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

[Civbert]

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]

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, The 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]

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]

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]

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...