Does the WCF teach the Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience?

[Semper Fidelis]

From an FV-friendly source:

My argument is that the WCF itself does not require anyone to believe in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Now, let me go even farther: Not only does the confession not teach that doctrine; it is logically impossible for it to teach that doctrine . The WCF cannot require that doctrine!

1) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker helped *author* the WCF, and . . .
2) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker rejected the imputation of Christ's active obedience . . .
3) The WCF does not teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience?

Discuss please...

 

[RamistThomist]

The conclusion says more than the premises allow. All that the conclusion can logically say is that Twisse/Vines/Gataker did not teach active imputation. This is what the argument should look like:

1) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker helped *author* the WCF, and . . .
2) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker rejected the imputation of Christ's active obedience . . .
3) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker represent the dominant view of the WCF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion 1: The WCF does not teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience?

They are missing premise 3. But there argument doesn't say whether those three repreent the dominant view.

 

[wsw201]

J. is correct. They would have to prove that the views of these men was the dominant view, which it wasn't.

Chapter 11 on Justification notes in section 1 : ...but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them... or from section 3 : Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf .

Notice it says "obedience and satisfaction" and "obedience and death". Otherwise known as active and passive obedience. How does the FV friendly person deal with this?

 

[Scott]

Why is it important to the FV guys to deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ? (I have not really followed this debate or the FV much).

 

[Poimen]

Wayne:

Speaking from (not for) the other side, couldn't they say that Jesus' obedience to His Father was by or through His suffering (which led up to His death) and not necessarily positive law keeping?

 

[RamistThomist]

Why is it important to the FV guys to deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ? (I have not really followed this debate or the FV much).

Because they say the formulation is a throw-back to Rome because of "merit theology" (this was Norm Shepherd's essay in Backbone of the Bible)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Some young lady who use to post here put this together.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.
(WCF 19.6)

from the larger catechism:
Q. 55. How doeth Christ make intercession?

A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

Q. 70. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God?s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God?s free grace?

A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God?s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?

A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

 

[MW]

The way the question is framed is now the usual manner of stating it, but to speak of the imputation of active obedience is a misnomer. This is part of the problem with the reaction to the FV. Statements are made which are themselves an over-reaction. We say that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, and this includes His active and passive obedience.

As to the WCF, it does not require a person to maintain that Christ's active obedience is a part of the righteousness which is imputed to believers. The mention of "obedience" might allow one to maintain that Christ suffered and died in compliance with the Father's will. This is what is meant by "passive" obedience in distinction from "active" obedience, which is made to the precepts of the law.

Concerning the allegation that it is impossible to maintain the doctrine of active obedience and uphold the WCF, this is simply absurd. What does this person do with the fact that men like Samuel Rutherford, Anthony Burgess, and a host of others explicitly taught it. Not to mention the fact that Gataker declined to publish his work on justification because he knew it was out of accord with his brethren's views. Moreover, the divines explicitly debated this point in their discussion on the thirty-nine articles, so we do not need to base our conclusions on what a few men did or did not hold. According to Dr. Featley's account of the proceedings, the final determination was in favour of the doctrine of active obedience, but that reformed divines had refused to make it a test of orthodoxy, and so they forebore including it in their revision.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thank you Rev. Winzer.

I think there is something highly instructive to the attitude of Gataker regarding the doctrine. This is an attitude that the FV men do not have which, in my mind, is one of the primary cancers of their movement.

Because Gataker knew his was a minority position and would lead to rancor he kept silent regarding a position he knew would bring division. In contra-distinction, men use his position and the liberty of the Confession in this point as an excuse for teaching something they know causes rancor and divides the Church.

I find that attitude deplorable.

 

[Romans922]

The conclusion says more than the premises allow. All that the conclusion can logically say is that Twisse/Vines/Gataker did not teach active imputation. This is what the argument should look like:

1) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker helped *author* the WCF, and . . .
2) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker rejected the imputation of Christ's active obedience . . .
3) Twisse, Vines, and Gataker represent the dominant view of the WCF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion 1: The WCF does not teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience?

They are missing premise 3. But there argument doesn't say whether those three repreent the dominant view.

And in fact, given what we learn from WLC and WCF it is obvious that the Standards teach the Active obedience of Christ and since it does it shows that the majority of the Divines agreed with this doctrine. 3 people definitlely do not make a majority (or even anywhere close to a majority) with the number of the Westminster Divines. And because 3 divines disagree with the Active obedience of Christ does not mean that someone (a FV advocate) can say that the Confession does not teach it. It clearly does, the divines are not the Confession. The Confession is the Confession. Whoever this person is has no logic whatsoever given the true facts. And I am saying this, one who has no formal training in logic!!! It is just common sense. Oh, wow, common sense realism...right? No?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

See a previous discussion of this subject here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

See a previous discussion of this subject here.

Andrew,

Thank you for this link. I want to interact on something that you quoted in that previous thread:

Additional historical information for consideration:

Peter J. Wallace, Whose Meaning? The Question of Original Intent:

There were several matters on which the Westminster Divines were not fully agreed. In some cases, like the matter of the supralapsarian versus infralapsarian debate or with respect to the timing of the millennium, the Confession remained more or less silent. Others, however, had to be addressed. It is interesting to note that wherever they could, they found ways of allowing for a diversity of views among sound Reformed men. They did this by adopting wording that could be interpreted in different ways.

Perhaps the best known example is in the chapter on justification. The Thirty-Nine Articles asserted that the "whole obedience and satisfaction" of Christ was imputed to the believer in justification, but William Twisse, Richard Vines, and Thomas Gataker objected to this language being included in the new confession. They did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead. After some debate, the Assembly decided to use simply the language of "the obedience and satisfaction" of Christ, which could be interpreted either way. Twisse, Vines, and Gataker would understand this to refer solely to the passive obedience of Christ, while the majority would understand it to include both the active and the passive obedience of Christ.(2)

2. Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, (Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1897) 154-160; William S. Barker, Puritan Profiles (Mentor, 1999), 158, 178.

Now that bolded portion was an interesting bit of information and I need this fleshed out a bit for me.

This is where the FV proponents cannot simply wiggle out of this issue and say they are Confessional, per se, on this point.

Chapter VIII
Of Christ the Mediator


VIII. To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same;39 making intercession for them,40 and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation;41 effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His word and Spirit;42 overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.43

In other words, the dissenters would have had to see sanctification as part of Union with Christ - a benefit that only the Elect receive.

Thus, it's not accurate to state, according to the original post that the dissenters denied the imputation of Christ's active obedience but only that they placed it under the heading of Sanctification vice Justification both of which are benefits that only the Elect enjoy in their Union with Christ.

 

[MW]

I honestly don't know what Mr. Wallace is driving at with that statement.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I honestly don't know what Mr. Wallace is driving at with that statement.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you disagree with him that the dissenters "...did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead...."?

Or are you simply unsure that what he is saying is true?

 

[MW]

I'm not sure I understand. Do you disagree with him that the dissenters "...did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead...."?

Or are you simply unsure that what he is saying is true?

I'm unsure what he could mean by saying that they claimed it was part of sanctification. It must be that he is thinking in terms other than imputation; impartation, perhaps.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Right, I see what you're saying.

I guess we'd have to check the footnote that was cited in Mitchell's work.

I asked Chris if he had the reference.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Rich -- You can read Mitchell's work online here (pp. 149-156 of this edition).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Doh! Thanks Andrew!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I followed the link and it says it's a digitized book but I can't figure out how to read it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I followed the link and it says it's a digitized book but I can't figure out how to read it.

You just click on "read this book" and then scroll down to page 149 and/or do a word search on "active obedience."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think my overseas IP limits what I can see for that link. Google must have some deal with the people who digitized it. Someone's trying to copy it for me who has access.

Thanks.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

FYI. I think Alan Strange did the seciton in the OPC Justification report on the active obedience of Christ.
http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
Also, my recollection is that Chad Van Dixhoorn's dealing with this question is quite a bit more extensive than Mitchell. But of course that is in his minutes; he has some comments in online in his WLC article.
Alan Strange I think is supposed to be writing more extensively on the subject; I think he did the section in the OPC report but am not certain at this late hour; I need to turn in in a bit.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Page 153:

...On the text I Cor i. 30, Christ is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, etc., Gataker had argued that Christ is made to us righteousness as he is made wisdom, but he is not made to us wisdom by imputing his wisdom to us, but by instructing us; so neither is he said to be made righteounsess because his righteousness is imputed to us, but because by his grace he makes us actually righteous....

That's all I could find. I don't see how this connects Christ's obedience to our own except as instruction vice imputation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Page 156:

...they left out the word whole to which Gataker and his friends had most persistently objected, so that the clause, which in their revised verson of Article XI. had stood in the form 'his whole obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed to us,' was in the confession changed into 'imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ,' which though it hardly seems to us to include, still less to favour their view, they were content to accept as less rigid than the other. At least on its being conceded Gataker and his friends agreed to drop further controversy on the question, as has been distinctly recorded by Simeon Ashe in his funeral sermon for his old friend Gataker.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to hammer a few things home.

1. The majority position of the Assembly was in favor of clearly teaching the active obedience of Christ.
2. The language was left ambiguous out of respect for the dissenters.
BUT
3. The dissenters did not then use this as license to continue to teach something they knew the majority of the Assembly disagreed with. In other words, they did not sow discord by teaching against the active obedience of Christ in the Churches. This is a spirit solely lacking in FV men.

Finally, this should be noted:

II. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.4

The PCA and OPC have now specifiically dealt with this controversy. In other words, they more clearly defined this matter of controversy as is their authority to do so.

Thus:
1. On the point that they are not Godly men like Gataker who remained silent on an opinion that would spread discord in the Chruches, the FV men failed.
2. On the point where a Synod has settled a matter of controversy regarding the active obedience of Christ, these men again have failed.

They ought to doubly repent.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(Gal 3:10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

(Gal 4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

(Gal 4:5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


I mean to divert here. I was following another discussion on another list and I brought this up and it was not adequately answered in my opinion. I can't remember all of the details but it seemed the FV guy was shying away from the need of Christ to earn anything. Their argument was that He was always in the Fathers bossom and needed not to earn God's favor.

I then mentioned that would have been true if you only looked upon Christ in his divine nature but when he became man his person had two natures. He was fully God and fully man. His divine nature needed not earn anything but when He took upon himself a human nature he was placed under the law and had to earn or fulfill the the Covenant of Works so that we could be imputed with both his perfect (active and passive) obedience. He was born under the law it says. The law to me is fulfillment of all of the Covenants starting with the Covenant that Adam broke. It needed to be earned by continuing in all things of the law or there would have been a curse.

What is so hard about this. I just don't get why they want to get away from this? I don't understand why they want everything to look like the New Covenant... saying grace grace. They seem to hate the law.

 

[Civbert]

I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is ambiguous. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was not that specific - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the whole obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.

 

[VictorBravo]

I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is ambiguous. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was not that specific - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the whole obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.

I think that is a very good point. At least in our day, "ambiguous" means susceptible to multiple interpretations. That implies what Rich was condemning: taking a possible interpretation and running with it.

 

[KMK]

I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is ambiguous. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was not that specific - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the whole obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.

This is a good point! After all, they chose to use both 'sit about it' and 'at it' when referring to the Lord's Table in the Directory of Worship. They did not, however, choose to say something like, "but by imputing the active and/or passive obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them..."

The wisdom of the Divines never ceases to amaze me. (Where is the 'we're not worthy' emoticon?)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I wouldn't want to say the Confession's language is ambiguous. Rather, it is silent regarding active obedience (and other issues). So one may not "interpret" the language to say the WCF teaches the imputation of Christ's active obedience - because the language of the Confession was not that specific - they left out the word "whole" in the phrase "the whole obedience of Christ". The Westminster Divines "passed over" questions where no clear consensus could be reached by very careful (unambiguous) wording.

I re-highlighted a couple of words Anthony.