Last post of the day, since I’ve got things to do. But I have been meaning to edit this old post from August 12, 2003 on my old blog site and simply haven’t had time. Nevertheless, while I think it could definitely be improved, I think it covers the substance of my beliefs about the controversy over the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ.” So, for what it is worth, here it is:
It remains an impenetrable mystery to me how we could possibly think one part of Christ represents us and not another. Jesus in his whole person is our representative. We are accepted in him, not just a part of him. So, it has never occurred to me to deny that any aspect of Jesus’ obedience was extraneous to his role as our Lord and Savior, our covenant head. When God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead, he vindicated his entire life of faith. That verdict is applied to all believers. We are reckoned faithful because the status of Christ as faithful, done outside and apart from us, is share with us.
When one reads Machen on the need for the imputation of Christ’s active obedience one is struck by how he misses obvious options to his own conclusions. True, we are not restored in Christ to the place that Adam was in the garding in a probationary state. That is absolutely correct. But what does that have to do with meritorious righteousness? Last time I looked at the Bible, or the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, Adam was created righteous, in the image of God. He was not lacking in original righteousness, and therefore he did not need to become righteous in God’s sight. God regarded him as righteous from the time he created him.
It is noteworthy however that James Buchanan specifically denigrates the reality of Adam’s righteousness at creation (Thanks to Tim Gallant for pointing this out). This explains to me why the whole system seems so foreign. I cut my teeth on Reformed Theology via the late great Cornelius Van Til (to reduce Van Til to apologetics or to even assume that one should judge his worth by his apologetics is a great mistake). He constantly sparred with Arminians who denigrated Adam’s righteousness because the only righteousness worth having is a pelagian one. Van Til made short work of these people, and not until much later did I realize that Ango-American Reformed theologians had an identical perspective to that of their semi-pelagian counterparts.
Van Til, by the way, is also the person who taught me to believe in creational grace. In other words, the idea that Adam could be in a relationship with God based on strict merit was, from the beginning of my training in Reformed theology, and unthinkable blasphemy against the glory of God who “is not served (Greek root: therapeuo) by human hands.” Creatures can never earn credit from God. They can simply entrust themselves to him and his gracious promises. Adam entrusted himself to the Serpent’s “wisdom” instead.
In any case, Machen’s point about the probationary period is answered simply and much more Biblically: Adam was to grow and mature into a confirmed state of adulthood which God would crown with honor and more glory. Adam was to learn obedience through the things that he suffered (i.e. like the tempation by the serpent). Instead, Adam derailed himself from that path. Jesus, however, not only paid the price for our sins, but he inherited the glory that Adam failed to be graciously given. And the Bible–repeatedly, steadfastly, in the face of a glaring absence of any reference to the abstracted “active obedience of Christ imputed to us”–attributes that gift to believers to Christ’s resurrection. Jesus was not only crucified for our sins, but he was also raised for our justification. Christ’s vindication, his reception of righteous standing in God’s sight, is imputed to us.
But what is the alternative? To claim that even though God created Adam as his son, that he didn’t believe he was good enough to be given glory? Do we withhold driving and other privileges from our young children because they are not yet righteous in our sight? Are they supposed to prove themselves ethically more upright before we will accept them? Of course not. Our children are accepted by us at six months, six years, or sixteen years. Rather, what changes is the privileges they get because they are mature enough to handle them. The are transformed from glory to glory. That is what we have in Christ, not merit but maturity.
Of course, Adam attained true demerit by his sin, and Christ made restoration on the cross. Thus, I still pray by Christ’s merits alone. Worthy is the lamb that was slain.
Let’s talk about another issue. Reading Michael Horton I find that we are supposed to think of Christ’s death as propitiating God’s wrath due to us because of our sins, and Christ’s active obedience as making up for our lack of faithfulness or full commitment. I know it is not intended by this sort of affirmaton, but the first question that pops in my mind is: Why is Christ’s blood not powerful enough to atone for our sins of omission just as much as it does for our sins of commission? What is it that still blocks God from accepting us if he merely (?) forgives our sins. What is lacking in our standing before God? The question is the same for Adam. What more did he need to do to be reckoned as righteous in God’s sight? What was he reckoned as, if not as righteous, from the moment he was created?
It seems to me that there are two basic mistakes being made here. The first one is that it is being silently posited that creatures created in God’s image can be neutrally related to him, neither under his wrath for sin, nor loved and regarded by him as righteous. Rather, they start off in a kind of ethical D.M.Z. and need to accrue points to earn the right to be the recipients of God’s blessing. Onc the contrary, basic Christian theology says there is no neutrality. One is either rightly or wrongly related to God with no third option. If Adam is not under God’s wrath, then he is righteous and has no need to merit anything ever. If sinners or forgiven then there is nothing left over that they need to do or be given to win God’s acceptance.
The error of neutrality follows from another mistake–a confusion of ethics with eschatology. Adam was created as a beloved son and needed to grow up and mature in that love. This was not a matter of gaining a “more” upright standing in God’s sight. One is either just in God’s sight or not; justification does not admit to degrees. It was a matter of maturity. Adam was in the probationary period in order for him to develop until he was confirmed in glory. The issue was eschatology, not ethical status. When Adam derailed himself from God’s grace and his promises he developed a much more serious problem than his relative immaturity in God’s eschatological plan. He became ethically hostile and repulsive to God. Because of his sin he merited infinite punishment. Only God himself could undergo what Adam and the rest of us deserve and come out alive on the other side. Jesus both suffered the full wrath of God on sin and grew and matured by faith in God’s promises regarding the future. He both suffered the (ethical) effects of sin and achieved by faith the (eschatological) goal that Adam was meant to fulfill as our representative. By making the original Adamic eschatology a matter of earning or meriting the consumation, some Calvinists are introducing a great deal of confusion into their theology.
As I see it, off the top of my head, there are four issues here (one has already been mentioned):
1. Does the Bible matter? The whole scheme (alleged scheme, see point 3 below on how it is actually a bundle of unrelated propositions) is simply not in the Bible. It makes a big deal about the active obedience v. the passive obedience of Christ, when Paul simply doesn’t care about their program. Given the shrill accusations, Paul is only useful as a source, not if some verse can be shoved into the (alleged) system, but if he harps on it as the key to the Gospel the way that they do. He does nothing of the kind. That by itself proves the doctrine cannot be as central and key as they think it is. On the other hand, Paul speaks over and over again of the death and resurrection of Christ as the double-cure for humanity.
2. Do the Reformed Confessions matter? Nowhere does the Westminster Confession or catechisms insist that Adam was supposed to merit his salvation. The Heidelberg Catechism provides a comprehensive brief on Christianity without ever mentioning such a thing. The Westminster Assembly deliberately phrased their documents so as not to require some special role for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. It seems to me that those making heresy allegations are the presbyterian counterparts to liberal Supreme Court Justices who want to mandate things nowhere found in the U. S. Constitution. It would be fine if they would simply come up with new Biblical arguments for their private opinions and pursue a campain of rational persuasion for further reform. They are not helping themselves by the tactics they have chosen. I don’t see how the zero tolerance attitude is compatible with any vows any might have taken to pursue the peace and purity of the Church.
3. Is there any such thing as systematic theology? Sytematic theology is premised on the idea that ideas have consequences and that theological propositions are supposed to be logically related, or at least compatible, to one another. What we find among the merit-driven-covenant-of-works/imputed-active-obedience advocatesis the replacement of logic with shrill insistence and accusations. It is real simple: Either creatures can profit God by their actions (and thus “God” is finite and no god at all) or it is impossible for their works to be meritorious in his sight (c.f WCF 16.5; Turretin, Ursinus, etc). Either it is impossible for a creatures works to be meritorious in God’s sight, or else it was not necessary that the mediator should be truly God (Larger Catechism #38). Either the imputation of Christ’s active obedience is superfluous or Christ’s blood cannot atone for sins of omission. The entire idea of a systematic body of doctrine is rendered null and void by the polemics engaged to promote the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.
4. There is no relationship between any view of the (supposedly meritorious) Covenant of Works or the Active Obedience of Christ and ???. The nature of what is imputed is irrelevant to this debate. The question is who is justified only on the basis of Christ only through faith–a faith that is living, not dead. The entire issue of a merit-based covenant with Adam or the imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ is a red herring that works to distract from any meaningful discussion of the reall issues–the Reformed Doctrines of the necessity of sanctification to final acquittal (synonym: justification) at the Last Day.
For further considerations see Rich Lusk’s response to the OPC committee report which made allegations about him.
