Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
What does this mean?
Why?The Confession (cf. WCF 6:1) has no problem with the language of "permitting sin," which language Calvin does not prefer.
I meant why doesnt Calvin prefer this?The Confession (cf. WCF 6:1) has no problem with the language of "permitting sin," which language Calvin does not prefer.
Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass.
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
Huh? I'm having a difficult time understanding this sentence. Because of though I don't know what difference the words in bold make.
Is this talking about the free will of adam?
WCF — Chapter XI: 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 any thing 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 the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
LBCF — Chapter XI: 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.
[We cannot] 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 obedience to the obedience of his final sufferings and death.
The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience. The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands. It demands not only the full discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ as the vicar of his people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter. (pp. 20-22)
His passive obedience refers to receiving the penalty of the law (God’s just wrath for those he purchased), as if he had broken the Law.
And i found this quote on the link that Jeff posted at the top of the page.
His passive obedience refers to receiving the penalty of the law (God’s just wrath for those he purchased), as if he had broken the Law.
So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?
Do you believe this to be throughout his entire life? or only at the cross?I think a good description of passive obedience is set out in Isaiah chapter 53:
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Lord Christ bore all this. It was done to him, hence the adjective "passive." He was obedient to the prophecy.
So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?
The term 'passive', as used here, denotes the suffering or passion of Christ, not his passivity under the suffering.
To say it is him actively enduring through suffering is wrong or right?Originally Posted by Matthew1344
So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?
According to Sam Waldron, in note 5 of chapter 11, of his book "1689: A Modern Exposition"...
The term 'passive', as used here, denotes the suffering or passion of Christ, not his passivity under the suffering.
It may be a bit late, but my understanding of the matter is the following. There is the decree and the execution of the decree. The decree is made in eternity while the carrying out of the decree occurs in history. God makes His plan in eternity and then carries out that plan in history. Whatever historically happened occurs precisely as God had decreed from eternity, but whatever historically happened is not the decree itself. Rather, whatever happens in history belongs to the execution of the decree.Matthew1344 said:This might be a silly question, but what exactly is the difference between what God decreed and what historically happened? His decree is all history. I know that might not make any sense, im just trying to figure out what you said.armourbearer said:Supralapsarianism maintains the same historical order of the means of salvation as the infralapsarian
Originally Posted by KMK
Originally Posted by Matthew1344
So is passive obedience Christ enduring all the effects of sin and it climaxing at the cross?
According to Sam Waldron, in note 5 of chapter 11, of his book "1689: A Modern Exposition"...
The term 'passive', as used here, denotes the suffering or passion of Christ, not his passivity under the suffering.
To say it is him actively enduring through suffering is wrong or right?
To say it is him actively enduring through suffering is wrong or right?
I think it may lead to confusion. The "active" and "passive" adjectives were put to use to remind us that Christ was not merely a perfect sacrifice, he was a perfect man as well. He needs to be a man to call us brothers, and to be high priest.
Some non-reformed people (and some who call themselves reformed) reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience, but only accept imputation of his passive obedience. Hence, they may say that Christ's active obedience only prepared him to be the perfect sacrifice.
On Calvin and the Westminster Confession, I would suggest Calvin's rejection of "permission" equates to the Confession's rejection of "bare permission." As the Confession teaches at numerous points, God was pleased to permit sin and overrule it for His own high and holy purpose. "Bare" permission supposes other reasons why God permits it, which lie outside the holiness, wisdom, and power of God.