Really? That's Blasphemy?
Originally posted on the Gig Harbor Reformed Bible Study blog:
This Lord's Day I am preaching a sermon on Exodus 20:7 - the third commandment. Quick... what is it?
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
As I was studying for and writing this sermon it was fascinating to unpack all that this seemingly short commandment tells us as children of God. One of the areas that I was most fascinated with was how this commandment speaks of our salvation. How in the heck can "not taking the Lord's name in vain" lead to talking about our salvation?
Blasphemy is the direct or the indirect detracting from the glory and honor of God. Doing anything to take away from the glory and the honor that is due the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) alone is blasphemous.
There are many preachers today who are telling believers that they can lose their election and their salvation if they are not righteous enough, if they are not faithful enough. When Christ comes again, in that final judgment these teachers say that when you are standing before God the Judge he will look at your obedience and render a verdict based on what you have done. To put it another way some would have us believe that God’s favor and acceptance of us ultimately depends on our obedience. This has taken root in many churches across the world (unfortunately) under the heading of "Federal Vision Theology." It is amazing that the Reformed Confessions (both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity) speak so clearly against this errant theology, but yet somehow they are tolerated even in so-called Reformed churches.
Teaching such as this takes away from the finished and completed work of Christ! Christ’s active obedience is our obedience and righteousness before God. Anybody that teaches or believes otherwise is diminishing the finished work of Christ and making our acceptance before God based, at least partly on our own work. Put simply, this is blasphemy!
Maybe you think that this is too strong. Really? Blasphemy? If you think that then listen to what The Belgic Confession says in article 22:
This is serious! "A most enormous blasphemy against God." If this is misusing the name of God, then what does the commandment say? “… And the Lord will not hold him guiltless.” This blasphemy means that you will stand before God still clothed in your own filthy rags trying to impress him. God is not going to look on these blasphemers and see the perfect righteousness of Christ, but their own pitiful merits which the Heidelberg Catechism says in Q&A 114 “even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience.” The name of God and of his Christ is the basis of our salvation. Looking to anything or anybody else means that we are misusing the Name of God and breaking the Third Commandment.
I hope and pray that if you believe in teaching such as this that you will seriously consider the ramifications of holding that position. The Federal Vision is not just a benign, innocent interpretation of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions and the only difference is just a misunderstanding. This theology is breaking one of the Ten Commandments, and one of the commandments that speaks of God's just punishment for those who break it - "you will not be held guiltless." Not quite the position that one wants to be in when they are standing before God. I am thankful everyday that I am standing before God guiltless, not because of anything I have done, but because I have been clothed in the pure garments of Christ and that he is my righteousness before God.
This Lord's Day I am preaching a sermon on Exodus 20:7 - the third commandment. Quick... what is it?
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
As I was studying for and writing this sermon it was fascinating to unpack all that this seemingly short commandment tells us as children of God. One of the areas that I was most fascinated with was how this commandment speaks of our salvation. How in the heck can "not taking the Lord's name in vain" lead to talking about our salvation?
Blasphemy is the direct or the indirect detracting from the glory and honor of God. Doing anything to take away from the glory and the honor that is due the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) alone is blasphemous.
There are many preachers today who are telling believers that they can lose their election and their salvation if they are not righteous enough, if they are not faithful enough. When Christ comes again, in that final judgment these teachers say that when you are standing before God the Judge he will look at your obedience and render a verdict based on what you have done. To put it another way some would have us believe that God’s favor and acceptance of us ultimately depends on our obedience. This has taken root in many churches across the world (unfortunately) under the heading of "Federal Vision Theology." It is amazing that the Reformed Confessions (both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity) speak so clearly against this errant theology, but yet somehow they are tolerated even in so-called Reformed churches.
Teaching such as this takes away from the finished and completed work of Christ! Christ’s active obedience is our obedience and righteousness before God. Anybody that teaches or believes otherwise is diminishing the finished work of Christ and making our acceptance before God based, at least partly on our own work. Put simply, this is blasphemy!
Maybe you think that this is too strong. Really? Blasphemy? If you think that then listen to what The Belgic Confession says in article 22:
We believe that for us to acquire the true knowledge of this great mystery [what Christ has done for us] the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith that embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and makes him its own, and no longer looks for anything apart from him. (Not even looking at ourselves.)
For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely. (Its one or the other. Either completely not in Christ, or entirely in Christ)
Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God-- for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior.
This is serious! "A most enormous blasphemy against God." If this is misusing the name of God, then what does the commandment say? “… And the Lord will not hold him guiltless.” This blasphemy means that you will stand before God still clothed in your own filthy rags trying to impress him. God is not going to look on these blasphemers and see the perfect righteousness of Christ, but their own pitiful merits which the Heidelberg Catechism says in Q&A 114 “even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience.” The name of God and of his Christ is the basis of our salvation. Looking to anything or anybody else means that we are misusing the Name of God and breaking the Third Commandment.
I hope and pray that if you believe in teaching such as this that you will seriously consider the ramifications of holding that position. The Federal Vision is not just a benign, innocent interpretation of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions and the only difference is just a misunderstanding. This theology is breaking one of the Ten Commandments, and one of the commandments that speaks of God's just punishment for those who break it - "you will not be held guiltless." Not quite the position that one wants to be in when they are standing before God. I am thankful everyday that I am standing before God guiltless, not because of anything I have done, but because I have been clothed in the pure garments of Christ and that he is my righteousness before God.
Labels: blasphemy, Christ's active obedience, Federal vision, justification, third commandment
posted by Mark Vander Pol at 1:32 PM
37 Comments:
I've been around for a few years, but this just clicked. FV and Romanism. Chiding myself for obtuseness. Thanks.
Phil
Phil -
Obtuseness aside (give yourself more credit), but you are exactly right. The similarities are very interesting (and telling). I seem to remember reading something a couple of years ago of that being somebody's precise journey: from FV to Rome.
Mark
Mark,
In light of your article what's your view of so-called "Lordship Salvation"?
For example MacArthur would say that obedience - while in no sense being salvific or contributing anything to Christ's finished cross work - is nevertheless among the inevitable fruit borne by the truly regenerate.
Your thoughts?
In Christ,
CD
"Christ’s active obedience is our obedience and righteousness before God."
I understand why Reformed theologians teach this concept, but that shouldn't be confused with what the Bible actually teaches. I have yet to see reasonable Scriptural evidence for the notion of Christ's 'active obedience', and in fact have seen plenty of evidence against it. For example, a few major passages, Romans 3:24-25, Gal 2:20-21, and 2 Cor 5:21, all are talking directly about justification but no mention of 'active obedience', only 'passive obedience'. If 'active obedience' is really true, then Paul left some pretty big holes in his descriptions. As the Reformed theologians teach them, they are like Peanut Butter and Jelly, yet Paul only speaks of one of those ingredients...and that should be cause for stopping and reconsidering.
Nick -
What about Rom 5:17-21, 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Is 61:10; or Phil 3:9 for starters.
Coram Deo -
I will have to get back to you on that. I have an early morning tomorrow and have to get to bed!
Mark
Gal 4:4-5: But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born fof woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Nick, this is pretty clear evidence that Christ's mission was to come and actively obey the law on behalf of his people and then die as their sacrifice on the cross to redeem them so that they might receive adoption.
Couple Gal 4:4-5 with the very verses that you claim speak against Christ's active obedience and you have this: justification = Christ's active obedience to the law and death on the cross (which is part of his active obedience) meriting a complete salvation for his people before a holy God.
All of this is credited to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked (Romans 4:5).
Since you seem to believe that justification only involves Christ's passive obedience it makes sense that you would dislike the notion that Christ's active obedience is the other necessary part of justification.
It also makes sense that you must then believe that the righteousness you need to stand approved before a holy God has to come from your own obedience and not from Christ's.
If this is so, it appears that you believe in only half a Savior.
A little bit of help from Christ's death on the cross + one's faith + one's works = Christ is only half a Savior.
I hope that I'm wrong about what you believe...
Great post Mark. Very edifying. How true is Machen's setiment: where would we be without the active obedience of Christ. answer: hell
May Christ be exalted.
Nick, the Christ Song in Phil 2:5-11, which is thought by most to be Paul's exposition of Isaiah 52:13,is more than just Christ's example of humility that those united to him must follow. It is in fact no less than the story of his active obedience which not only models our new life but also merits it.
He himself announces his active obedience and the reward it merits (on the grounds of the covenant of redempion) in John 17:4.
It is the very obedience that the first Adam failed to offer up (therefore damning all of his poaterity under his federal headship according to Rom 5:18).
It is also this active obedience according to Romans 5:18,19 that has won our justification, life, and righteousness. Therefore, all those who are under the federal headship of Christ can say along with Machen that we find no hope at all without the active obedience of the 2nd Adam.
For the clearest teaching on the IAO that I know of see WSC's "Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry" beginning with pg 229.
Also, for a good Biblical Theological lesson on the subject Fesko's "Last Things First" teaches about the 2nd Adam's obedience prefigured in the type of the 1st Adam. Super clear work.
Hi Mark, lets see those verses (remember, I'm looking for a passage that says Christ kept the Law in our place):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%205:17-21,%201%20Cor%201:30;%202%20Cor%205:21;%20Is%2061:10;%20Phil%203:9&version=NIV
Rom 5:17-21, I have seen this put forward as the "strongest" text which advocates of 'active obedience' look to. However, it merely mentions 'obedience', which isn't the same as "Christ kept the Law in your place." I cannot stress enough, when it comes to proper exegesis, that 'active obedience' is a specific teaching which cannot simply be read into the word "obedience." Examining context and other places where "obedience" is mentioned, only 'passive obedience' fits the description: Rom 5:6ff; Phil 2:8; Heb 5:7f.
1 Cor 1:30, this says nothing about active obedience, and in fact strongly applies to passive. The context and epistle as a whole confirm this: 1 Cor 1:18; 1:23; 15:3-4 (especially this).
2 Cor 5:21, I mentioned this originally, again noting the most it says is passive obedience a la "made sin for us."
Isaiah 61:10, this gives no description one way or the other. Interestingly though, Is 53:11 speaks of justification yet is only dealing with passive obedience.
Phil 3:9, the mere mention of "righteousness" doesn't qualify as evidence for 'active obedience'. Further, Paul's explanation of 3:9 comes in the next two verses 10-11, where Christ's death (and Resurrection) are the only components in view.
I'm not saying any of this to be "mean" or anything like that. All I'm saying is that I've not seen any reasonable evidence for the doctrine from the Scriptures, especially not from any 'plain reading' of any given passage. To me, this is cause for reconsideration to anyone preaching that doctrine.
Brad,
You quoted Gal 4:4-5, but first lets clear up some other stuff. A denial of 'active obedience' - for the simple reason I don't find it in Scripture - in no way makes Christ "half a Savior" to me, nor logically implies I must supply my own righteousness somehow. Even in the classical 'formula' of:
Christ's Righteousness = Passive & Active Obedience
it is still Christ's Righteousness with only the Passive, which is the most the Biblical evidence points to. So Christ can certainly be all the righteousness I need - coming from the passive obedience alone, which is solidly confirmed by texts like Romans 3:24-25 which are key justification texts yet only mention passive obedience.
The concept of Active Obedience is logical under the structure established by theologians - I understand why it's put forward. However, what theologians say and what the Bible say are not always the same thing, and in this case I don't believe the Bible says anything relating to active obedience. While it might be uncomfortable to hear this, that can only mean the theologians have something wrong and are unfortunately letting theology cloud their exegesis of Scripture.
Now onto Gal 4:4-5. Reading the text itself and the greater context of Galatians, it doesn't speak of 'active obedience'. Christ certainly was born under the law, and He certainly never broke any of it's commandments, but that doesn't mean He kept those commandments in our place (which is what active obedience states). Instead, the passage says Christ did this to redeem those under the law, that is put a formal end to the law so that it wasn't keeping men 'prisoners' any longer. Gal 3:13 says this redemption consisted in Christ's passive obedience, as does Gal 2:21. Paul's whole message to the Galatians is summarized in Gal 6:14, where the only thing that matters to Paul is Passive Obedience.
If Paul is content with Christ's Righteousness consisting in only Passive Obedience, then anyone arguing otherwise (eg Reformed theologians) should be followed cautiously.
Hello Publican,
You said: "How true is Machen's setiment: where would we be without the active obedience of Christ. answer: hell"
I'm not sure if this is even accurate. Under the classical formula of "passive and active obedience", lacking an active obedience wouldn't put one in hell. The Passive obedience prevents one from going to hell, not the active.
Chaos,
I hope you are not misunderstanding me: I never said Phil 2:5-11 was simply/only Christ's "example of humility that those united to him must follow." Christ really accomplished something there, something we couldn't do. My only point is that all the passage speaks of is Passive Obedience at most, not active. That's just me exegeting as fairly and honestly as I am able to.
You mention John 17:4, but you would have to deny Passive Obedience is part of the work Christ came to do in order for that verse to hold as Active Obedience proof...however, if that work includes Passive Obedience, then the burden is on you to prove 17:4 is speaking of more than that. As it stands, there is nothing in it indicating Christ was keeping the Law in place of believers. Further, John 13-17 is the account of the Last Supper, which most certainly was focused tightly upon His death the next day.
You then mention Rom 5:18-19. In my last post I address this passage, showing why I see nothing demanding it be in reference to active obedience (other than a pre-existing theological/philosophical need for it to be).
I am glad that you suggest those books to me, and I'm interested in getting "Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry"...but from my perspective the prospects don't look good when I'm simply looking for clear Scriptural proof texts and the "strongest" ones I've received are Romans 5:19.
Nick,
There is a very big difference between "biblicism" (requiring anything counted as doctrine to be stated explicitly in Scritpure) and reading Scripture in a Reformed manner, i.e., "sola scriptura" (which requires us to read with "good and necessary consequence" in view).
Buy the book (CJPM) and read it.
By the way, the obedience of Christ in dying on the cross was not merely "passive" (suffering) but also "active" (positive fulfilling of the Father's will). It is a mistake to limit the significance of the event of the cross to the realm of passive obedience (suffering of a curse), without also seeing its implications for active obedience (positive fulfilment of the Law; i.e., love for God and for neighbor).
You want direct biblical proof that Christ's dying on the cross was an expression of active obedience? Try Ephesians 5:2 - "And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
"By the way, the obedience of Christ in dying on the cross was not merely "passive" (suffering) but also "active" (positive fulfilling of the Father's will)."
Ah, you beat me to it Brian. Well said. In fact the Carmen Cristi exhibits Christ's death on the cross as the very climax of his whole life of actively obeying his Father.
Active obedience and passive obedience can't be separated so sharply. Christ was actively obeying his Father's will (not my will but thine ) when he marched steadfastly to Golgotha. He actively laid down his life for his sheep. No one took it from him.
Without a good understanding of covenant theology (or reformed theology actually)you end up beating your head against the wall, possibly trailing off back into the prison of self-righteousness, and maybe even failing to join in with every knee that bows before him who has been exalted above every name because he walked between the pieces in the place of Abraham.
Read CJPM and be at peace friend.
p
Hi, I'm the son of a PCA pastor, who moved to Moscow, ID for school. I'd heard some things about "FV," but wanted to see for myself.
I've heard several people say, like you did, that the FV teaches that you have to remain "faithful to the covenant" in order to maintain your salvation, etc.
But I have soon none of this in the actual teachings of Doug Wilson (who most would agree represents what the FV is the best).
To put it more clearly - FV pastors, specifically Doug Wilson, my pastor (won't speak for people I don't personally know), do NOT teach that you must maintain your salvation. Salvation is a gift, but grace, through faith alone plus nothing! (I've heard Doug Wilson say that so many times in sermons and out). We do not, and cannot, merit it in anyway. It is all sheer grace, 100% all the way.
I'm not sure why you think that
FV men teach "faithfulness" as a way of maintaining salvation?
Doug Wilson preached a really clear sermon on all this last Sunday (he's working through the book of Romans). Please, before writing against Doug Wilson, take the time to listen to this sermon.
www.federal-vision.com/video/oct_18_09.html
For Christ, his kingdom, and the unity of the Church,
Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria
Daniel Foucachon
Here is the link, in html:
The End of the Law
It's on Vimeo here too.
Even if FV doesn't say explicitly that "faithfulness" is the way to maintaining one's salvation, the question that still has to be asked and answered, nonetheless, is: Do the FV's end up saying as much anyways, even in spite of their best intentions? In the judgment of the Reformed churches, this is exactly the substance of what FV has said, and has continued to say.
Even Arminius wouldn't have wanted his views characterized as "semi-Pelagian." But that doesn't mean that they weren't.
Brian, listen to the sermon I linked. You can't get more explicit - our works not only don't contribute to either our salvation or maintenance of salvation, but apart from faith in Christ's righteousness alone, they stink.
Brian,
I understand what you mean by "good and necessary consequence," but there also comes a point where Biblical evidence is needed for a doctrine, regardless of how much one's theology deems it 'good and necessary'.
In the case of active obedience, as I've said before, two factors must be reckoned with: (1) Paul is fine with only the 'passive' aspect in key texts like Romans 3:24; (2) there is no reasonable text which can be put forward as direct proof of active obedience.
I can (and look forward to) read books like CJPM, but - at times - I'm also forced to take the argument with a grain of salt because it relies too much on teaching doctrine based on 'good and necessary' grounds rather than reasonable proof texts.
As for Christ's death on the Cross carrying an (active) "positive fulfilling of the Father's will" component, that's fine; it still doesn't necessitate that the active obedience plays a role in justification. The key to remember is that "passive" doesn't mean Christ just sat there, but rather it applies to the fact Christ's suffering and death were for sinners. One could say Christ "actively suffered" but that would actually be speaking of 'passive obedience'. Also, Eph 5:2 speaks more of passive than anything.
Daniel,
I'm afraid that it's going to take a lot more than just listening to one sermon to overturn the opinion/assessment of the Reformed churches regarding FV. Doug has already published his views much more broadly and comprehensively in other contexts, and unless he is backing off from those (in which case, he ought to say so publicly), I'll still defer to the collective wisdom of the Reformed churches who have painstakingly analyzed the views of him and others.
Nick,
Ephesians 5:2 speaks explicitly of the cross as a sacrifice to God and love for neighbor. In other words, this too is an aspect of the obedience which Christ performed on the cross--love of God and love of neighbor. Is it too much of a stretch, do you think, that when we look at a passage like Romans 5 that speaks of the imputation of Christ's obedience, to include, in that obedience which is imputed, the obedience he offered in the way of love for God and love for neighbor (i.e., fulfilling of the law), which is made clear in other contexts such as Eph. 5:2?
In other words, if Scripture speaks generally about Christ's obedience counted to us, and if other parts of Scripture exhibit in different places two distinct aspects of his obedience--suffering curse AND loving God and neighbor--then what's so strange about the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ?
Hey everybody -
So I post this and then take off for the weekend without my computer! Thanks for those who backed me up. I have a few other things to say in a little while when I have time.
Mark
Brian,
Eph 5:2 Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
The wording of Eph 5:2 applies to passive obedience more than anything, to suggest it speaks of 'active obedience' as well or even primarily is a tough sell. Surely, if 'active obedience' is Biblical, there is a stronger and more explicit proof of it than this.
Your comments about how this is "love for neighbor" being in reference to active obedience are overlooking the fact the love being discussed here is the love Christ displayed in going to the cross.
You then ask if it is too much to read this into the obedience spoken of in Romans 5. My response is yes, because (1) Eph 5:2 is focused upon Pasive; and (2) Romans as a whole - esp. in Rom 3:21ff & 5:6ff - speaks only of Passive.
And I don't think it's a mistake that Paul contrasts keeping the law to Christ's death in Gal 2:21 - "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" - because this is in keeping with his view that the Passive Obedience is sufficient for justification. This contrast is very strange if keeping the law were it's own separate component in justification; instead, Paul sees only two options: keep the law or have Christ die.
Again, I'm not talking like this to be heavy, mean, rude, etc., but rather as what I see as reading the Scriptures in their plainest sense and not let 'good and necessary' doctrines of theologians drive your exegesis.
Nick -
You are looking for precise language to be contained within Scripture for terms and concepts that have been developed over 2,000 years of reflection on God's Word. Such constraints will lead you into harm as you aren't able to see the forest from the trees and use all of Scripture to interpret Scripture. For instance, according to your reasoning, you would have a hard time believing in the "Trinity" since that term is not present in Scipture.
In Paul's letters he is giving an argument throughout the book and therefore, talking about just one passage doesn't mean his argument is lacking when he picks up other strands later in the epistle.
You said, "Passive Obedience is sufficient for justification." Actually no it isn't. Just having our sins forgiven is not enough to stand in the presence of God the Judge. There are two parts to Justification: "just as if I had never sinned" is only the beginning. God demands his law to be kept perfectly (Gen 2:17; Rom 2:13; Gal 3:10; Gal 5:3). God will not acquit the wicked - he cannot and remain holy (Ex 23:7). Whoever stands before God needs to be righteous (perfectly), but the great thing is that God gives his righteousness through his Son Jesus Christ.
That is what is meant when the passages given that say that "Christ is our righteousness." Christ is the ONLY person ever to have lived to have kept God's law perfectly, in every thought, word and deed. He is the only one who can go before God and say "look at what I did. I accomplished everything that you demanded" (i.e. John 17:4; Rom 2:13). The thing about it is that God will graciously clothe us with Christ's righteousness (i.e. Is 61:10; Zech 3:3-5).
You also said, "This contrast is very strange if keeping the law were it's own separate component in justification; instead, Paul sees only two options: keep the law or have Christ die." The law is not a separate part in justification. When Christ died on the cross God's wrath which was turned toward us (for our not keep thing the law perfectly) was turned away--it was propiticiated. But it is this same law in the same act of justification that God counts Christ's keeping of that law as our keeping of the law.
I don't know about you, Nick, but knowing that Christ kept the law for me and that his righteousness is my righteousness makes me burst into doxology and to living a life of gratitude free from being under the condemnation of God's law.
Mark: You are looking for precise language to be contained within Scripture for terms and concepts that have been developed over 2,000 years of reflection on God's Word.
Nick: I've never seen any evidence of people preaching 'active obedience' extends back more than 500 years, nor has Christendom as a whole embraced such a notion.
Mark: Such constraints will lead you into harm as you aren't able to see the forest from the trees and use all of Scripture to interpret Scripture. For instance, according to your reasoning, you would have a hard time believing in the "Trinity" since that term is not present in Scipture.
Nick: This is a misunderstanding of my position. I'm not demanding the term be found, but it's not unreasonable for demanding the concept be found in Scripture. I see sufficient (even explicit) Scriptural evidence for the Godhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, in which the "Trinity" is simply a convenient term to use; the same cannot be said for 'active obedience'.
Mark: In Paul's letters he is giving an argument throughout the book and therefore, talking about just one passage doesn't mean his argument is lacking when he picks up other strands later in the epistle.
Nick: This is fair, but upon examination of say Romans, I not only don't see active obedience anywhere taught, I see passive obedience strongly taught and repeated throughout: Rom 3:21-26; 4:25; 5:6-11; 8:3; 14:15; etc
This isn't just one passage (though I would contend that some passages are more 'weighty' than others, eg Rom 3:24), it's all the relevant ones in Romans. If I were advocating active obedience and saw this data, it would be cause for concern.
Mark: You said, "Passive Obedience is sufficient for justification." Actually no it isn't. Just having our sins forgiven is not enough to stand in the presence of God the Judge.
Nick: Here is where we begin to get at the heart of the matter, and where I believe the 'need' for (and to find in Scripture) active obedience. A plain reading of Romans 3:21-25 suggests just the opposite of what you just said, putting passive as the only component for God to be "just and justifier."
Mark: There are two parts to Justification: "just as if I had never sinned" is only the beginning. God demands his law to be kept perfectly (Gen 2:17; Rom 2:13; Gal 3:10; Gal 5:3). God will not acquit the wicked - he cannot and remain holy (Ex 23:7). Whoever stands before God needs to be righteous (perfectly), but the great thing is that God gives his righteousness through his Son Jesus Christ.
Nick: God does demand His law be kept, but since it has not been kept the solution is precisely Jesus' death! That is the remedy/solution repeatedly presented, never 'active obedience'. And Romans and Galatians are especially strong in pointing out the law wont justify and offer the cross instead (Rom 3:21; Gal 2:21). The idea that God is still demanding a 'positive' law keeping righteousness is something none of the passages you gave teach, nor do they make sense once the Cross is brought into the picture.
Mark: That is what is meant when the passages given that say that "Christ is our righteousness." Christ is the ONLY person ever to have lived to have kept God's law perfectly, in every thought, word and deed. He is the only one who can go before God and say "look at what I did. I accomplished everything that you demanded" (i.e. John 17:4; Rom 2:13). The thing about it is that God will graciously clothe us with Christ's righteousness (i.e. Is 61:10; Zech 3:3-5).
Nick: The only place I know of where Christ is called "our righteousness" is 1 Cor 1:30. However, you can't just jump to conclusions on what that righteousness entails; we must at least look at the context to see if it sheds any light. Examining the preceding context, it explains how Christ our Wisdom through the means of the Cross turns earthly wisdom on it's head (1:18,23; 2:2,8). 1 Cor 1:30 revolves around passive obedience, which is also the only thing mentioned.
Mark: You also said, "This contrast is very strange if keeping the law were it's own separate component in justification; instead, Paul sees only two options: keep the law or have Christ die." The law is not a separate part in justification. When Christ died on the cross God's wrath which was turned toward us (for our not keep thing the law perfectly) was turned away--it was propiticiated. But it is this same law in the same act of justification that God counts Christ's keeping of that law as our keeping of the law.
Nick: I recognize this is what you believe, but you're confusing what you believe with what is actually presented in Scripture. Your last sentence is a construct of systematic theologians, not Scripture.
We've already failed to keep the law, Paul's solution is the Cross. Keeping the law from then on out is superfluous, because through the Cross God won't judge you on any future failings anyway. And this isn't a 'neutral' state like Adam, the Christian state is immune from condemnation for failing in law both in the past and future.
Mark: I don't know about you, Nick, but knowing that Christ kept the law for me and that his righteousness is my righteousness makes me burst into doxology and to living a life of gratitude free from being under the condemnation of God's law.
Nick: Your theology can be comforting, but that doesn't make it Biblical. Merely claiming active obedience doesn't make it any more true. I'm confused as to why you link "free from being under the condemnation of God's law" with active obedience, when that precise issue is dealt with by passive obedience.
Dear Blogger,
Are you teaching that Doug Wilson doesn't preach the gospel?
Please clear this up.
Thanks,
Ken
Anonymous Ken -
What I am saying, and others with me is that there are many so-called Reformed pastors who preach a different Gospel. A Gospel that is perhaps only focused on grace in the beginning, but on law and works at the end.
Of course there is a wide-spectrum, but by and large that seems to be the emphasis.
The reason many of us say this is because we have talked to people who come out of these churches who are just hurting to hear about God's grace and what God has done for them on a consistent basis. Once they hear true Gospel preaching it is an oasis in the desert (actual words somebody told me).
Nick -
I don't have time to comment on everything that you said, hopefully I will soon, but I needed to comment briefly on this that you said, "I've never seen any evidence of people preaching 'active obedience' extends back more than 500 years, nor has Christendom as a whole embraced such a notion."
Now the terms "active obedience" aren't used in this quote from Augustine (he is just a bit older than 500 years), but the idea is there that the righteousness of God is imputed (clothed) to believers which is the second half of our being justified.
According to Augustine, "The righteousness of God is not that by which God is righteous, but that with which he clothes man when he justifies the ungodly" (The Spirit and The Letter 15, LCC 8:205).
There have actually be more and more Protestants speaking up as to just how St Augustine was incorrect in his view on justification (he taught it meant to make righteous by infusing grace). Alistar McGrath is one of the more popular ones for saying this. Also, in Luther's "Tower Experience" where he first "recognized" the idea of imputation, here is what Luther says:
"Afterward I read Augustine's "On the Spirit and the Letter," in which I found what I had not dared hope for. I discovered that he too interpreted "the justice of God" in a similar way, namely, as that with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although Augustine had said it imperfectly and did not explain in detail how God imputes justice to us, still it pleased me that he taught the justice of God by which we are justified."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1519luther-tower.html
So even Augustine didn't "get it" when it came to the Protestant understanding of Imputation of Righteousness.
I've read On the Spirit and Letter, and trust me, it doesn't teach imputation of Christ's righteousness the way you're claiming. A lot of people espousing active obedience get shocked when Augustine is read in a larger context.
Lastly, you can't just assume 'righteousness' mentioned in that Augustine quote is active obedience, especially when passive obedience is justifying righteousness.
For someone arguing from a command that the FV is in open sin, you haven't taken the time to not break the commandmant to not bear false witness of a brother. This was the most uneducated explanation of the FV I have seen. You obviously haven't taken the time to understand the position of the FV.
Thanks for stopping by Jonathan and leaving the comment!
I never claimed this post to be a explanation of what the Federal Vision is, there are many other places to read about that. My concern here was to show how some preachers who would fall into that camp (and even others outside those circles) break the third commandment by taking away from the glory of Christ's perfect and final work of securing our redemption.
I can't see where I have broken the ninth commandment in any part of this posting. The fact that there are some people for whom this is true (not all of them to be sure), how is that bearing false witness?
Mark,
You indicated that you would get back with me on your view of so-called "Lordship Salvation" ala MacArthur, for example. Would you be so kind as to interact with this subject in light of the contents of your original post?
Additionally you correctly stated:
"Blasphemy is the direct or the indirect detracting from the glory and honor of God. Doing anything to take away from the glory and the honor that is due the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) alone is blasphemous."
The apostate Roman Catholic Church blasphemes continuously, and perhaps nowhere this reality more manifest than in the Papacy itself.
As Spurgeon well said:
"Essence of lies, and quintessence of blasphemy, as the religion of Rome is, it nevertheless fascinates a certain order of Protestants, of whom we fear it may be truly said that they have received a strong delusion to believe a lie, that they may be damned."
Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Sword and the Trowel,” Jan. 1873
Considering Rome's myriad and manifold blasphemies, do you think Dr. Michael Horton will be responding to questions surrounding his blurbing for Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, and his words of praise for the present occupant of the seat of anti-christ, Pope Benedict XVI?
Do you agree or disagree that Trent declared the Gospel of Christ to be Anathema and that Benedict XVI is the chief shepherd of another gospel? Do you think Dr. Horton agrees with this assessment?
In Christ,
CD
Coram -
You are correct, I said I was going to get back to you. Unfortunately you caught me at a time when I am going to be heading out of town for the weekend again! I will definitely get back to you again when I return. But I do have to respond to the comments made about Dr. Horton.
I don't know about any comments concerning Scott Hahn - do you have a reference I could look into. However, I do know that any praise I have heard concering the current pope is that Dr. Horton is glad they actually have a clear and faithful Roman Catholic pope - you know exactly where he stands. This doesn't mean that Mike agrees with his theology - far from it. The Roman church is a false/apostate church.
It was at the Council of Trent where the Roman church officially became a false church and they most definitely anathamatized the true Gospel. I have heard Dr. Horton say those exact words.
I will get back to you on the "Lordship Salvation" question early next week. Until then, let me know if you have any resources for your questioning of Dr. Horton, I would love to hear/see them.
Mark
Mark,
Thank you for your response; I can appreciate your busy schedule, and I wish you godspeed on your trip.
RE: Dr. Horton...
Exhibit A - Can We Be Confessional and Catholic?
Prospects for Christian Unity Today
Exhibit B - Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI
The following blurb appears on the back flap of the dust jacket:
“Even when one disagrees with some of his conclusions, Benedict’s insights, as well as his engagement with critical scholarship, offer a wealth of reflection. In this remarkable book, Hahn has drawn out the central themes of Benedict’s teaching in a highly readable summary. An eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important theologian of our time.”
Michael Horton, Westminster Seminary California.
Many are shocked that Horton would praise any Pope, much less do so in endorsement of a theological treatise written by a Roman Catholic apologist.
In light of Exhibits A & B it would seem that Dr. Horton fails to recognize that by issuing such endorsements he is in fact spreading the selfsame seeds of confusion as ECT!
Pray tell, what "insights", "conclusions" and "engagement with critical scholarship" coming from a mouthpiece of Satan are worthy of a "wealth of reflection" by the blood-bought children of God? What communion hath darkness with light?
And what exactly does Dr. Horton find so "remarkable" about a tome written by an apostate apologist of an apostate false religion?
Should we expect Dr. Horton to provide dust jacket blurbs for the next round of LDS or Watchtower apologetic literature? Are their theologians not also profound and insightful as they articulate their damnable doctrines of demons and engage with critical scholarship?
What say you?
In Christ,
CD
Mark,
Here's another piece that explores the subject of Horton's endorsement of Hahn's tome:
Popular Reformed author endorses Roman Catholic apologist's new book
Methinks Mike needs to clear up this matter quickly and publicly.
In Christ,
CD
Coram-
Hot off the presses from Mike himself:
Mike Responds
Mark
Mark,
I read Mike's gracious response at WHI linked from another combox at another blog, but I wanted to stop back here and leave a note expressing my appreciation for the clarification.
Soli Deo Gloria!
CD
P.S. - Should I continue checking back for your reply to my Lordship Salvation inquiry, or has that "ship" already set sail? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home