The Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience to Believers

[The Remonstrant]

The Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience to Believers

On what basis must the view be accepted that Christ's active obedience (perfect keeping of the law) is imputed to the believer?

Without entering into a debate over the penal-satisfaction view of the atonement or its scope (i.e., extent), I'll assume that the majority of us here (i.e., Protestants) accept, de facto, that Christ's death (or "passive obedience") is imputed to believers as the ground of their justification (being declared righteous before God) through faith (the instrumental cause of their justification). This seems to be clearly taught in Romans 5:18.

The Historicity of the Doctrine

Perhaps I'm off my hinges here, but I don't believe we see such a view taught by the early church fathers. Certainly some passages of theirs might have imputed righteousness read back into them; but in their original historical contexts, it seems unlikely this view was accepted by the early church (not widely, at the very least). Historically, this concept appears to be seriously wanting (not that this immediately disqualifies the doctrine, working from a Protestant disposition of Scripture being our one absolute authoritative source for truth). If I am in the wrong here, I will stand to be correct (but do so gently, please -- I'm of the more sensitive type). Apparently the Reformers were even at disagreement amongst themselves regarding this issue.

Biblical Support for the Concept

What's of interest here is not so much the theological logic of the concept of Christ's active obedience being imputed to believers, but clear scriptural exegesis of why such and such passages require us to believe that this is so. Can't 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:8-9 (for example) reasonably interpreted apart from this concept? Or are we (Protestants) required to believe this? Is it clearly taught in the NT?

As essentially an Arminian (or, at least, not a strict Calvinist), I honestly pose this question to all. Arminians have disagreed amongst themselves also pertaining to this issue. Some have accepted the doctrine of double imputation and others have rejected, seeing only Christ's passive obedience as being imputed to the believer. Reflection on the matter from Calvinists and Arminians alike would be greatly appreciated. If Scripture genuinely teaches that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, I would like to be convinced of it. So I'm on the fence now...

[RBerman]

The details of justification were not a focus of the ECFs, who were consumed first by survival and then by the Christological and Trinitarian heresies of their day. Then as now, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:8-9 are indeed best interpreted as references to Christ's active obedience/righteousness, imputed to us by faith. Are you "required" to believe it? Well, can you put forth a strong reason not to believe it? Romans 5:18 also identifies Christ's obedience as essential for our salvation.

[KingsGambit]

How would you suggest interpreting these verses (in particularly Romans 5:18 and 2 Corinthians 5:21) apart from what seems to us Protestants to be the most natural reading, as posited above? Were there any other interpretations posited by the early church fathers? I ask sincerely - I've never really considered any other interpretations, but you mentioned that they could be interpreted otherwise, and I'm not sure how.

[The Remonstrant]

2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:8-9 are indeed best interpreted as references to Christ's active obedience/righteousness, imputed to us by faith.

Clarity Required

I don't see how it is all that clear from the texts themselves that such an interpretation is warranted, much less necessary. It seems much more derived from a preexisting theological framework that assumes sinners require Christ's perfect obedience of the law to somehow be imputed to them (apart from which they cannot be finally saved).

Are you "required" to believe it? Well, can you put forth a strong reason not to believe it?

Where the Burden of Proof Lies

That's a real turning of the tables. Since this is a rather newly defined concept (over say, the roughly two thousand year period of the church), the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those promulgating the doctrine, not those questioning it.

Granted, the imputation of Christ's active obedience is now a commonly accepted teaching amongst various conservative Protestant individuals and organizations, but historically, I doubt one could find a clear articulation of the doctrine prior to the sixteenth century. (Again, I'll reiterate the fact that not all of the Reformers even went along with the idea. Today, perhaps it goes without saying, the majority do, but if you search hard enough, there still are some strict Calvinists who question the teaching of Christ's active obedience being imputed to believers [unfortunately, they are a quite lonely bunch].)

Romans 5:18 also identifies Christ's obedience as essential for our salvation.

Romans 5 of No Service

The passage in Romans 5 has absolutely nothing to do with Christ's active obedience (or perfect law-keeping) being imputed to believers. The preceding context (vv. 6-11) relates justification (or the believer's being declared righteous) to Christ's death for us, not his perfect keeping of the law for us throughout the time of his first coming. The following section (vv. 12-21) contrasts the condemnation that came to humanity through Adam's one act of disobedience with Christ's reversal of sin and death -- the one act of obedience leading to righteousness.

Considering the full context, it's plain that the emphasis is on the "one act" discussed earlier in the chapter: Christ's death. The ground of justification here is Christ's death and that is what is imputed to the believer's account. Even assuming that the imputation of Christ's active obedience can be asserted from other biblical passages, the concept is absent from Romans 5.

[footwasher]

In a few recent posts, discussions with good inputs from Rberman and George Blaisdel and others resulted in a clarification of the work represented symbolically by the rituals performed by the high priest. Symbolically because the rituals had no real effect :

Hebrews 10:1-4 NET

For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship. For otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers would have been purified once for all and so have no further consciousness of sin? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. For the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins.

It would seem that purification , rather than imputation is the action in operation:

Hebrews 9:2 21
And both the tabernacle and all the utensils of worship he likewise sprinkled with blood.


Exo 29:12; Exo 29:20; Exo 29:36; Lev 8:15; Lev 8:19; Lev 9:8; Lev 9:9; Lev 9:18; Lev 16:14-19; 2Ch 29:19-22 Eze 43:18-26

I believe this is the original intent of ROM 5:18 as well as the parallel verses :

Romans 5:9 NET
Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath.

Heb 10
5 So when he came into the world, he said, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.

6 “Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in.

7 “Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come – it is written of me in the scroll of the book – to do your will, O God.’” 8 When he says above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offeringsyou did not desire nor did you take delight in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then he says, “Here I am:I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first to establish the second. 10 By his will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

[RBerman]

That's a real turning of the tables. Since this is a rather newly defined concept (over say, the roughly two thousand year period of the church), the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those promulgating the doctrine, not those questioning it.

If you're not willing to accept the burden of proof for your position, then I have no interest in the discussion. Have a good day.

[BookerG]

One other passage I would cite is 1 Corinthians 1:30, “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”
Secondly, I would ask for clarification for what exactly is your own concept of “imputing” Christ’s active obedience? If it means Christ’s good works serve like a Catholic treasury of merits, or if it means God is giving me credit for specific good works, as if I did those works, then, no, I don’t believe his active obedience is imputed to us. But that’s not the way I think his death is imputed to us, either.
But if we’re saying that both his righteous life and his innocent death are the reason why God looks with favor on us, I would confirm that both are a necessary part of our justification. Separating Christ’s obedience into “active” and “passive” might be useful for discussing the various aspects of what he did for us, but it’s all one obedience. When we are credited with Christ’s righteousness, that one righteous act of accepting the cross wouldn’t be righteous if it wasn’t a part of a whole life of righteousness. His whole life is all one righteousness. And it is the righteousness itself (all of it) that we are credited with, not with a single act that demonstrated righteousness, even if it was a single act of dying that was the instrument by which his righteousness is credited to us.
For evidence I would point to Hebrews 7:26-27, “Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” How can you separate the “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners,” the active obedience, from the sacrifice, the passive obedience?
Also, the Scriptures speak both of how our robes were washed in the blood of the Lamb, making us pure and spotless, (passive obedience being imputed to us to cover our sins) but it also speaks of us being given a robe of righteousness that is not our own and clothing ourselves with Christ. Philippians 3:9 speaks of us having a righteousness that is not our own. Then whose is it, and what is it? Just a single act or the whole righteousness of Christ, active and passive?
It might be an interesting theological exercise to analyze the nuts and bolts of exactly what God imputes and how, but in practical terms, how will isolating Christ’s active obedience from his passive obedience either make you a better follower of Christ or help you better understand his amazing grace? “We preach Christ, and him crucified.” We don’t just preach him crucified, his passive obedience. We preach Christ, the one who lived for us, and him crucified, the one who died for us, all one Redeemer.

[footwasher]

It's introduction into Calvinist views can be traced to Melanchthon's use of Erasmus' translation:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...392#post640392

[The Remonstrant]

If you're not willing to accept the burden of proof for your position, then I have no interest in the discussion. Have a good day.

Wow. Here's to a robust modern defense of the doctrine of double imputation.

On an a different (but not entirely dissimilar) note, in a discussion regarding the scope of the atonement (for example), would you insinuate that the historical burden of proof lies on those who reject limited atonement as well?

[The Remonstrant]

One other passage I would cite is 1 Corinthians 1:30, “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” Secondly, I would ask for clarification for what exactly is your own concept of “imputing” Christ’s active obedience? If it means Christ’s good works serve like a Catholic treasury of merits, or if it means God is giving me credit for specific good works, as if I did those works, then, no, I don’t believe his active obedience is imputed to us. But that’s not the way I think his death is imputed to us, either.

As I previously stated in so many words (above), for want of evidence (biblical and historical), I do not ascribe to the notion of Christ's active obedience being imputed to believers. (if, however, I ever am to receive genuine biblical evidence requiring me to do so, I will readily realign my position.) Regarding the (single) imputation of Christ's death (i.e., passive obedience) to believers' account (justification by faith), this relates to forgiveness of sins. According to this view, the believer's debt (record of sin) is canceled so long as he (or she) remains or is in (united to) Christ. Christ's obedience to the law during his first coming is not somehow magically transferred to the believer as if he or she obeyed the law perfectly him- or herself.

But if we’re saying that both his righteous life and his innocent death are the reason why God looks with favor on us, I would confirm that both are a necessary part of our justification.

Christ has always been and always will be inherently righteous: spotless, blameless and without sin. Though it is a matter of debate among Christians whether it was even possible for Christ to have failed to obey the law perfectly, it goes without saying that "if" Christ had not kept the law perfectly from the time of his incarnation to the culmination of his earthly mission, his sacrifice on the cross would not have been without blemish, and therefore, would have been unacceptable as the propitiation for the sins of the world. In that way, Christ's "active obedience" plays an integral role to our salvation, but I've yet to see compelling biblical evidence that Christ's perfect law-keeping is imputed to believers.

Separating Christ’s obedience into “active” and “passive” might be useful for discussing the various aspects of what he did for us, but it’s all one obedience. When we are credited with Christ’s righteousness, that one righteous act of accepting the cross wouldn’t be righteous if it wasn’t a part of a whole life of righteousness. His whole life is all one righteousness. And it is the righteousness itself (all of it) that we are credited with, not with a single act that demonstrated righteousness, even if it was a single act of dying that was the instrument by which his righteousness is credited to us.

Again, Christ has always been perfect. I would argue that it was impossible for Christ ever to have sinned or failed in his mission. In a very real sense, you could say, the perfect obedience of Christ to the laws commands was simply a means to an end. The end is the crucifixion, the sacrifice for sin. Christ has, and always will be, righteous throughout eternity. God declares righteous the one who has faith in Christ and his propitiation for sins (Romans 3-5). The righteousness of God is now revealed apart from the law through Jesus as our propitiation. Justification is a cancellation of sin debt, forgiveness of sins, based entirely on the cross work of Christ. No good works are positively imputed to the believer's account.

A very basic problem with the double imputation concept is that its tendency is to detract focus from Christ's death as the basis for being declared righteous before God (through faith), where the Scriptures would direct our attention.

Philippians 3 & "the Robe of Righteousness"

Also, the Scriptures speak both of how our robes were washed in the blood of the Lamb, making us pure and spotless, (passive obedience being imputed to us to cover our sins) but it also speaks of us being given a robe of righteousness that is not our own and clothing ourselves with Christ. Philippians 3:9 speaks of us having a righteousness that is not our own. Then whose is it, and what is it? Just a single act or the whole righteousness of Christ, active and passive?

The contrast in Philippians 3 is between a righteousness based on law and a righteousness based on faith (Romans 9:30-33; 10:1-17 also being directly related to this). The two are diametrically opposed. We have no reason to suppose from this passage that Paul is referring to a transfer of Christ's active obedience to the believer's account. He goes on immediately from vv. 8-9 and relates the righteousness of God that comes from faith to Christ's resurrection, sufferings and death (v. 10). The context is Paul's desire to be identified and united with Christ completely, in life (sufferings), death and resurrection. The focus, as throughout Romans, is Christ's death and resurrection. There is no discussion -- much less is there an emphasis or focus -- of Christ's perfect keeping of the law precepts during his first coming.

Regarding white robes and such, I will deal with just a few passages.

In Revelation 3:4-5a, Jesus says those who have not soiled their garments and overcome (i.e., persevere to final salvation) will (at the consummation) be rewarded with white garments. The focus here is eschatological. It is not something believers now possess. Also, it should be clear that the reference pertaining to not soiling garments is a clear allusion to the necessity of saints maintaining integrity (i.e., personal righteousness) in their walk during the present age.

Revelation 7:13-14 relates the "robe of righteousness" (as it were) to Christ's sacrifice, the robes of the saints are made white through the Lamb's blood.

And completely contrary to any notion of the active obedience of Christ being imputed to believers, in Revelation 19:8 we read, "'[I]t was granted her [the Bride of Christ] to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure'— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints" -- clearly relating the garment to the personal righteousness of the saints.

Why Even Bother?

It might be an interesting theological exercise to analyze the nuts and bolts of exactly what God imputes and how, but in practical terms, how will isolating Christ’s active obedience from his passive obedience either make you a better follower of Christ or help you better understand his amazing grace? “We preach Christ, and him crucified.” We don’t just preach him crucified, his passive obedience. We preach Christ, the one who lived for us, and him crucified, the one who died for us, all one Redeemer.

A good question. From what I have seen and to the best of my judgment, the whole concept of a double imputation (the active and passive obedience of Christ being imputed to the account of believers) is, in and of itself, a speculative doctrine, not clearly grounded in Scripture. Worse, it detracts from the cross of Christ as the ground of the believer's justification before God. According to this view, we are not justified by the works of the law, but apparently we are not. The logic is that Christ's death isn't entirely sufficient for our salvation. It may serve in part for the removal (or forgiveness of our sins), but -- it is argued -- we need Christ's perfect obedience to the precepts of the law placed on our account also, without which we (supposedly) cannot be saved. So, in a sense, we indeed are perfected by the law. Justification -- in this view -- really is by works (not ours, but by another), contrary to numerous Pauline declarations. (Curiously, Paul's writings are the primary source of dispute over such alleged passages in keeping with the double imputation.)

Yes, the whole issue is a distraction essentially, isn't it? Yet I feel the concept ought to be grappled with as it is now so common among Protestant conservative evangelicals (i.e., the doctrine of double imputation), more often assumed than seriously dealt with. The recurring Pauline emphasis is on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Christ's death is the believer's basis for forgiveness of sins and resurrection the basis for the believer's hope in the life to come. I have argued in so many words that no such emphasis can be found pertaining to the notion that Jesus' perfect obedience to the law is imputed to the believer's account, much less is it the grounds for our justification or hope for the life to come.

[RBerman]

Wow. Here's to a robust modern defense of the doctrine of double imputation.

On an a different (but not entirely dissimilar) note, in a discussion regarding the scope of the atonement (for example), would you insinuate that the historical burden of proof lies on those who reject limited atonement as well?

It's far too easy to engage someone as a skeptic, sitting back and saying, "Nah, I don't accept your exegesis. I don't have to offer one of my own, so I win."

[The Remonstrant]

It's far too easy to engage someone as a skeptic, sitting back and saying, "Nah, I don't accept your exegesis. I don't have to offer one of my own, so I win."

First, in terms of theology, speaking in terms of "winning" is misguided (as though this is an athletic competition, with the main objective in view to discover who is the fastest runner, the strongest slugger, etc., etc.). The simple question is which perspective best comports with the biblical data (without discounting or dismissing the importance of historical theology, which just so happens to not fall on the side of double imputation).

As far as offering some reasons pertaining to my rejection of of double imputation and acceptance of single imputation only, see my post above in response to BookerG.

[The Remonstrant]

A Return to the Opening Post

I will make my appeal again. The acceptance or rejection of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience* to the believer cannot (and should not) be reduced to one of the soteriological differences between Arminians and Calvinists. One can be a supralapsarian Calvinist and reject this teaching. One magnificent example of this truth is John Piscator** (Johannes Piscator), the German reformer who disputed the doctrine tenaciously. Conversely, there are Arminians -- Free Will Baptists F. Leroy Forlines, Robert Picirilli and Matthew Pinson, for instance -- who strongly adhere the imputation of Christ's active obedience* to the believer. Now it is true that Wesleyan-Methodists have traditionally rejected the concept outright and the majority of modern Calvinists have more or less assumed the doctrine or somehow arrived at the view that you cannot be a "real" or "true" Calvinist without accepting it. But all nonsense, namedropping and potential theological bullying aside, you can properly be the strictest Calvinist walking the face of this earth (adhering to infant reprobation and the like) and definitively reject the doctrine of Christ's active obedience* being to the believer (or more moderately, remain agnostic to the issue).

That said, my appeal is indiscriminate to Arminians and Calvinists alike for a serious biblical defense of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believer. Historically, the teaching is at a disadvantage (a fact generally unacknowledged and ignored by its proponents), as the teaching cannot be clearly traced back prior to the sixteenth century (to repeat my statements from my earlier posts on this thread). So in that sense, the doctrine is a novelty. But that need not entirely settle the issue. Do we have compelling biblical evidence to accept this doctrine? (Quotes from the Westminster Confession of faith and the like are not admissible.) My thanks in advance to any willing to take to go to task on this.


*Jesus' perfect keeping of the laws' precepts during his first coming.
** Though prominent in respect to his rejection of double imputation, I would encourage the reader to perform a nice little bit of digging online and you'll quickly discover that Piscator was from being the only Protestant Calvinist reformer who denied or question this teaching.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I'm inclined to stop at your earlier reasoning that Christ's active obedience was required for his blameless sacrifice. The goal is the blood, the means are his works to keep the sacrifice pure. I've never studied the issue so my knee jerk reaction is to think that this whole business about double-imputation is a case of hair splitting. It's like being concerned about whether or not your gift was purchased by cash or check. What's that got to do with anything? It's imperative that we believe that Christ lived in perfect obedience to the law; otherwise he's disqualified, as you said, from being a propitiation. I honestly don't even see the meaning behind Christ's active obedience being imputed to us. Perhaps someone could explain to me how that's different from the blood. The whole sacrificial system was about the blood. Being without spot and without blemish was a condition for a meaningful sacrifice; a means to an end, not a goal in itself. So again, my question is, what does the imputation of active obedience even mean? Do we impute the miracles as well? If so, quantify that for me. I'm struggling for content to substantiate the argument.

[footwasher]

The idea is that God is now in close proximity with the believer, creating a problem: How does a holy God fellowship with a sinful believer? This is where imputation of Christ's active obedience comes handy, allowing a vicarious display of His fruit.

The reason Calvinists snapped up Erasmus'choice of imputation was that God could look at Christ's righteousness (status and fruit) and come close, rather than, horrors, see that Abraham's faith actually made him righteous (Pelagianism ).

To a Calvinist, it is God who makes the tree good, not the believer. The problem arises when bad thinking or bad responses to situations causes despair among Calvinists, creating doubt that they may ever produce good fruit , confirming their suspicion that they were never regenerated in the first place. Otherwise, how is it they continue producing bad fruit? The provenance of the good fruit that seem to accompany the bad fruit is further compromised as false fruit, not of the Holy Spirit. Don't ask me how this can be verified or filtered out.

Yes I know, unnecessary complication and fuss, just to defend a theological view.