Heidelcast: Active Obedience, Westminster Assembly, and the FV (pt 1)

[R. Scott Clark]

Lane Keister joins the Heidelcast again this week to answer a series of questions from Nick about the imputation of the active active obedience of Christ, how the Westminster Assembly handled the question, and the denial of the IAO in the federal vision movement.

Heidelcast 21 March 2010: Christ’s Active Obedience, the Westminster Assembly, and the FV (Updated)

 

[KMK]

Very interesting.

Rev.s Clark and Keister, I have another question.

Both the LBC and the Savoy use the words "active and passive" in chapter 11 whereas the WCF uses only "obedience". Can't this fact be used as an additional argument in favor of IAO? Both the Savoy and the LBC were penned for the purpose of demonstrating that these groups agreed with the overwhelming majority of the Westminster Standards. In addition, the Savoy and LBC used most of the same source documents. Is there any reason the Presbyterian cannot use the LBC and Savoy against the FV by presenting a more 'fully orbed' definition of the word 'obedience'? We Baptists often use the WCF to clarify our own confession, why can't that be done in reverse.

Also, according to the FV, why did Jesus actively obey if not for the purpose of imputation? Was it simply so he could be our example?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Very interesting.

Rev.s Clark and Keister, I have another question.

Both the LBC and the Savoy use the words "active and passive" in chapter 11 whereas the WCF uses only "obedience". Can't this fact be used as an additional argument in favor of IAO? Both the Savoy and the LBC were penned for the purpose of demonstrating that these groups agreed with the overwhelming majority of the Westminster Standards. In addition, the Savoy and LBC used most of the same source documents. Is there any reason the Presbyterian cannot use the LBC and Savoy against the FV by presenting a more 'fully orbed' definition of the word 'obedience'? We Baptists often use the WCF to clarify our own confession, why can't that be done in reverse.

Also, according to the FV, why did Jesus actively obey if not for the purpose of imputation? Was it simply so he could be our example?

Interesting question.

Of course it could be argued the other way as well, that the same men, or at least the same generation of men, who penned Westminster Confession chapter 11, saw fit to modify the language in the newer confessions. This might indicate that the more ecumenical Westminster Assembly took a broader view of the issue, choosing to include men who could affirm both positions (IPO-only and IAO/IPO), while Savoy and the LBC took a more narrow view of things.

 

[KMK]

Very interesting.

Rev.s Clark and Keister, I have another question.

Both the LBC and the Savoy use the words "active and passive" in chapter 11 whereas the WCF uses only "obedience". Can't this fact be used as an additional argument in favor of IAO? Both the Savoy and the LBC were penned for the purpose of demonstrating that these groups agreed with the overwhelming majority of the Westminster Standards. In addition, the Savoy and LBC used most of the same source documents. Is there any reason the Presbyterian cannot use the LBC and Savoy against the FV by presenting a more 'fully orbed' definition of the word 'obedience'? We Baptists often use the WCF to clarify our own confession, why can't that be done in reverse.

Also, according to the FV, why did Jesus actively obey if not for the purpose of imputation? Was it simply so he could be our example?

Interesting question.

Of course it could be argued the other way as well, that the same men, or at least the same generation of men, who penned Westminster Confession chapter 11, saw fit to modify the language in the newer confessions. This might indicate that the more ecumenical Westminster Assembly took a broader view of the issue, choosing to include men who could affirm both positions (IPO-only and IAO/IPO), while Savoy and the LBC took a more narrow view of things.

Except for the fact that Rev Keister argues pretty conclusively on this broadcast that the WCF was not at all an ecumenical document of compromise (sic). (I forget the actual term he used.)

 

[greenbaggins]

Right, the Westminster Standards are not consensus documents (witness the Independents not getting anything close to their way), and when the language of "whole obedience" was voted on, they voted in favor of it. We don't know why they pulled the language, conclusively, but I think that Dr. Strange's thesis is much more likely: they thought that the language was adequately provided for in WCF 8.5 and in WLC 70.

As to your question, Ken, it's possible. I'm not sure how one would find out the answer, however.

 

[MW]

That was a clearly presented cast. Some issues, though.

We have seen the language of the imputation of Christ's active obedience become a test of orthodoxy in recent times, but the fact is that reformed theology teaches the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which includes His active obedience. The idea of active obedience itself being imputed is rather misleading, and should be qualified so as not to lead to misunderstanding.

The idea of the Confession as a consensus document is well accepted; at times it has been overused (and Letham's recent work seems to take it too far), but it cannot be ignored. There is no doubt that the formulation of the Confession on this point was designed to incorporate, not the views of all individuals (because a man like Gataker decided not to publish his distinct views on the subject), but the views of Reformed Protestantism. In other words,, the consensus is found in the desire to stay within the mainstream of theological tradition rather than run the risk of forging new directions for theology.

To answer Pastor Klein's question, no, the Savoy and London Confessions cannot be used for clarification, for the simple reason that these are particularisations and adaptations of the Westminster Confession; they are by nature more particular and depart from the catholicity of the Westminster Assembly.

 

[KMK]

To answer Pastor Klein's question, no, the Savoy and London Confessions cannot be used for clarification, for the simple reason that these are particularisations and adaptations of the Westminster Confession; they are by nature more particular and depart from the catholicity of the Westminster Assembly.

I am sure you are correct, Rev Winzer, it's just that I find it interesting that the Savoy and London confessions join the WCF's language of "perfect obedience" in chapter 8 and then 'particularize' it to active as well as passive in chapter 11.

-------------------

BTW, do you object to the Savoy in chapter 11 when it says, "by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith"?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

but I think that Dr. Strange's thesis is much more likely: they thought that the language was adequately provided for in WCF 8.5 and in WLC 70.

As to your question, Ken, it's possible. I'm not sure how one would find out the answer, however.

Any questions on whole obedience or obedience can be questioned. I appreciate the word whole. I can ask Dr. Strange this week on this issue. He will be here for the Reformation Society meeting this week which I will be at. Either way it is the obedience of Christ that is attributed to us. Is it perfect? Is it whole? It has to be or we would not be accepted in the beloved. What is perfect Holiness? Whether or not the word whole is included in 11.1 or not, the Divines must have sensed that what was left was a full statement that spoke the truth completely.

I deleted my following posts because I was reacting to Lane's comment that the word whole might have been left out to keep away the charge of anti-nomianism. This thread was not going in that direction. Sorry.

 

[MW]

BTW, do you object to the Savoy in chapter 11 when it says, "by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith"?

As the Westminster Confession stands, "obedience and satisfaction" are inclusive terms which define the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to believers. The words are easily understood to refer to all that Christ has done by means of offering obedience and satisfaction to the law. One would be required to make a qualification in order to exclude active obedience from the category of obedience which is expressed by the Confession.

As the Savoy Declaration stands, "active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death" is too particular and excludes an element of the "satisfaction" which Christ made to the penalty of the law, namely, His passive obedience throughout His life.

 

[Wayne]

Matthew:

And couldn't we also speak of His active obedience in His death?

 

[MW]

And couldn't we also speak of His active obedience in His death?

Certainly. The Savoy seems to allow for that in its broader statement of active obedience to the whole law.

 

[KMK]

Sorry for all the questions, but I am trying to wrap my mind around the FV argument. By eliminating the imputation of the active obedience of Christ's righteousness are they trying to eliminate the meritorious aspect of His satisfaction?

 

[KMK]

And couldn't we also speak of His active obedience in His death?

Certainly. The Savoy seems to allow for that in its broader statement of active obedience to the whole law.

How was Christ's death obedience to the law?

 

[MW]

How was Christ's death obedience to the law?

The terms are, (1.) Active obedience in reference to the preceptive aspect of the law, and (2.) Passive obedience in reference to the punitive aspect of the law. Your question, I assume, is asking how Jesus obeyed the preceptive aspect of the law in His death. The precept is, Love God with all your being. Jesus displayed the highest degree of love to God in being obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sorry for all the questions, but I am trying to wrap my mind around the FV argument. By eliminating the imputation of the active obedience of Christ's righteousness are they trying to eliminate the meritorious aspect of His satisfaction?

Bingo. Main reason? They deny the Covenant of Works.

Take a look at this Pastor Ken.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/just-few-more-words-fv-397/

 

[KMK]

How was Christ's death obedience to the law?

The terms are, (1.) Active obedience in reference to the preceptive aspect of the law, and (2.) Passive obedience in reference to the punitive aspect of the law. Your question, I assume, is asking how Jesus obeyed the preceptive aspect of the law in His death. The precept is, Love God with all your being. Jesus displayed the highest degree of love to God in being obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Thanks. I would assume it would also include the precept, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[KMK]

Do the FV believe that denying the imputation of the active obedience in reference to the preceptive aspect of the law eliminates any merit from Christ's satisfaction? But doesn't the Reformed view admit there is merit even in the passive obedience in reference to the punitive aspect of the law?

Ames' Marrow:

XX 4. ...But the condition of a servant which accompanied the taking of human nature was the first and proper basis of the humiliation...

XX 5. The end of this humiliation is satisfaction and the achievement of merit.

XX 12. In the humiliation of Christ there was also achievement of merit, since it was ordered for our benefit of good in the form of a reward. This is shown in all the places of Scripture where he is said to have procured righteousness for us by obedience. (Rom 5:19; Rom 5:10; Rom 5:21)

XX 13 The achievements of merit and satisfaction by Christ do not differ essentially, in such a way as to be identified in different actions; they are two phases of one and the same obedience.

 

[MW]

Ames' Marrow:

XX 13 The achievements of merit and satisfaction by Christ do not differ essentially, in such a way as to be identified in different actions; they are two phases of one and the same obedience.

This is the standard reformed explanation of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. If anyone denies that active obedience is a part of that righteousness which is imputed to believers he is essentially denying the quality of "righteousness" as defined by the Bible; for "righteousness" is not merely the absence of obligation to punishment but includes also the presence of obligation to reward. Romans 2:13, "but the doers of the law shall be justified." To deny that this positive aspect of righteousness is a part of the righteousness imputed to believers is, theoretically, to require the individual himself to be a doer of the law in order to complete the requirements for righteousness.

On the other side, we have witnessed a strong polemic aimed against those who deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the point that it has become a matter of orthodoxy to affirm, not that the imputation of righteousness includes the active obedience of Christ, but that the active obedience of Christ itself is imputed. As the quotation from Ames demonstrates, this is not reformed. It divides the work of Christ and thereby distorts the faith of a believer as he looks to Christ and His righteousness alone to be justified.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Amen to Rev. Winser

for "righteousness" is not merely the absence of obligation to punishment but includes also the presence of obligation to reward. Romans 2:13, "but the doers of the law shall be justified." To deny that this positive aspect of righteousness is a part of the righteousness imputed to believers is, theoretically, to require the individual himself to be a doer of the law in order to complete the requirements for righteousness.

 

[py3ak]

I thought this statement, by David Dickson, was a good summary:

"Well then, do not some, otherwise orthodox, err who deny Christ's active obedience to be part of his satisfaction, performed in our place?
Yes."