The necessity of Christ's active obedience for our salvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Saiph
I do not think Christ did anything passively did He ? ?

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but passive obedience theologically refers to the death of Christ on a cross, while active obedience theologically refers to His perfect fulfillment of the Law of God in His (Jesus') life for the sake of satisfying the demands of the CoW on our behalf.
 
Passivity is stagnation.

Christ delivered himself up to God . . know one takes my life I offer it freely .. . . into thy hands . . etc .. .
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Passivity is stagnation.

Christ delivered himself up to God . . know one takes my life I offer it freely .. . . into thy hands . . etc .. .

Actually, passivity is being the object of action. Active is being the subject of the action.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Christ was the object of His own action (middle)

Or (when I have time) I could produce the dozens of references to the Father being the actor, the Messiah being the recipient, etc.
 
Christ was passive in that He was submitting to the will of the Father by dying on the cross. To be passive, in one sense of the word, is to submit to another.
 
Passive just sounds so effeminate. The Bible clearly teaches Christ gave Himself up. I do not really care how theologians define it. He actively did what God actively required.
 
:eek:

I confess to never having contemplated this question. I preached on ordo salutis-- so it isn't as though I don't think of deep doctrine. I will sit in awe with interest, as this unfolds.
 
I believe it to be like the infra/supra debate. He actively saved us by actively obeying and actively dying. If someone wants to use the word "passive" to explain His relationship to the father then have fun. I simply do not like the word passive in reference to God.
It is really silly of me to even mention it.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
I believe it to be like the infra/supra debate. He actively saved us by actively obeying and actively dying. If someone wants to use the word "passive" to explain His relationship to the father then have fun. I simply do not like the word passive in reference to God.
It is really silly of me to even mention it.

When taken in the context of Justification and the necessity for the imputation of Christ's ACTIVE obedience as our counted-righteousness before God the Father, it is very important. It is a matter of orthodoxy.
 
Guys - I'd really like comments about my article. I'm not really interested in Mark's opinions about the legitimacy of the vocabularly we've been handed by our fathers.
Please, comment on my article.
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Guys - I'd really like comments about my article. I'm not really interested in Mark's opinions about the legitimacy of the vocabularly we've been handed by our fathers.
Please, comment on my article.

I find the article very helpful, and I think it would be even better if you included more quotations of the relevant scriptures instead of just referencing them. It isn't just laziness on my part (though that's part of it), but I like to see how the verses interact with the argument they are supporting.
 
Your article is good Ben. Honestly, it seemed to me like overstating the obvious, but I did not realize there were individuals out there who thought of Christ's obedience to the law as passive.

That, in my mind, makes for an effeminate Christ.

(And as a side note, just because something was handed down to us by our sinful fathers does not make it right.)

The overarching sentiment on this board seems to be a denial of Semper Reformanda.

God forbid we question the puritans or the Westminster divines or confessions.

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by Saiph]
 
Ben,

Good article. A couple of comments:

1. I think you may want to expand on teh first paragraph, showing that it is not a case of active vs. passive obedience perse, but rather in giving Christ His full glory for His work. It is not as if all He did that mattered was on the cross. You could make that clearer for a laymen, perhaps by a reference to the Temptation.

2. You could make a bit clearer what the actual benefit to the believer is from Christ's obedience. I like your room analogy. Because Christ obeyed, we obeyed. We wear His robes of righteousness. It is not just that God looks at a unclean room and says that "it is clean." Rather He cleans it Himself and counts it as if we did.

These are just a couple of clarifying comments. I find the overall thrust of your article to be clear and understandable.
 
Ben, I thought it was good in light of the audience you had in mind. I personally start with the covenant of redemption (without using that term) in order to explain how the work of Christ fits in, especially in reference to limited atonement and justification. They all would agree that Jesus came to do the will of the Father. Did He succeed? Will the Father honor the work of His Son and keep His promise to Him? It may help to explain the work of Christ in light of His relationship to the Father, and in light of God's immutability, justice, and faithfulness. It may be helpful when your freinds are ready.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Christ was the object of His own action (middle)

In Reformed theology, all of Jesus' obedience is said to have been active and passive at the same time.

Passive does not refer to actions done to Jesus, but rather is derived from the Latin verb passio, ire to suffer.

All his active obedience was suffering and all his suffering was active obedience. See HC 37:

That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life.

rsc
 
Etymologically I thought it was from passivus, meaning subject to emotion, or capable of feelings ?

Where in scripture is anything Christ did said to be passive ?
How can one passively obey the law ? Is not all obedience active ?
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Ben, I thought it was good in light of the audience you had in mind. I personally start with the covenant of redemption (without using that term) in order to explain how the work of Christ fits in, especially in reference to limited atonement and justification. They all would agree that Jesus came to do the will of the Father. Did He succeed? Will the Father honor the work of His Son and keep His promise to Him? It may help to explain the work of Christ in light of His relationship to the Father, and in light of God's immutability, justice, and faithfulness. It may be helpful when your freinds are ready.

Thanks. I intentionally left covenant theology stuff out... trust me, if I would have mentioned "covenant of redemption" or "covenant of works," I would have lost my audience.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Etymologically I thought it was from passivus, meaning subject to emotion, or capable of feelings ?

Where in scripture is anything Christ did said to be passive ?
How can one passively obey the law ? Is not all obedience active ?

The obeying of the law is referred to as the active obedience.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Originally posted by Saiph
Christ was the object of His own action (middle)

In Reformed theology, all of Jesus' obedience is said to have been active and passive at the same time.

All his active obedience was suffering and all his suffering was active obedience. See HC 37:

That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life.

rsc

:up:

A common error is to equate Christ's "passive" obedience with the cross and his "active" obedience with His acts of obedience prior to the cross. In fact, this error is always requisite for a subsequent denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience. If we could stop making the the former mistake, we could never make the latter one.

The term “passive obedience” does not mean that in anything Christ did was he passive, the involuntary victim of obedience imposed upon him. It is obvious that any such conception would contradict the very notion of obedience. ... Neither are we to suppose that we can allocate certain phases or acts of our Lord’'s life on earth to the active obedience and certain other phases and acts to the passive obedience. The distinction between the active and passive obedience is not a distinction of periods. It is our Lord’'s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and passive, and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the obedience of his life and the passive to the obedience of his final sufferings and death.

[Murray, John Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1955) 20-21.]

The two accompany each other at every point in the SaviorÂ’'s life.

[L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 379.]

It is true that Christ’'s willingly undergoing those sufferings which he endured, is a great part of that obedience or righteousness by which we are justified. The sufferings of Christ are respected in Scripture under a twofold consideration, either merely as his being substituted for us, or put into our stead, in suffering the penalty of the law. And so his sufferings are considered as a satisfaction and propitiation for sin, or as he, in obedience to a law or a command of the Father, voluntarily submitted himself to those sufferings, and actively yielded himself up to bear them. So they are considered as his righteousness, and a part of his active obedience. Christ underwent death in obedience to the command of the Father, Psa. 40:6-8, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” John 10:17-18, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” John 18:11, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” And this is part, and indeed the principal part, of that active obedience by which we are justified.

[Edwards, Jonathan The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987) 638-639.]



[Edited on 1-18-2006 by doulosChristou]
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Originally posted by Saiph
Christ was the object of His own action (middle)

In Reformed theology, all of Jesus' obedience is said to have been active and passive at the same time.

Passive does not refer to actions done to Jesus, but rather is derived from the Latin verb passio, ire to suffer.

All his active obedience was suffering and all his suffering was active obedience. See HC 37:

That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life.

rsc

Absolutely agreed on the relationship of the "active" nature of Christ's "passive" obedience.

{enter Latin police
bobby.gif
}

But it actually comes from patior, pati, passus sum a verb meaning primarily "to suffer" or "to undergo;" but it can also mean "to permit" or "to allow" (viz. Cicero, Vergil, Horace), which is where we get out word "passive" (e.g. passive voice) today.
{exit Latin police
bobby.gif
}
 
:lol: Fred! Thank God for policemen!

Good article, Ben. I was taught at my Dispensational church about imputed righteousness but they didn't think it came from Christ's acts on earth. So I was always confused thinking God was, as you put it, "looking at the messy room declaring it clean". Since learning more about Christ's active righteousness I've had so much more assurance than before.

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by turmeric]
 
{enter Latin police
bobby.gif
}

But it actually comes from patior, pati, passus sum a verb meaning primarily "to suffer" or "to undergo;" but it can also mean "to permit" or "to allow" (viz. Cicero, Vergil, Horace), which is where we get out word "passive" (e.g. passive voice) today.
{exit Latin police
bobby.gif
}

Fred,

Many thanks for this. Typing too quickly and thinking too slowly.

ps. there is an entire chapter devoted to this topic in the forthcoming volume, The Foolishness of the Gospel to be published (they say) in May by P&R.

rsc

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
{enter Latin police
bobby.gif
}

But it actually comes from patior, pati, passus sum a verb meaning primarily "to suffer" or "to undergo;" but it can also mean "to permit" or "to allow" (viz. Cicero, Vergil, Horace), which is where we get out word "passive" (e.g. passive voice) today.
{exit Latin police
bobby.gif
}

Fred,

Many thanks for this. Typing too quickly and thinking too slowly.

ps. there is an entire chapter devoted to this topic in the forthcoming volume, The Foolishness of the Gospel to be published (they say) in May by P&R.

rsc

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

Excellent! Thanks for the heads up.

That is what the Latin police are for. We gave up supressing barbarians centuries ago! :)

And thanks for your (more important) theological point above.

Blessings,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top