Christ's active obedience

Status
Not open for further replies.

VanVos

Puritan Board Sophomore
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]
 

turmeric

Megerator
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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?

Is this a valid argument?

VanVos

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by VanVos]

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

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

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


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

D Battjes

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Megerator
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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!
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
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!
 

doulosChristou

Puritan Board Freshman
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?

Press on brother!

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

Puritan Board Freshman
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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top