THREAD ON THE IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S ACTIVE OBEDIENCE.....

It’s time for a mega-thread on the doctrine of “the imputation of Christ’s active obedience” (IAO). The doctrine is spelled out in various ways by those who adhere to it, but basically it goes something like this: Christ’s actively obeyed the law, thus accumulating righteousness (or merit, on some formulations); that righteousness is then imputed — that is, transferred -- to believers, who are then justified (decalred righteous) on that basis.

For some Reformed people, this has become the litmus test of an orthodox doctrine of justification. But that’s a novelty — and an unhelpful one. Luther and many of the great early Reformed/Calvinistic theologians did not use this formula — or if they did, they did not treat this particular formulation as a sole test of orthodoxy for the doctrine of justification. Calvin’s best formulations are somewhat different and the IAO doctrine did not become “a thing” until after his death, with his successor Beza. It was not until the 1580s that IAO (and the corresponding doctrine of the meritorious covenant of works) were clearly articulated, and even then it was hardly unanimous amongst the Reformed. Even in the 1640s, Reformed theologians were still debating the proper formulation of these doctrines, and there was plenty of latitude allowed for varying expressions. The Westminster divines debated and ended up producing a doctrine capable of being read with or without IAO by design. Some of the most highly regarded divines beleived in the imputation of Christ's passive obedience (his death) only; others proposed various understanding of the Bible's imputation language. Reformed orthodoxy on this issue, even for Westminster, was more of a box than a pinpoint. We can agree on the glorious truth of justification by faith, which debating within certain parameters the underlying mechanism by God forgives us and declares us righteous.

Those involved in the so-called Federal Vision (FV) conversation have never wanted to make their own doctrine of the covenant or imputation a test of orthodoxy or even Reformedness. We fully acknowledge that there have been a range of views in the tradition on these issues. Not everyone needs to use the exact same formulation; indeed, the truth is so rich, it can be expressed in various ways. But because some of these discussions over the last couple decades got overheated, FVers have at times had to defend their Reformed credentials, and this thread will continue that.

Even more important, of course, than being Reformed is being biblical. And so the most important question is always, “What do the Scriptures say?” Thus, this thread will mix a bit of exegesis in with the historical theology and systematic theology issues.

1/9 Let’s start with the meaning of the word commonly translated as “imputation” — the Greek term logizomai. Paul uses this term and its various offshoots in several places, but Romans 4 is usually the key passage in these discussions about justification.

Here are the meanings of logizomai in a standard concordance:

to take an inventory, i.e. estimate (literally or figuratively):--conclude, (ac-)count (of), + despise, esteem, impute, lay, number, reason, reckon, suppose, think (on)

I’m happy with any one of those meanings. Plug them into Romans 4:3: “Abraham believed God and God thought of/counted/reckoned/declared him righteous.” Those are perfectly acceptable readings. I take “imputed as righteous” to be another way of saying “declared righteous” or “justified.” In other words, God does not impute (transfer) righteousness from Christ to us, and then on that basis declare us righteous - as if justification was the result of a multi-step process. Rather, the imputation of righteousness IS justification. God imputes/counts/declares/reckons us righteous when we trust in Jesus. To say "God imputes faith as righteousness" is just another way of saying "God justifies us by faith."

Logizomai could mean “to charge to one’s account” in certain technical contexts (e.g., financial or accounting contexts). Whether or not that context is present in Romans 4 is debatable; it is certainly not the context in the NT in some other places where logizomai is used. But, that being said, I am fine with that reading of the term in Romans 4. To put it another way, in legal contexts, logizomai means “to declare” or “to count” or “to reckon.” In economic contexts, it can mean “to charge to one’s account.” We can debate which fits Romans 4 (or any other passage where the logizomai word group is used) best.

What the term *cannot* mean is “to transfer.” And that has been the crux of the debate for 20+ years now. See this from a mere 19 years ago:

pastor.trinity-pres.net/essays/opc-jus…

2/9

The goal of Christian cultural engagement is not to anger the left or “own the libs” or “drink liberal tears.” The goal is to be faithful to Scripture in all of life. Yes, a by-product of faithfulness will be transgressing progressive dogmas. And when that happens, the attitude of the New Right to the left’s accusations, “I really don’t care, Margaret,” is the proper and fitting response. But if we make that kind of transgression the goal, we are ironically still operating within a progressive frame instead of a biblical one. We are debating on the left’s terms instead of our own. There is no reason to let the left determine the playing field or its rules.

Young men today will say, “Everything I was taught growing up turned out to be a lie.” That’s probably the case - but it does not follow that the *opposite* of everything you were taught is therefore automatically the truth. Reality is more complicated than that. You cannot get the truth by simply inverting what you were taught. Getting to the truth is going to require real work, real study, real wisdom.

Nor can the goal simply to be to see who can be the most “based” or “trad.” The left has its own version of this race to the bottom in its “I can be woker than thou” dynamic. But for us, it should not be about who can be the most “based” but who can be the most holistically biblical. We are Christians, after all, so we should seek to live like it.

Bottom line: The problem with the alt right at the moment is that it all too often makes being transgressive against the left the standard rather than biblical fidelity. In reality the goal is not merely to be “based” but to be “biblical,” the goal is not to be anti-woke but to obey Christ as Lord. Making progressives angry is not identical with pleasing God.

1/4 As of this moment, the so-called New Right (or alt right) is a mixed bag. It has great energy and many good insights, but it’s still hindered by a lot of immaturity and unrighteous anger.

One sign of this immaturity is the constant quest to look for a singular scapegoat on which to blame the bulk of our social ills. Over the last few years, we have seen the preferred scapegoat shift from China, to the deep state, to Boomers, to illegal immigrants, to the target du jour, the Jews. The reality is that sinners are always going to sin. The world is going to do worldly things. Trying to find some subgroup of sinners to pin the blame on is not particularly useful. It’s far better for us to develop a forward-reaching vision of the true, the good, and the beautiful than to play whack-a-mole with different scapegoats. Pinpointing women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, the postwar consensus, Obergefell, DEI, or some other fatal turning point is not a very helpful exercise unless we know positively what we are for and how to get busy building it. Rear-guard defensive measures are not the need of the moment; creating, innovating, and building in wise and faithful ways are the need of the moment.

Examine the view that the Jews are behind all our social ills for moment. The Jews run the po*n industry, you say? Ok, but you still can’t blame the Jews for your po*n addiction. You’re the one who chose to click that link. Jews pull the strings in DC you say? Well, why are so many (mostly white) Americans so gullible to fall for their lies, or so greedy they accept their money? What does that say about us? You wonder: Why do Jews dominate in so many fields? Well, anyone who has observed them will tell you they work hard. Don’t scapegoat them just because they expose your own laziness.

Again: evil people do evil things. Those who belong to the darkness will try to extinguish the light. None of this should come as a surprise. Scripture tells us about it and shows us what to do about it. And Scripture also reminds us that this kind of evil is not concentrated in one race or ethnicity, one age group, or one gender. Apart from grace, humanity has a universal hatred for God and for all that is good.

Bottom line: tearing down enemies on social media is not as positively building a better culture. Finding scapegoats is not the same as pursuing righteousness. Those who want to blame others need to start by dealing with their own sin.

2/4

Thanksgiving Day history lesson - excerpted from "The Light & The Glory" by Peter Marshall & David Manuel:

The men were gathered in the common house to conclude their conference on military instruction when the cry went up, "Indian coming!"

Indian coming? Surely he meant Indians coming. Disgusted, Captain Standish shook his head as he went to look out the window - to see a tall, well-built Indian, wearing nothing but a leather loincloth, striding up their main street. He was headed straight for the common house, and the men inside hurried to the door, before he walked right in on them. He stopped and stood motionless looking at them, as though sculpted in marble.

"Welcome!" he suddenly boomed, in a deep, resonant voice. The Pilgrims were too startled to speak. At length they replied with as much gravity as they could muster: "Welcome."

Their visitor fixed them with a piercing stare. "Have you got any beer?" he asked them in flawless English. If they were surprised before, they were astounded now.

"Beer?" one of them managed.

The Indian nodded.

The Pilgrims looked at one another, then turned back to him. "Our beer is gone. Would you like ... some brandy?"

Again the Indian nodded.

They brought him some brandy, and a biscuit with butter and cheese, and then some pudding and a piece of roast duck. To their continuing amazement he ate with evident relish everything set before him. Where had he developed such an appetite for English food? For that matter, who was he, and what was he doing here?

1/6 ... Finally the time for answering questions came. His name was Samoset. He was a sagamore (or chief) of the Algonquins... He had been visiting in these parts for the past eight months, having begged a ride down the coast with Captain Thomas Dermer, an English sea captain known to the Pilgrims by reputation... Apparently Samoset's sole motivation was a love of travel, and he had learned English from various fishing captains who had put into the Maine shore over the years.

Now they asked the crucial questions: What could he tell them of the Indians hereabouts? And the story he told gave every one of them cause to thank God in their hearts. This area had always been the territory of the Patuxets - a large, hostile tribe who had barbarously murdered every white man who had landed on their shores. But four years prior to the Pilgrims' arrival, a mysterious plague had broken out among them, killing every man, woman and child. So complete was the devastation that the neighboring tribes had shunned the area ever since, convinced that some great supernatural spirit had destroyed the Patuxets. Hence the cleared land on which they has settled literally belonged to no one!

2/6

Today is Columbus Day, and Christopher Columbus is certainly a man worthy of remembrance and celebration.

Of course, in this "politically correct" era, it is commonplace to attack Columbus. We have seen attempts to turn this day into “Indigenous Peoples Day” (why would we celebrate people who practiced constant tribal warfare, human trafficking/slavery, and human sacrifice?). We have seen Columbus statues torn down in recent years. Because Columbus represents Western civilization, traditional masculinity/"the patriarchy," and the Christian faith, he is an easy target for today's progressive degenerates to attack.

While Columbus was not a perfect man (obviously), he was a great man and may certainly be considered a Christian hero, as his courageous exploration was very much tied to seeking to spread the gospel to new lands and peoples.

1/5 Edwin Friedman described the greatness of Columbus as a leader this way:

"Columbus is the very embodiment of[leadership]. Not only was he one of the most imaginative men of all time, but he was also one of the most determined, as well as the great example of the principle that vision is not enough. Almost two millennia previously the Greeks also knew the world was round, but Columbus was the first to say, 'Follow me westward as a way to go east.' To be determined, decisive, visionary, and still keep your wits about you may be what it takes to reorient any marriage, family, organization, society, or civilization.”

2/5

A 🧵 on ordo amoris, natural affection, and America’s immigration problem:

A lot of the talk today about ordo amoris and natural affections centers around preference - the freedom we have to prefer “our own kind” and whatnot.

I think this is backwards. Preferences do matter and do have their place. But obligations are more fundamental than preferences. When it comes to the discussion of ordo amoris, we should not start by asking about our preferences but start by asking about our duties. To whom do I have the greater obligation?

1/9 In many cases, duties and preferences align quite easily. A mother quite naturally “prefers” her newborn baby to any other newborn baby. But more fundamentally, she has obligations to her newborn that she does not have any other baby in the world because of the bond that exists between her and her own child. Likewise, I prefer my children to your children, but what really matters is that I have an obligation to provide for my children that I do not have for your children. If I don’t provide for my own children, I am worse than unbeliever. But I have no obligation to provide for your children at all in ordinary circumstances - that’s your job and your responsibility. Further, I have a duty to defend my nation if it is under invasion, but I do not have a duty to defend a nation on the other side of the world if it gets invaded. Again: I have an obligation to care for my brothers and sisters in my local congregation that I do not have for Christians in some far away country. And so on. My obligations are not evenly distributed across humanity, or across the church; rather, my obligations to particular humans are conditioned by the various ways in which we are related to one another. I ought to love anyone made in God’s image, yes, but my obligations to particular image bearers intensifies based on the relational proximity and connectedness we have to one another. I have obligations to some people that I do not have to other people, and I should structure my life - my loves, my service, my sacrifices - accordingly.

2/9

A 🧵 on nations and Christian nationalism:

The gospel creates unity amongst all believers; the gospel unites all who are in Christ into one people, one family, one nation. Jesus prays for the unity of his people to be manifested in the world (John 17), and that oneness is always a spiritual reality, even if our sin sometimes obscures it. There is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, as the creed says. This oneness means all believers are part of the same body; catholicity means this one church is universal, embracing all believers in all times and places. The gospel includes the reconciliation of different nations and people groups in Christ (Eph. 2:11ff), with the result that nations can beat their swords into plowshares (Isa. 2).

1/7 We must also affirm that the gospel does not annihilate creational or providential structures like distinct families and nations, but rather sanctifies them. The gospel does not obliterate the distinction between my household and the other households that make up the membership of my local church. The gospel links us together in Christ but does not negate the integrity of each natural family. My household continues to be a real household, even as my household is incorporated into the larger household of God.

2/7

The Scriptures affirm the goodness of natural affections, eg, love for my own family and nation.

The Scriptures also teach that natural affections must sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of something greater, namely, following Jesus and being loyal to his church (eg, Matt. 10:36-39 ; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 14:26; etc.). Natural affections are good, but if not kept in proper order, can become an idolatrous rival to Christ.

1/10 One problem with saying, “I should prefer my people to other groups,” is that each one of us belongs to *several* people groups. My people groups include:
- my nuclear family
- my extended family
- my nation/ethnicity
- my region (the South) and state (Alabama)
- my city, town, neighborhood, and street
- my cultural heritage, Western civilization
- my local church
- my denomination
- my theological tradition
- the church catholic
- those who share my skin color
- those who went to the same schools
- those who cheer for the same sports teams
- those who like the same brands
- etc.

The real question is how to organize my loves and loyalties to each of these groups to which I belong. Some of these “in groups” make a strong claim on my love and loyalty than others. There are contexts in which Scripture not only permits, but requires, an “in group” preference.

2/10

Some notes on Psalm 110, Christ’s priestly ministry, and why pastors must be men:

By time we reach the end of psalm Psalm 110, the dead bodies are piling up. In verse 1, Christ’s enemies are made into a footstool for his feet. In verse 2, he rules in the midst of his enemies — and has a scepter to smite them. In verse 5, he shatters kings in the day of his wrath. In verse 6, he executes nations and fills them with corpses.
1/15 And yet right in the middle of this “messiah on the warpath” imagery, we have a reference to Christ being an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek. It is perhaps easier for us to see how the battle imagery of the psalm fits with Jesus’ kingship. After all, we expect kings — especially Davidic kings — to be battlefield heroes. Jesus does not disappoint in that way. He strikes and smashes his enemies from the beginning to the end of this psalm. The psalm paints the portrait of an utterly victorious king.
2/15