“What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
Micah 6:8
“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe…”
Rom. 3:22
.
.
Order of Contents
Historical Theology 3
Deniers 2
Lutheran 1
Latin 1
.
.
Articles
1500’s
Beza, Theodore – pp. 37-43, 57 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574) irregular numbering
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573), A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, 9th Dialogue, ‘Of the Offices of Jesus Christ’
Of the Perfect Obedience of Jesus Christ, which makes his office so perfect
Zanchi, Girolamo – ‘Likewise in the Last Aphorism [of ch. 19]’ in Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 328-30
Finch, Henry – 13. Of Imputed Righteousness: & the Blessedness Belonging to it in The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 3
Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.
“Imputed [righteousness], which we have by account in Him. And [it] has two parts, the accounting of our sins to be his, whereby both the guilt and punishment are forgiven us by his sufferings: and the accounting of his righteousnes, aswell in nature as action, to be ours, whereby we are approved of God to be righteous by his resurrection, and consequently made partakers of his blessednes:” – pp. 52-53
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – ‘Tell me whether beside this passive righteousness, the active obedience of Christ also, whereby He did fulfill the law, be imputed unto us by God for righteousness, that is to say, whether are we justified for the obedience that He performed unto the law? Or whether is our salvation only to be ascribed to the death and passion of Christ, or else to his active life and to his inherent holiness also?’ in 31. ‘Of Man’s Justification before God’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 335-36
Burgess, Anthony – Section 5, Sermons 29-45 of Part 2 of The True Doctrine of Justification in 2 Parts (London, 1651), pp. 284-456
Leigh, Edward – A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 7
ch. 7. Of the Parts & Terms of Justification, Remission of Sins & Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, pp. 519-22
ch. 8. Of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, pp. 522-24
Rutherford, Samuel – ‘Of Christ’s Active & Passive Obedience, how they Concur as One Satisfaction’ being pp. 229-230 of The Covenant of Life Opened 1655
Brown of Wamphray, John – ‘Imputation of Both Christ’s Active and Passive Obedience Necessary’ †1679 being the Appendix to The Life of Justification Opened
Brown was an exiled Scottish covenanter writing from the Netherlands.
Turretin, Francis – 13. ‘Is the satisfaction of Christ to be restricted to the sufferings and punishments which He endured for us? Or is it to be extended also to the active obedience by which He perfectly fulfilled the law in his whole life? The former we deny and the latter we affirm.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (d. 1687; 1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 14th Topic, pp. 445-55
This is also in: ch. 4, ‘The Matter of the Atonement’ in On the Atonement, pp. 85-114
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – Christ’s Active & Passive Obedience (1950) 9 paragraphs from his Systematic Theology
.
2000’s
Gootjes, Nicolaas – ‘Christ’s Obedience & Covenant Obedience’ (2002) 20 pp.
Gootjes is a professor in the Canadian Reformed Churches.
Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Confessional Development of the Doctrine 4
Scriptural Basis 11
Active Obedience & our Obedience 19
.
.
Books
1600’s
.
2000’s
McCormick, Micah – The Active Obedience of Jesus Christ PhD diss. (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010)
Abstract: “Chapter 1 defines the doctrine, surveys previous literature, offers warrant for the work, and previews the argument of the work. In short, the thesis of this work is that the active obedience of Christ is a biblical doctrine.
Chapter 2 presents a historical survey, tracing theologians from the early church up to the present time to see the development of the doctrine. Special attention is given to the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras, during which the doctrine received its primary development.
Chapter 3 examines God’s original arrangement with Adam…. Chapter 4 examines human obedience after the Fall. Looking especially at the “do this and live” passages, this chapter argues that God requires perfect obedience from humans in order to gain eternal life. Chapter 5 traces the OT’s presentation of the need for a Messiah to come who would represent his people in perfect obedience…
Chapter 6… Beginning with the Gospels and moving on to the rest of the NT, this chapter shows that Christ represented his people in perfect obedience throughout the whole course of his earthly mediation. Chapter 7 first offers a systematic formulation of the doctrine. This chapter then answers some of the major objections put to the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience, examining the views of opponents both ancient and contemporary. Chapter 8 summarizes the work…”
.
.
Quotes
1600’s
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, Bk. 3, ch. 12, section 19, ‘The man who was to render perfect obedience to God was perfect in every way’
“God demanded this perfect obedience from a man that was perfect in every way, and equal to the stipulated duty, for indeed:
(1) through the image of God conferred upon Him, and in that image, original righteousness, He was blessed with spiritual wisdom…
(2) He was to that point without any vice or sin (as much original as actual), through which alone his whole posterity was incapable of rendering to God his due (Rom. 8:3). Thus:
(3) intrinsically, he was equipped with a perfect principle of obeying, namely, original righteousness; extrinsically, there was before him a perfect norm of obeying, nor did anything hinder that obedience.”
.
1800’s
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
“The atonement… the whole of Christ’s obedience unto death.”
.
.
Historical Theology
On the Post-Reformation
Article
Berends, Bill – ‘Christ’s Active Obedience in Federal Theology’ Vox Reformata (2004), 20 pp.
“My preliminary conclusions… is that the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ may first have been discussed under the rubric of a prelapsarian covenant by Theodore Beza.” – p. 27
Berends’ main thesis about Beza is in general accordance with the findings of Campos’s later, more thorough dissertation below.
.
Book
de Campos, Jr., Heber Carlos – Johannes Piscator (1546-1625) & the Consequent Development of the Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience PhD diss. (Calvin Theological Seminary, 2009) 370 pp.
“…this dissertation does point to Beza as… possibly even the first systematizer of the doctrine under study, since he demonstrates his threefold righteousness imputed as early as his first edition of the Annotationes Maiores (1556) and a detailed discussion of the topic soon appears in his Confession (1559). ” – p. 286
“…the assignment of precise labels (favorable to the doctrine/against the doctrine) in the history of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience becomes possible only after Piscator raised his voice against Beza. In short, there was no early consensus against which Piscator argued. Doctrinal consensus, limited as it was, arose only after the debates of the early seventeenth century.” – p. 287
“…the beginnings of doctrinal formulation of the issue occurred in the 1550s and 1560s, and that significant debate over the doctrine became common only in the 1580s and 1590s…” – p. 292
.
On Westminster
Strange, Alan – The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards Buy in Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology (RHB, 2019) 179 pp.
.
Those who Denied the Imputed Active Righteousness of Christ
Order of Contents
Quotes 2
Article 1
Qualified View 1
.
Quotes
1500’s
Zacharias Ursinus
Rules & Axions of Certain Chief Points of Christianity in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (d. 1587; Oxford, 1600), 22. ‘Of Man’s Justification before God’, pp. 271-72
“1. That righteouseness whereby we are justified before God is the fulfilling of God’s law.
2. Legal justice is the fulfilling of the law, performed by him which is named just.
3. Evangelical justice is the punnishment of our sins, which Christ endured for us, freely imputed by God to them that believe.
4. Since the fall of man no man besides Christ alone in this life is justified before God by the righteouseness of the law.
5. We are justified only by faith in Christ.
6. And yet the righteousness of the law must in this life be begun in all that will be saved.”
.
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), ‘Of Justification’, 4 What is our iustice & 5 How Christ’s satisfaction is made our justice and righteousness, pp. 680-82
“*Our justice or righteousness, that is, the justice or righteousness of the Gospel, whereby we are just in the sight of God, is not our conformity with the Law: but it is Christ’s satisfaction performed unto the Law for us, or the punishment, which He sustained for us, and so his whole humiliation (that is, his taking of flesh, his undertaking of servitude, penury, ignominy, and infirmity: his suffering of that bitter passion and death: all which He did undergo for us, but willingly) and that humiliation and satisfaction freely of God imputed unto us his faithful and believers.
1 Cor. 2:2, ‘I esteemed not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ Col. 2:10, ‘Ye are complete in Him.’ Rom. 5:19, ‘By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ Isa. 53:5-6, ‘With his stripes we are healed. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all.’
Now that Christ might perform obedience and satisfy for us, it behoved Him to be our Mediator, being by Himself just and holy, Heb. 7:26, ‘For such an High-Priest it became us to have, holy, harmeless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.’ All these things are true perfectly and wholly in Christ. For He has perfectly fulfilled the Law for us: 1. by the holiness of his human nature. 2.by his obedience: for He became obedient unto the death, even the death of the cross:
And the former fulfilling of the law, namely, the holiness of Christ’s human nature, was requisite for the other, even for his obedience. This obedience and satisfaction of Christ is our satisfaction, and our proper iustice, for which we please God, for which we are received into favor with God the Father, and which is imputed unto us. That former fulfilling of the Law is indeed imputed also unto us, namely the humiliation and justice or righteousness of Christ’s human nature, that we may be reputed holy before God: but this holiness of Christ is imputed unto us for his obedience or satisfaction sake: because He satisfied for us God’s justice, in sustaining eternal punishment and pains, which we should have sustained everlastingly.
Hence is it, that the effusion of Christ’s blood (as being the complement and consummation of Christ’s satisfaction) is only said to be our justice and righteousness. 1 Jn. 1:7, ‘The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin,’ that is, not only from that which is past, but also from that which is to come.
…
5. How Christ’s satisfaction is made our justice and righteousness:
This question is adjoined because it seems absurd that we should be justified by that which is another man’s, and not ours. The satisfaction or justice of Christ is made ours, or applied unto us, two ways, that is, by a double application. The former application is God’s, who in respect of that fulfilling of the Law performed by Christ, accepts us, and applies the same unto us; that is, He imputes it, no less than if we had never sinned, or at least had paid and suffered sufficient punishment for our sins. For albeit to justify signifies to make just, yet in the Church it signifies another thing, and is taken in another sense. Or God does apply it, when He imputes the fulfilling of the Law performed by Christ unto us, even as if it were performed by us, neither will at all punish us. But to impute, is, to accept Christ’s satisfaction, performed to this end, that it might be our justice and righteousness. We then also apply unto us the fulfilling of the Law performed by Christ, when we are steadfastly persuaded, that God does impute, apply and give it unto us, and for it reputes us for just, absolving us from all guilt…
That which we have now spoken of both applications, both God’s, and ours, does manifestly show what is meant in this place by justifying: Which is, that, to justify, is not to make one just who is uniust: but to repute him for just and righteous who is uniust, and to absolve the unjust and unrighteous from all guilt, and not to punish him, and this for another’s justice and righteousness imputed by faith unto us.”
.
1600’s
Richard Baxter
Aphorisms of Justification… (Hague, 1655)
Guide to the Reader Baxter here lays out his Neonomianism.
“[You must distinguish:] 4. Betwixt a two-fold righteousness of one and the same Covenant: 1. Of perfect obedience, or performance of the condition. 2. Of suffering, or satisfaction for disobedience or non-performance which makes the Law to have nothing against us, though we disobeyed. See [William] Pemble, Of Justification, p. 2. Our legal righteousness is of this last sort, and not of the first. Both these sorts of righteousness are not possible to be found in any one person, except Christ, who had the former righteousness as his own (incommunicable to us in that form). The second He had for us, as He was by imputation a sinner: And so we have it in, or by Him. Mark this.
5. Betwixt two kinds of righteousness, suitable to the two Covenants [of Works and of Grace] and their conditions: 1. Legal righteousness, which is our conformity, or satisfaction to the Law. 2. And evangelical righteousness, which is our conformity to the new Covenant. Note, that 1. Every Christian must have both these. 2. That our legal righteousness is only that of satisfaction: but our evangelical is only that of obedience, or performance of the condition. 3. That our legal righteousness is all without us in Christ, the other in ourselves.
6. Betwixt evangelical righteousness, improperly so called, viz. because the Gospel does reveal and offer it. This is our legal righteousness of Christ. 2. And evangelical righteousness properly so called viz. Because the new Covenant is the rule to which it is conformed. This is our performance of the new Covenant’s conditions.”
.
Appendix
‘The Sum of the Objections’, p. 227
“[Objector:] 2. Though you [Baxter] seem to take in the active righteousness of Christ with the passive into the work of justification, yet it is on such grounds, as that you do in the main agree with them who are for the passive righteousness alone, against the stream of orthodox divines?”
.
‘The Answer’, p. 230
“To your second objection about Christ’s active and passive righteousness; You should have overthrown my grounds and not only urge my going against the stream of divines: As I take it for no honor to be the first inventing a new opinion in religion, so neither to be the last in embracing the truth: I never thought that my faith must follow the major vote; I value divines also by weight, and not by number; perhaps I may think that one Pareus, Piscator, Scultetus, Alstedius, Capellus, Gataker, or Bradshaw, is of more authority than many writers and readers: View their writings, and answer their arguments, and then judge.”
.
Article
Baxter, Richard – Thesis 16 in Aphorisms of Justification… (Hague, 1655), pp. 62-66
“The great question is, of which sort is our righteousness whereby we are justified? I answer, of the second sort [Christ’s passive righteousness], which yet is no derogation from it: for though it be not a righteousness so honoring ourselves, yet is it as excellent in Christ, and honourable to Him. And this first kind of righteousness [Christ’s active righteousness] as it is in Christ, cannot, retaining its own form, be made ours. And to that the Papists arguments will hold good.
The Law commanded our own personal obedience, and not another for us; We did not so personally obey, we did not really obey in Christ: and God does not judge us to do, what we did not; If we had, yet it would not have made us just: for one sin will make us unjust, though we were never so obedient before and after; Therefore if we had obeyed in Christ, and yet sinned in our selves, we are breakers of the Law still. And so our righteousness cannot be of the first sort. This breach therefore must be satisfied for, and consequently, our righteousness must be of the second sort: seeing both cannot stand in one person as before said.
Christ indeed had both these kinds of righteousness, viz. the righteousness of perfect obedience; and the righteousness of satisfaction for disobedience. But the former only was his own personal righteousnes, not communicable to another under that notion, and in that form of ‘a righteousness by obeying’. The latter, was his righteousness, as he stood in our room, and was by imputation a sinner: and so is also our righteousness in and through Him.
Yet the former [Christ’s active righteousness] (as I have proved before etc.) is ours too, and our righteousness too (though many divines think otherwise), but how? Not as retaining its form, in the former sense: but as it is also in a further consideration, a part of the righteousness by satisfaction: seeing that Christ’s very personal obediential righteousness was also in a further respect satisfactory.”
.
A Qualified View
Geerhardus Vos
Article
ch. 5, ‘Justification’, Questions 13-16 in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 4, ‘Soteriology’, pp. 763-65
.
Quote
Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 4, ‘Soteriology’, ch. 6, ‘Sanctification’, pp. 801-2
“Q. 23. Is it correct to say that the righteousness of the Mediator is imputed to us in justification and infused in sanctification?
…it is not the same righteousness of Christ that occurs in its two parts. When I speak of an imputed righteousness of the Mediator, then I mean that righteousness that He obtained by means of his suffering and dying and obedience in the state of humiliation–not, however, the righteousness of life of the human nature of Christ, that is, that Christ in his human nature now possesses. The latter is not imputed to me. And, conversely, the former cannot be infused into me; it can only be reckoned to me. Really, one cannot even say that the righteousness in which Christ now lives is infused into me. This always rests on a more or less unclear mystical conception. It is not the personal righteousness of Christ that is infused into the believer, for, as an inherent quality, righteousness cannot be detached from the person.
Q. 24 Is then no ‘holiness’ of Christ imputed to us?
Yes; by that term, if one wishes, one can designate his active obedience, imputed to us in justification. As our [Heidelberg] Catechism states in the answer to question 60, ‘How are you righteous before God?… God grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ,’ etc. In this sense, one may thus then say that Christ is not only our sanctification but also our holiness before God.”
.
.
A Lutheran
Quote
Georg Major 1502-74
Commentarius in Divi Pauli Epistolam ad Ephesios (Wittenberg, 1552), as quoted in Gerald L. Bray, Timothy F. George, Scott M. Manetsch (eds), Reformation Commentary on Scripture X: Galatians, Ephesians (IVP Academic, 2011), p. 135 HT: Daniel Ritchie
“Christ was subject to the law in two different senses. The first was the active sense, in that he perfectly fulfilled everything that was prescribed in the ceremonial or moral law. He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the law, being presented in the temple in order to fulfill the law of purification, to which, however, he was not himself subject. Likewise, he kept the feasts and rituals commanded in the law and fulfilled the moral law to such a degree that … he did not commit any sin, nor was any falsehood found in his mouth.
He performed this perfect obedience to the law so that he could pass it on to us. The result is that his fulfilling of the law is imputed to us, who have not kept it perfectly, as if we had done so. He was also subject to the law in a passive sense, when he took on himself the punishment and offence of the law in order to deflect the wrath of the eternal Father from us.”
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.
Of the Active & Passive Righteousness of Christ
Of the Distinction of Justification into Active & Passive
.
.
.
Related Pages