Heidelcast: Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience (pt 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought Rev Keister did a good job of rounding out the issues. Between this podcast and Rev Winzer's comments on the other thread I now see that the words 'whole obedience' should be a satisfactory boundary marker against the FV.
 
Between this podcast and Rev Winzer's comments on the other thread I now see that the words 'whole obedience' should be a satisfactory boundary marker against the FV.

I hope my comments are not seen as endorsing the Heidelcast's view of active obedience.
 
Between this podcast and Rev Winzer's comments on the other thread I now see that the words 'whole obedience' should be a satisfactory boundary marker against the FV.

I hope my comments are not seen as endorsing the Heidelcast's view of active obedience.

:lol: No, I think I understand your disagreement. You do not think it is wise to refer to obedience in terms of imputation at all. It is righteousness that is imputed, and obedience is an aspect of that righteousness. Am I on the right track?
 
You do not think it is wise to refer to obedience in terms of imputation at all. It is righteousness that is imputed, and obedience is an aspect of that righteousness. Am I on the right track?

Heading in the right direction but not quite on the right track. It is correct to speak of "obedience" being imputed. Concern arises over dividing "obedience" and making one part serve one area of justification and another part serve another area. Turretin: "The Scripture nowhere appears to distinguish the obedience of Christ into parts, but sets it before us as a unique thing by which he has done everything which the law could require of us... Therefore those things should not be curiously distinguished because both those benefits [satisfaction and merit] conjointly depend upon the entire virtue of the cause -- the obedience of Christ. For neither could sin be expiated before the law was perfectly fulfilled, nor could a right to life be acquired before the guilt of sin was removed. Therefore he merited by making satisfaction and by meriting made satisfaction." (Institutes, 2:448).

In insisting on a tradition's teaching we should be careful to note the tradition's qualifications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top