This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. We turn to chapter XXI, “Justification.”

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. We turn to chapter XXI, “Justification.”

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

We welcome Dr. Brandon Crowe to the program to discuss the obedience of Christ and the salvation of his people. In his latest book, Why Did Jesus Live a Perfect Life?: The Necessity of Christ’s Obedience for Our Salvation, Dr. Crowe sets out to answer the basic but all-important question: Is perfect obedience necessary for salvation?

Listen as we explore the covenant of works, the atonement, the nature of Christ’s obedience, his resurrection, and the doctrine of justification.

Brandon D. Crowe (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary and author of The Last Adam and The Hope of Israel.

Chapters

• 00:00 Introduction
• 02:04 Thinking about Righteousness and Obedience
• 06:47 Changes in Theological Disciplines
• 13:21 Perfect Obedience Is Necessary for Salvation
• 20:30 Death Reigned from Adam to Moses
• 26:45 The New Testament and the Law of Moses
• 34:02 Christ’s Obedience and Our Faith
• 40:18 Christ’s Active and Passive Obedience
• 43:53 Christ’s Obedience as High Priest
• 47:11 Christ’s Resurrection
• 50:58 The Author’s Hopes for Readers of the Book
• 54:55 Conclusion

Participants: Brandon Crowe, Camden Bucey

Alan D. Strange, Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards. Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019. Pp. xviii + 154. $10.00 (paperback).

The rush of books, articles, reviews, and even a hymnal that has flowed from the pen (or, more likely, keyboard) of Dr. Alan D. Strange has been a most appreciated and welcomed gift to the church. His latest work is no exception as it takes up the vital gospel issue of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ—“no hope without it,” voiced the dying Machen. Strange’s focus is primarily historical, investigating the Westminster Assembly and the Westminster Standards, but this does not keep him from skillfully integrating this history with precise dogmatic formulations, warm pastoral exhortations, penetrating polemical argumentations, and judicious ecclesiastical implications—a truly masterful feat that is both academic and devotional, for both the classroom and the coffeehouse.

Strange’s stated aim is to advance the argument that “while the Assembly may never have explicitly affirmed active obedience in what it finally adopted, nonetheless, the Westminster documents, taken as a whole, tend to affirm it” (2). He seeks to accomplish this by carefully considering both the original intent of the framers of the Westminster Assembly and the animus imponentis, that is, the way in which subsequent ecclesiastical assemblies have understood the Standards (128-29). In his own words:

It is my contention, however, that a few lacunae remain which, when examined, will fill in the picture and permit us to see more clearly that the Assembly affirmed active obedience when it specifically addressed the issue. Although the final language of the Assembly’s documents may not have reflected it as some other formulations do (such as the Savoy Declaration of 1658), they reflect a two-covenant structure that affirms (indeed, that entails and requires…) the doctrine of active obedience. Furthermore, I will argue that the original intent of the Westminster divines favors active obedience, as does the interpretation and application of those standards over the years of those churches that have adopted them (in other words, the animus imponentis favors such an affirmation). Moreover, the Assembly’s constitution as a body to give advice to Parliament rather than as a ruling body of the church materially affected how it did its work; consideration of this is relevant in a variety of controversies, including the question of whether the Assembly affirmed active obedience. (3)

But before arriving in Westminster Abbey in the 17th century, Strange excavates the ancient and medieval church to find seeds of the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience. While some (like Norman Shepherd) have denied any such antecedents, Strange demonstrates that such denial is wrongheaded. In the early church, Irenaeus’s recapitulation theory, anticipated by Justin Martyr, included Christ obeying where Adam disobeyed, and Athanasius’s reasoning for the incarnation expressed the positive need for Christ to fulfill the law “that stood in danger of never being fulfilled because of the sin of Adam and his progeny” (22). In the medieval church, theologians such as Hugh, Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Biel contended that Christ had no need to merit anything for himself, which implies that what he did merit, he merited for us. 

Strange further observes that any historical survey of the doctrine of active obedience must consider not only the doctrine of Christ, but also the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it was when the Westminster divines were addressing the latter at the Assembly that the debate about active obedience commenced. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit did not come into its own until the Reformation—most notably with Calvin, whom Warfield knighted “the theologian of the Holy Spirit.” This explains why “the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, which is distinctly the work of the Holy Spirit, received comparatively little attention until the Reformation”: the church had yet to enjoy the proper categories by which to understand the doctrine more robustly (29-30).

In the Reformation, the seeds of active obedience are found in Luther and Melanchthon, which eventually bloomed in their successors, like Martin Chemnitz, and in the Formula of Concord (3.14-15). Calvin may not have clearly distinguished the active from the passive obedience of Christ, but there is considerable evidence that he “does teach a doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that includes what later writers distinguished into Christ’s active and passive obedience” (35). This would be stated more explicitly by his successor, Theodore Beza, as well as in the Heidelberg Catechism 60-61 and the Belgic Confession article 22. Johannes Piscator “became the first, particularly in response to the affirmation of Beza, to argue that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was restricted to His obedience in making satisfaction for the sins of His people” (38). But many Reformed theologians rose to oppose him and affirm active obedience, including the international French Reformed synods of Privas (1612) and Tonneins (1614). Lastly, the Irish Articles of 1615, the most immediate antecedent to Westminster, explicitly affirmed Christ’s active obedience in articles 30, 34, and 35.

This brings us to the heart of Strange’s book in which the debate over active obedience at the Westminster Assembly in 1643 is carefully documented and analyzed within its historical, political, and ecclesiastical context. The Assembly’s original task was not to draft a new confession of faith, but to revise the Thirty-Nine Articles, in which only a single article, article 11, treated justification. This article “had to bear the entire weight of all the major aspects of the doctrine of justification.” The divines, therefore, had relatively brief space, putting precision at a premium (51-52). In this context, the word whole (to qualify Christ’s obedience) carried significant weight as short hand for affirming active obedience.

A heated and drawn-out debate ensued over that weighty word, whole, but when it finally came to a vote, only three or four men out of fifty voted against affirming active obedience. Furthermore, their reasons for opposing it were not owing in the least to a desire “to introduce any element of human merit or works (as a part of our faithfulness) into the equation of our justification” (61). Rather, the minority opposition was mainly owing to fear of antinomianism, “the main theological error among Protestants” at that time (56-57). Yet, despite the potential misuse of the affirmation of active obedience, the Assembly affirmed it anyway, for they believed such “to be at the heart of the gospel” (58).

Thus, the Assembly in its initial debate overwhelmingly affirmed active obedience. Why then is the precise language of whole obedience absent from the Standards they later drafted? Strange answers,

[A]ctive obedience was affirmed in the revision of article 11 in 1643, and there is no reason to suppose that it was not also affirmed in WCF 11 and in the other relevant chapters of the WCF, even though the specific wording of revised article 11 never again appears. It is my contention that it did not need to appear in that form because the wording of WCF 11.3 and 8.5 did everything that the revision of article 11 by the addition of the word whole was intended to do (and arguably more). (67)

Strange supports his thesis with a survey of the Westminster Standards to demonstrate the ubiquitous presence of active obedience, despite the absence of the exact wording of whole obedience. Furthermore, he provides a global perspective of the Standards in terms of its covenant theology, showing how the system of doctrine contained therein falls apart when active obedience is denied. He correctly points out that those who deny active obedience today will “not stop at a mere denial of active obedience; they would likely have problems with the whole theological scheme of Westminster, of which active obedience is merely an important plank” (136). In other words, active obedience is not something one can reject without doing substantial damage to the whole system, and those who do “are wanting as Reformed theologians” (136-37).

The bulk of the book has been concerned with the original intent of the framers of the Westminster Assembly, but Strange concludes with an important consideration of the animus imponentis in the final chapter. To give just a cursory overview: both the PCA and OPC have had committees address the broader question of justification in which active obedience was affirmed. This is on par with judicatories in both denominations requiring the affirmation of limited atonement, despite the original intent being unclear. “Similarly,” says Strange, “the recent reports of committees erected by such bodies also testify that an animus has developed in the church that reads our standards to require the affirmation of active obedience, even as they routinely require the affirmation of the doctrine of limited atonement” (134). A similar animus is also evidenced in the PCA, OPC, RCUS, OCRC, URCNA, and RPCNA who have received committee reports that “have either condemned FV [Federal Vision] and NPP [New Perspective on Paul] errors or have adopted statements that reaffirm and highlight confessional statements that militate against positions of at least some of their supporters” and affirm active obedience (137n10).

The compact size of this book would be a false indication of its massive achievement in historical and confessional theology. In a word, it punches well above its weight-class, especially in contemporary debates concerning justification, like Federal Vision. Strange’s thesis that the Westminster Assembly and Standards affirm the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is carefully and persuasively argued. This volume will be of great service to the church in her task to guard the good deposit of the gospel.

Dr. Alan D. Strange has graced Christ the Center on numerous occasions, including an interview on the book reviewed above:

• The Imputation of Active Obedience in the Westminster Standards
• History and the Life of the Church
• The Spirituality of the Church in the Ecclesiology of Charles Hodge
• Charles Hodge and the Spirituality of the Church
• Confessional Subscription and the Animus Imponentis

Dr. Alan Strange discusses the Westminster Assembly and the Westminster Standards and whether they affirmed the imputation of Christ’s active obedience as necessary for our justification. Strange has written, The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards, which is published by Reformation Heritage Books in their Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology series.

In the book, Strange gives a survey of church history before and during the Reformation to see how the Assembly relates to the tradition before it. He reflects on the relation of imputation to federal theology, modern challenges to the doctrine, and important rules for interpreting the confessional document.

Dr. Strange is professor of church history at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana.

Links

Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ“

Participants: Alan Strange, Camden Bucey

Today we provide an introduction to the doctrine of justification with a consideration of several basic categories. We begin with a confessional doctrine of justification from the Westminster Standards. We then consider justification’s relationship to faith. Then we turn to the believer’s relationship to the person and work of Christ and consider how we are united to him. Finally, we speak about the relationship of that union to faith.

Westminster Shorter Catechism

Q. 29. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.

Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption and sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them.

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 11—Of Justification

1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton

Dr. Robert J. Cara speaks about his book, Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology (Mentor, 2017), which is published in the Reformed Exegetical and Doctrinal Series. The New Perspective on Paul is broadly united on its view of the theology contained in Second Temple Jewish literature. Arguing that these documents do not contain a doctrine of works righteousness, Paul certainly cannot be arguing against such a view—quite simply because it didn’t exist. Dr. Cara examines the Jewish sources and “cracks the foundation” of the NPP by demonstrating how they incorporate meritorious works and thus establish the traditional Protestant view of Paul and his doctrine of justification. Dr. Cara is Provost, Chief Academic Officer, and Hugh and Sallie Reaves Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Robert Cara

Chris Castaldo compares the respective doctrines of justification of the Reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Roman Catholic John Henry Cardinal Newman. Castaldo is the author of Justified in Christ: The Doctrines of Peter Martyr Vermigli and John Henry Newman and Their Ecumenical Implications. In the book, he compares the doctrines of the Reformed convert from Catholicism (Vermigli) and the Catholic convert from Anglicanism (Newman), drawing conclusions that prove insightful both for ecumenical dialogue and pastoral ministry. Rev. Dr. Castaldo serves as Lead Pastor of New Covenant Church in Naperville, Illinois. You can visit him online at chriscastaldo.com.

Books by Chris Castaldo

• Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic
• Talking with Catholics about the Gospel
• The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants after 500 Years (co-authored with Gregg Allison)

Previous Episodes with Chris Castaldo

• Speaking with Catholics about the Gospel
• The Unfinished Reformation

Participants: Camden Bucey, Chris Castaldo, Jim Cassidy

It’s not clear to me how the Confession of Sins and Prayer for Pardon [in Calvin’s liturgy] is compatible with the Reformed idea that man’s sins are completely forgiven at the moment of Justification and that God only views man in light of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him. Why ask for forgiveness of sins every Sunday if you believe all your sins were already forgiven and that God never counts your sins against you?

It is true that Calvin’s liturgy—like the liturgies of Luther, Cranmer, Bucer, and Knox—included a Corporate Confession of Sin and Declaration of Pardon. In Calvin’s Strasbourg service, after the Confession of Sin, Calvin would deliver “some word of Scripture to console the conscience”; then, he would pronounce “the Absolution in this manner:”

Let each of you truly acknowledge that he is a sinner, humbling himself before God, and believe that the heavenly Father wills to be gracious unto him in Jesus Christ. To all those that repent in this wise, and look to Jesus Christ for their salvation, I declare that the absolution of sins is effected, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Calvin’s Strasbourg service followed the pattern of Martin Bucer’s liturgy, which began with a Confession of Sin followed by a “Word of Comfort” from holy scripture (1 Tim. 1:15; or John 3:16; 3:35–36; Acts 10:43; 1 John 2:1–2; etc.) and the “Absolution.”

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Let everyone, with St. Paul, truly acknowledge this in his heart and believe in Christ. Thus, in His name, I proclaim unto you the forgiveness of all your sins, and declare you to be loosed of them on earth, that you be loosed of them also in heaven, in eternity. Amen.

Bucer’s liturgy makes it clear that the Absolution is an exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). As excommunication declares that the impenitent are bound by sins, absolution declares that the penitents are loosed from them. We find a similar pattern of Confession of Sin followed by an Absolution in the liturgies of Luther, Cranmer and Knox. How is it that Nick and Stellman can see so clearly what all these Reformers failed to see? The Confession of Faith that Stellman at one time believed and defended clearly explains why praying for forgiveness of sins every Lord’s Day does not contradict the Reformed doctrine of justification.

God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance (WCF 11:5)

J. G. Vos explains,

The justified person still can and daily does commit sin in thought, word and deed…. These “daily failings” cannot cancel his standing as a justified person; they cannot bring him into condemnation. But they can offend his heavenly Father, and cause him to withdraw the light of his countenance from the person’s soul for a time. They cannot destroy the believer’s union with God, but they can interrupt and weaken his communion with God. Therefore, the believer is daily to confess his sins and to pray for God’s pardon for his daily failings.

It is not uncommon for a drunken man to believe that he has a brilliant idea that no one else has ever thought of. His sober buddies, of course, realize that he’s making a fool of himself.

We are pleased to welcome back to the program Dr. Lane G. Tipton, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Tipton was recently inaugurated to the Charles Krahe Chair of Systematic Theology and delivered an inaugural address titled, “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards Revisited: Union with Christ and Justification Sola Fide.” As he walks us through his inaugural lecture, Dr. Tipton addresses the relationship of justification to faith and union with Christ and then turns to interact with the distinction Louis Berkhof made between objective and subjective or active and passive justification. In short, Tipton demonstrates that union with Christ by faith is also antecedent to the declaration of righteousness, which is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton

Reformed Forum Audio

• Lane Keister, The Federal Vision
• Guy Prentiss Waters, N.T. Wright’s Doctrine of Justification (part 1, part 2)
• Mark Garcia, The Justification Landscape
• John Fesko, God’s Son and the Covenant of Works
• John Fesko, The Reformed Doctrine of Justification
• Lane Tipton, The Benefits of Salvation

Links

• The OPC Report on Justification
• Alan Strange, “Understanding the ‘Federal Vision’“

Books

• Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology
• Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives in Paul
• K. Scott Oliphint, ed., Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification
• John Fesko, Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton, Michael Horton

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Michael Horton

Mark Garcia is pastor at Immanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Coraopolis, PA. He is the author of Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. In this episode, Garcia speaks about the reformed conception of union with Christ and how a reformed soteriology is distinguished from the salient features of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. Issues of imputation, covenant, and the forensic and renovative aspects of salvation enter in to this important discussion.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Mark Garcia

Panel

• Guy Prentiss Waters
• Jim Cassidy
• Nick Batzig
• Jeff Waddington
• Camden Bucey

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, Guy Prentiss Waters, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Nick Batzig

Panel

• Guy Prentiss Waters
• Jim Cassidy
• Nick Batzig
• Jeff Waddington
• Camden Bucey

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, Guy Prentiss Waters, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Nick Batzig

Panel

• John Fesko
• Nick Batzig
• Jeff Waddington
• Camden Bucey

Bibliography

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, John Fesko, Nick Batzig