» Site Navigation | | | |  | 
06-26-2007, 11:27 PM
|  | PB Evil Scientist...Boo! | | Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Decorah, IA
Posts: 2,700
Thanks: 67
Thanked 539 Times in 312 Posts
| | | An Interesting Footnote in Owen's "Doctrine of Justification by Faith"
In the introductory chapter in John Owen's "Doctrine of Justification by Faith", an interesting footnote appears:
Posted to my blog: Quote: |
Andrew Osiander...was among the first of the Protestant divines that broached heretical views. He denied the forensic character of justification, confounded it with sanctification, and held that man is justified not by the imputation of Christ's righteousness in satisfying and obeying the moral law, but by our participation, through faith, in the essential righteousness of Christ as God...
| It is interesting to see a view, which resembles in some aspects the view of some Federal Vision proponents, being spoken against by Owen in 1677. It seems as though the question is indeed that old - and the more things change, the more they stay the same. This is the 17th century Norman Shepherd, I suppose. Owen will have much to say on the nature of the righteousness imputed to believers - and as I work my way through this important volume I'll post some reflections here, the Lord willing.
__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA http://semperubi.rtrc.net
"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? | 
06-26-2007, 11:36 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 3,484
Thanks: 106
Thanked 624 Times in 377 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by toddpedlar In the introductory chapter in John Owen's "Doctrine of Justification by Faith", an interesting footnote appears:
Posted to my blog:
It is interesting to see a view, which resembles in some aspects the view of some Federal Vision proponents, being spoken against by Owen in 1677. It seems as though the question is indeed that old - and the more things change, the more they stay the same. This is the 17th century Norman Shepherd, I suppose. Owen will have much to say on the nature of the righteousness imputed to believers - and as I work my way through this important volume I'll post some reflections here, the Lord willing. | I remember running across that and thinking the same thing. Glad you posted it.
| 
06-27-2007, 12:29 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,710
Thanks: 0
Thanked 282 Times in 104 Posts
| |
Hi Todd,
Thanks for this.
Osiander is already being rehabilitated by some in the Reformed community. that trend will only continue as folk increasingly find forensic categories distasteful.
According to the revisionist view, as it turns out, he wasn't so bad after all! Never mind that Luther rejected his views, the Lutheran confessionalsits rejected his views, and Calvin expanded the '59 Institutes considerably in order to reply at considerable length to Osiander.
You're right about the connection. Not all FVists are doing the same thing as Osiander, but some are on the same trajectory. First union with Christ swallows up the forensic then union turns into "ontic union," (as I've heard some say), then it will be that we're infused with the deity of Christ (Osiander).
I would guess that Lusk will be a prime candidate for this view as will Jordan, and perhaps Barach (who has repeated Jordan's view about maturity in place of merit) as none of them have much time for imputation. Cue the music for
Bogart: "If you're Reformed, where's your doctrine of the merits of Christ imputed to sinners?"
FV: "Merit, we ain't got no doctrine of merit, we don't need no doctrine of merit, I don't have show you no stinking doctrine of merit."
rsc
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology 
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor Oceanside URC The Heidelblog | 
06-27-2007, 01:03 AM
|  | Megster | | Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 6,954
Thanks: 472
Thanked 283 Times in 258 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark Hi Todd,
You're right about the connection. Not all FVists are doing the same thing as Osiander, but some are on the same trajectory. First union with Christ swallows up the forensic then union turns into "ontic union," (as I've heard some say), then it will be that we're infused with the deity of Christ (Osiander).
rsc | At this rate they'll soon be some kind of mystical pietists. Maybe they'll be Keswickian, like W. Ian Thomas. See how they become the very thing they hate? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
| 
06-27-2007, 01:06 AM
|  | Puritanboard Professor | | Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MS
Posts: 5,157
Thanks: 125
Thanked 209 Times in 115 Posts
| | |
There is nothing new under the sun...
__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson. "He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks. | 
06-27-2007, 10:25 AM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Leduc, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,808
Thanks: 131
Thanked 429 Times in 230 Posts
| | |
Thanks for posting this. Yes the trajectory of the FV leads them to deny imputation even if many will continue to assert that they hold to it. I think it the next generation that will be bringing these ideas to the forefront of the movement (if there is anything left).
__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA Church Blog
"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ" Belgic Confession, Article 26
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |