Before you go Doug (and others) maybe you could help with one last question. I am still trying to figure out FV’s rejection of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (IAOC). The FV Statement on-line says that Christ is all in all and that his work is credited to us. It goes on to deny that the all-in-allness of Christ requires in any way the IAOC. I am perplexed by the relationship between the affirmation and the denial. I don’t understand why the denial follows from the affirmation.
Here’s one way of getting at my confusion. Machen (yes, I’m going to get sentimental Barlow) gave a talk about the active obedience of Christ that was very explicit about many of the issues that we have been discussing, the law, merit, justice, rewards and penalties. And yet I see no reason why Machen’s argument contradicts the affirmation of the FV statement, even if the FV document denies Machen’s construction.
Here is an excerpt, an imaginary dialogue between the law of God and a Christian:
“Man,” says the law of God, “have you obeyed all my commands?”
“No,” says the sinner saved by grace. “I have disobeyed them, not only in the person of my representative Adam in his first sin, but also in that I myself have sinned in thought, word and deed.”
“Well, then, sinner,” says the law of God, “have you paid the penalty which I pronounced upon disobedience?”
“No,” says the sinner, “I have not paid the penalty myself; but Christ has paid it for me. He was my representative when He died there on the cross. Hence, so far as the penalty is concerned, I am clear.”
“Well, then, sinner,” says the law of God, “how about the conditions which God has pronounced for the attainment of assured blessedness? Have you stood the test? Have you merited eternal life by perfect obedience druing the period of probation?”
“No,” says the sinner, “I have not merited eternal life by my own perfect obedience. God knows and my own conscience knows that even after I became a Christian I have sinned in thought, word and deed. But although I have not merited eternal life by any obedience of my own, Christ has merited it for me by his perfect obedience. He was not for himself subject to the law. No obedience was required of him for himself, since he was Lord of all. That obedience, then, which he rendered to the law when he was on earth was rendered by him as my representative. I have no righteousness of my own, but clad in Christ’s perfect righteousness, imputed to me and received by faith alone, I can glory in the fact that so far as I am concerned the probation has been kept and as God is true there awaits me the glorious reward which Christ thus earned for me.”
Now this may not be scintillating dialogue, but I wonder what FV folks think Machen has missed in this statement of the doctrine. So far I have received two answers — 1) it is not fully biblical; 2) to impose it on anyone is to engage in spiritual tyranny.
But my question goes farther. What does this miss about Christ’s work on our behalf? FV is clear in denying the IAOC. But I still don’t see what we gain from that denial. I don’t see a fuller account of Christ’s amazing allness, nor do I see in FV the sort of hope and comfort that I have received from the IAOC.
So before everyone signs off, I wonder if you could be kind enough to formulate the FV one more time.
No, the FV (as a loose association of men interested in the same biblical & theological issues) is NOT clear in denying the IAOC. It’s not a major plank in some FV platform. At least three of the men who signed the FV “profession” document have no problem with the formulation. It becomes an issue because we want to explore how the Bible unpacks the significance of our union with Christ, which means we are open to critiquing and recasting some traditional formulas in order to better summarize and apply the biblical data. It also becomes an issue when I and others are judged to be deniers of justification by grace because of Christ alone through faith alone simply because we reject the IAOC formula. The Bible does not talk like that and our Westminster Standards do not require that precise language.
LikeLike
I have a few hours left, Darryl. Once again, I don’t think there is an FV answer on this, because we vary on it.
My answer to Machen would be my essay in *The Federal Vision.* In terms of the dialogue, God’s second question would be more like this, “Well, then, did you remain faithful as a priest and mature to the point of undergoing deepsleep and resurrection at the Tree of Knowledge, thereby moving into the new covenant royal phase of existence?” And the answer would be, “No, but Jesus did, and in union with Him I have been given deepsleep and resurrection at the Tree of Knowledge and now rule with Him.”
Remember that Jesus died twice on the cross. First suffering separation from God for three hours to pay for the sins of the world. Then willingly sending forth His Spirit, His first kingly act, which had the immediate effect of converting the representative of Rome who said, “Surely this man was the King, the son-of-God.”
I believe I can marshall about 100 passages in the Bible to show that this is the paradigm. But the conversation is over, for me anyway.
Now, if what I wrote above falls into what you chaps understand by IAO, then fine, I agree with it. But I’m not sure that it’s a matter of “imputation.” I suspect it’s just union with the glorified Jesus.
But that’s just MY take, Darryl.
LikeLike
More Questions on Imputation of Active Obedience
Though this was originally IN REPLY TO http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/29/subscription-freedom/#comment-2285
I resend it becaue it seems everything I send takes 3 days to post, and this is still the same discussion…
Dr. Hart:
While I have preached and supported I-AOC in the past, and am still not against it, I did a long post (buried back in one of the Latitude threads) from lots of Bible passages that gave two or three issues about which I wonder with respect to the Imputation of the Active Obedience:
1. Is there not something odd about going back to the pre-resurrection righteous acts of Christ for something to impute to post resurrection Christians (see: 2 Cor. 5:16, Knowing Christ after the Flesh)
2. In Hebrews there are a number of passages that refer to the present ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially in his priestly role as the new Melchizedek. It contrasts the “days of his flesh” with him “living ever to make intercession for us.”
3. If there is righteousness granted to believers (imputed) based upon his ONE ACT of OBEDIENCE, which seems to reference the Cross, then do we need his pre-crucifixion righteousness and merits to be imputed to us in some distinct fashion?
4. I also went through each instance of the Greek word for imputation, and found nothing that would imply the imputation of the pre-resurrection/pre-crucifixion righteous acts of Jesus, OTHER THAN his piety being the basis upon which God granted him what he requested in his prayers (this part was all in Hebrews). So, in one sense, Christ’s own piety and obedience was a basis upon which God granted HIS prayers. If there is any imputation there it is to Jesus himself(?). In looking through the instances of logizomai, I stumbled upon 2 Cor. 5:16, in the context of us being New Creation, in Jesus, and wondered at the statement, that some people who knew christ ‘after the flesh’ were now to know him thus no longer. Now, if that has any connection to the Hebrews usage of “in the days of his flesh” – wouldn’t this imply that what we get from Jesus by way of imputation is:
(A) the effect(s) of his one act of Righteousness (which appears not to be his whole life’s righteousness, but the obedience of/unto the cross)-
Rom 5:16-19 “And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Not that the pre-cross righteousness of Christ is insignificant – it is pre-requisite to his ‘one act’ of obedience. He gained maturity through what he suffered, up to and through the Cross.
(B) His present vindication – Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and *raised* for our justification.
(C) His on-going priestly intercession.
(D) Our union with him, not only covenantally in ‘organic’ terms by way of the indewlling of the Spirit, but also forensically: Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
(E) Our Death to the Law (of Sin and Death), even the Covenant of Works inso far as it was re-published in the Mosaic law – Rom 7:4 “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” Note here that, of course, the Active Obedience of Christ is, in effect, ‘imputed’ to us, in that through his active obedience, His death could fulfill the Law’s penalty on our behalf. But, the continual focus of the Epistles is upon his Crucifixion as the basis of our justification, and not directly upon his law keeping. Of course, Rom. 7 is notoriously disputed. But, I note that “living in the flesh” and beng bound by “the old way of the written code” not only may apply to us / or to Paul in some pre-conversion way, but applies to Jesus living under the law (though as the immaculate second Adam – though the first Adam was immaculate until he sinned!). Whatever Rom 7 is really about, the power to change from under the law and in the flesh to alive and in the Spirit, comes from Christ’s law fulfillment and his subsstituionary sacrifice for us.
Of course, this is no exhaustive list, just some ideas that spring to mind.
So, what I don’t really understand is what do you brothers mean when you speak of the imputation of the Active Obedience of Jesus Christ? Even if you spell it out in terms of Merit, there does not appear to be any direct imputation of Christ’s pre-cross actions to his post-resurrection disciples (or to Abraham or David, who are the given examples of imputation in Romans 4).
Wondering in Sewickley…
LikeLike
Dr. Hart:
You’ve already referred to this post in a kind of answer to my set of questions about the I-AOC.
I can’t speak for FV. The only quibble I’d have with Machen’s catechizing is that it is very merit based. And, if you are bringing up merit, then his answers are as good as it gets, I suppose.
It just seems to miss the present ministry and priesthood of Jesus as the living high priest who applies his benefits to us.
I like better the answer which my old pastor, Ken Smith, gave to the E.E. Questions.
When I die, if God asks, “Why should I let you into my heaven?” I’ll bow and be silent. Then I’ll hear a voice,
“Father, he’s mine.”
This is closer to reality than a dialogue with the Law of God. Notice the abstraction just there! How about a dialogue with God and Jesus in heaven?
You ask what Machen has missed. He’s missed that Jesus as the Great High Priest, the new Melchizedek, is living. Do you think Jesus talks with his Father in terms of Merit: “Father, YOU OWE ME!”
Rather, “All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.” -Joh 17:10 And further,
“The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17).
He liveth ever to make intercession for us. He stands now at the Right hand of the father, offering his one sacrifice for sin, which is all sufficient.
Machen’s story is one way of getting at something which needs to be said. But,how much does it resonate with people, compare to what the Bible actually says. The Bible meets our judicial/forensic need for cleansing with the Cross/resurrection based justification. But, it does not leave us there. It makes us Sons, by both adoption (legal and familial status) and regeneration (the power to live by the Spirit). What more do we need?
If you live in a universe where law is all consuming and merit is your big issue, if you feel unworthy and condemned, yes, you can hash it through this way. But, its a lot more direct to go to Jesus as your brother and God as your father – not ignoring the need for cleansing, but taking what God offers. That’s the direct route to assurance – look at Jesus. That’s what the Father does. But he also sees us, for the Father Himself Loves you.
Do you believe that? 🙂
LikeLike
Darryl, sorry. I wasn’t trying to sneak out early. I just thought yesterday was the last day. The FV statement does not deny the IOAC, but rather denies that faithfulness to the gospel message requires “any particular formulation” of it. In the section at the end where we talk about intramural disagreements, we say that some of think that the IOAC is to be affirmed in its classic form, while others of us want to get to the same place via a different route. But that “different route” does not allow us to smuggle in some merit of our own. Our salvation is “all of Christ,” which we all affirm.
I am one who is happy with the classic statement of this. But as Boersma points out in his Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, this is simply the Reformed formulation of something that many Christians have seen, and have talked about differently. I recognize the same truth in Irenaeus. And everyone who sees that Christ’s life was a recapitulation of Israel’s history, and in Him, Israel finally did it right, and the righteousness of that accomplishment is ours through faith, has the substance of the thing.
LikeLike
So let me see if I have this. FV guys don’t really object to IAOC. Nor do they see it as terribly important. Machen sees it as important, as have a host of Reformed thinkers who have used the categories of merit, strict justice, and rewards to understand the covenant of grace and justification’s relation to it. So we are back to where we began. Is FV really a bearer of the Reformed tradition if it does not recognize the import of the IAOC in the doctrine of justification?
As for Anthony’s questions, sorry but I need some forensic. I am a sinner and so stand condemned by God’s law. I have doubts about how a just God could adopt a sinner as a son even. So I need to have my account free and clear. Funny how that also works to clear one’s conscience. I know of nothing more pastoral than Machen’s understanding of justification. And I find the appeal to union with Christ to obscure what is so critical — my need to be perfect if I am going to reach a state of blessedness.
Thanks so far to those who have responded.
LikeLike
And, you see the imputation of the present righteousness of Christ as somehow lacking that perfection? Is that perfection not exactly what was attained through his suffering and obedience?
LikeLike
[…] is, ‘Because I believed in your Son.’ I much prefer the answer I read at De Regno Christi: I’ll bow and be silent. Then I’ll hear a voice, “Father, he’s […]
LikeLike
Awesome blog. Keep up posts like this!
LikeLike
[…] you are going to ask and answer this question, I think this is a much better response (from De Regno Christi) [When I'm asked 'Why should I let you into my heaven?'] I’ll bow and be silent. Then I’ll […]
LikeLike
Anthony Cowley wrote:
“In Hebrews there are a number of passages that refer to the present ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially in his priestly role as the new Melchizedek. It contrasts the “days of his flesh” with him ‘living ever to make intercession for us.'”
So the righteousness Christ has as High Priest has no connection with the righteousness He had during His pre-cross incarnation, and thus no direct application to the elect? And this assumption supposedly underlies the christology of the book of Hebrews?
Au contraire! The author of Hebrews explicitly bases the efficacy of Christ’s current session as our High Priest upon Christ’s active obedience during His earthly incarnation when he writes: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin,” (Hebrews 4:15, ESV).
LikeLike