In the introductory chapter in John Owen's "Doctrine of Justification by Faith", an interesting footnote appears:
Posted to my blog:

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.

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.

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

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.)

There is nothing new under the sun...

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).