. Moreover, I say that, I trust, with a humble spirit that is open to being convinced otherwise. I do believe that the majority of the Westminster divines believed that Christ's righteous obedience to God's holy law and His obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, is imputed as Christ's righteousness to believers.

Furthermore, I do think that it is essential that we embrace Christ and all of His obedience (both active and passive) as our only hope to be counted as righteous in God's sight.

DTK


----------



## wsw201

Rev. King,

You make a good point and regarding Murray's comments, they were noted in the OPC report on Justification.

It does appear though that the PCA report specifically notes that the Standards do teach that there is a distinction.

For my own edification, does the PCA report have any real teeth regarding how the Standards are to be interpreted? I know that the FV'ers, especially based on Jeff Meyer's open letter, were very concerned that the report would pigeon hole folks into only one way to interpret the Standards.


----------



## MW

There was another thread dealing with this subject in which I quote Prof. Murray and Prof. Buchanan. I recommend reading those excerpts for the benefit of gaining a firm handle on how the terms "active" and "passive" are distinguished but not separated in reformed theology. Blessings!


----------



## wsw201

Going back to the OP, I was checking something in the OPC Justification Report HERE and found that they specifically addressed the Twisse, Vines and Gataker issue in detail. It appears that they were answering Norm Shepherd who stated that the Standards accomodated the views of these three men. Their discussion starts on page 140. Based on the minutes of the Assembly that they discuss, it is clear that the Standards do teach about the active obedience of Christ being imputed and that the views of these three were out of accord with the original intent of the Standards.


----------



## DTK

Wayne,

I hasten to agree readily that both the OPC and PCA reports conclude that the language of the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience as His righteousness to us. The OPC report argues that historically this was the original intent of the vast majority of the Westminster divines. I'm unwilling to argue either for or against that, because while on the one hand I respect whatever the intent of the divines was, on the other hand I fail to see the precise distinction ("active" obedience) in the language of the WCF itself.

I think that it is far more important for me to embrace that Scripture teaches the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience as His righteousness to us, than it is for me to believe that our standards actually delineate that disnction/reality in our standards.

As for the PCA GA's overwhelming acceptance of the committee's FV report, I would have voted for it myself had I been able to be at our last General Assembly. I would have voted for it, not necessarily because I believe in its infallibility, but because I agreed/agree that action against the FV movement needed immediate attention.

Now then, whether the PCA's committee report will carry real teeth, I think we'll have to wait and see. I pray it does.

DTK


----------



## MW

I think that report mentions something about the subsequent shape of reformed theology being a determinative factor in how we understand the confession and catechisms. That is true. It is on those grounds that the denial of active obedience should be tackled. The Savoy revision has stated the matter perspicuously, and the reformed tradition has been maintained and defended in those explicit terms. On that basis I think the church has the power to declare its mind on the matter as to the way in which it understands the Confession, as is done in the original approving act of the GA of the CofS re. the power of the magistrate to call synods.


----------



## BrianLanier

> My argument is that the WCF itself does not require anyone to believe in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Now, let me go even farther: Not only does the confession not teach that doctrine; it is logically impossible for it to teach that doctrine . The WCF cannot require that doctrine!
> 
> 1) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker helped *author* the WCF, and . . .
> 2) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker rejected the imputation of Christ's active obedience . . .
> 3) The WCF does not teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience?



This person must be joking. Logically impossible? Not only is it not logically impossible, but this is the poorest syllogism I have seen in a long time(and as Jacob pointed out, it is missing *at least* one premise). Even if they had the premise Jacob supplied, that they (Twisse, Vines, and Gataker) represented the majority view of the assembly, it still wouldn't make it logically impossible that the WCF itself taught the principle. Perhaps they had suffered a laspe of memory on the point of the active obedience of Christ right before the final draft of the Confession which caused them to leave out the denial of it. I mean, it is logically *possible*, right? Give me a break--silly argument.


----------



## Arch2k

Commenting on the fact that William Twisse, Richard Vines, and Thomas Gataker denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience, Rich Lusk has the following footnote in "The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons, Debating the Federal Vision" (p. 140-141):



> See Alexander F. Mitchell, T_he Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards_, reprint (Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1992), 149ff for historical details, including the final compromise in confessional language that was reached. Before we dogmatize too strongly about the finer points of the doctrine of justification, we would do well to remember this assembly debate. Romans 4:4-5, usually the linchpin in arguments for imputation, does not clinch the argument. Garlington, "Imputation or Union with Christ?" 2ff, shows the problems with reading Romans 4:4-5 as teaching that Christ's active obedience is imputed to us. Not only does that interpretation get the meaning of _logizomai_ wrong in the context (cf. its usage in 3:28), but it mishangles the background passage (Genesis 15:6) and ignores the obvious fact that _Abraham's faith_, not _Christ's obedience_, is the subject of _logizomai_ in Paul's statement.


----------



## wsw201

Statements like this is why Lusk is considered to be at the far deep end of FV.


----------



## KMK

I noticed this today and a certain part struck me because I have been following this thread:



> London Baptist Confession 1689
> 
> 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.



I wonder if the writers of this confession witnessed confusion brought by the intentional omission in the WCF and decided it would be better to just nip the dissenters in the bud.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> I wonder if the writers of this confession witnessed confusion brought by the intentional omission in the WCF and decided it would be better to just nip the dissenters in the bud.



Hi Pastor Klein. This language is borrowed from the Savoy revision of the Confession made in the 1650s by the Independents.

It should be noted that Christ's passive obedience is not His death per se. See Heb. 10:5ff. Christ was obeying the will of the Father from the moment He took human nature. As such He vicariously suffered throughout the days of His flesh. His death was the culmination of this. The Savoy revision only serves to complicate this matter more. Blessings!


----------



## Arch2k

wsw201 said:


> Statements like this is why Lusk is considered to be at the far deep end of FV.


 
I agree Wayne.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I don't think it was simply a matter of those three divines "denying" His active obedience, as much as it is that they denied a twofold division (or a division of any kind) in His obedience overall.

However, on that note, one might read any of the other 136 members, not including the 6 Scottish Commissioners and the 9 elders, who, if you read thorugh their writings and sermons, are quite set on making that distinction. I always have a hard time with people who don't take time to read through what the divines wrote in thier other writings about what they condensed in the Westminater Standards. And you know, the FV guys CONSISTENTLY have a problem quoting primary sources, or doing thier homework in this regard.

But hey, what do I know.


----------



## KMK

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I don't think it was simply a matter of those three divines "denying" His active obedience, as much as it is that they denied a twofold division (or a division of any kind) in His obedience overall.
> 
> However, on that note, one might read any of the other 136 members, not including the 6 Scottish Commissioners and the 9 elders, who, if you read thorugh their writings and sermons, are quite set on making that distinction. I always have a hard time with people who don't take time to read through what the divines wrote in thier other writings about what they condensed in the Westminater Standards. And you know, the FV guys CONSISTENTLY have a problem quoting primary sources, or doing thier homework in this regard.
> 
> But hey, what do I know.



Sounds like what the supreme court does to our constitution...


----------

