The Active Obedience of Christ...the WHAT?

[Vince]

On another forum, someone asked about an obscure doctrine. I explained it (not being sure if I believed it myself), and the fireworks started. But I learned a lot while researching it, and on yet another thread, a bunch of us are having a good, friendly discussion. Here it is:

Being perfectly righteous, in addition to being God, Jesus did not need to obey the commandments and keep the Law to become righteous. But by doing so, He earned a righteousness that He does not need, and He imputes this righteousness to us.

Does the Bible teach this?

 

[Packrat]

Well, we can start with what we know. 1.) Christ obeyed the Torah. John 15:10 God follows his own rules. A good example of this is when he chose to be baptized. Another example is when he ate the Passover with his disciples before he was arrested. 2.) Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and therefore would not be liable to the imperfections of sin. He was our perfect sacrifice.

The question then becomes, "Would he have been our perfect sacrifice if he disobeyed God's commands?" Another question arises, "Would he be God if he denied his nature?" And yet another question arises, "Who were these laws made for? One born of the Holy Spirit as Christ was or one born of the flesh and therefore corrupted?" I honestly think there is a clue to this all in Jesus' saying "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8)." It seems to me that he was perfect because he didn't experience the corruption of sin in his body and he was God and thus both obeyed his rules and had the authority to interpret them (i.e. observing the spirit of the law and being Lord of the Law). But rather than what I have to say I'd be more interested in what you have to offer if you've already come fresh from an intellectual discussion on the subject. So, please, clue us in.

P.S. Starting from the Scriptures rather than humanistic concepts or ideas built upon the interpretations of the Scriptures avoids propagating the traditions of Men. It gives us a much more clear and unbiased view of what we're dealing with.

 

[Danus]

Vince is your post intended to lead to a discussion of the concepts of "Imputed righteousness" vs "Infused righteousness"?

Also in your post where you say;....... "Being perfectly righteous, in addition to being God, Jesus did not need to obey the commandments and keep the Law to become righteous. But by doing so, He earned a righteousness that He does not need, and He imputes this righteousness to us.".............How can Jesus be righteous in addition to being God? IN OTHER WORDS ....doesn't being God, make him righteous? AND, if that's true why, or how, could he have EARNED Righteousness by following the law since he is God (who is righteous), if we are able to agree that he is God and that God is righteous. .... I'm laughing a little as if Jesus was cleaning out his garage, came upon a box or righteousness and said; "Here take this I have plenty."

But seriously, I'm simply looking for definition and clarity in what your asking if the bible teaches. But, also, I'd like to know if this is meant to lead to a discussion on the concepts of "Imputed righteousness" vs "Infused righteousness", or perhaps just a discussion on imputed righteousness.

 

[Vince]

Good to hear from both of you.

I had never heard of infused righteousness until I learned about it on another thread, but no, I am talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ. Incidentally, I was surprised to learn that the Bible actually describes imputed righteousness:

Romans 4:6-8 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:" Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

 

[Danus]

Good to hear from both of you.

I had never heard of infused righteousness until I learned about it on another thread, but no, I am talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ. Incidentally, I was surprised to learn that the Bible actually describes imputed righteousness:

Romans 4:6-8 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:" Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

Well, it's a great topic so that's why I wanted to gain your clarity. It's also very deep scriptural, or I think it is, and it can go in many directions. You may be up on a lot of what I'm about to type here, but I thought it should be stated for the benefit of all.

We might be getting into some heated debates of Catholic vs Protestant views with this one, but basically, Imputed righteousness is a concept that says we are justified to God, or righteous to God through Jesus Christ. This is more of a Protestant view.

Imputed righteousness is in some difference to the Catholic view which says that God justifies our righteousness in a manor that it becomes a part us. That would be infused righteousness.....if anyone is Catholic I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it correctly.

This can get into some very deep discussion, but I'd like to offer this video link to R C Sproul's explanation. Found this on YouTube. This might be a good place for all to start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IapqqQ45Q4w

You will hear him say that Rome has a problem with this. He is referring to the Catholic church and I'm sure we can talk more about that.

As for the righteousness of Christ himself, I go back to my questions for clarity, but further, If Christ is 100% God and 100% man, if he is part of the God-head; the trinity it self, and the gospels are true, then he (Christ) did not require imputed righteousness, he was born righteous. We are the ones who require imputed righteousness. We have to get righteous with God, and we can not do that one our own. God knows this .... so, how are we to gain righteousness? ......Take a look at that video link. Then we'll tare this subject UP my brother!

 

[Vince]

Speaking of links, Wikipedia gives a short, balanced article on the Active Obedience of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_obedience_of_Christ

 

[Danus]

Correct, or I agree with the info found on your link. That to me would be the origin of Christ's Imputed righteousness to us in the sense that he was Christ, God.

Did he have to do something to earn that righteousness? Is that the discussion? If so, I would refer to what Packrat is stating.

To me it's deeper than a choice Christ may have had in the sense that he was God. What happened happened and we could look at it as what if it happened another way, but I'm not sure that would serve a purpose other than pondering the "what if" to amuse ourselves only to draw the same conclusion of what we know. Christ was God. he did what he did because he was God.

Here is a quote from your link.."Christ's active obedience is generally believed to be imputed to Christians as part of their justification." So, my point being that Christ life was in perfect obedience to God's law because he was God. How could it have been otherwise? That's why Christ is Christ. If he was not in perfect obedience, then he would not have been the Christ. He was righteous because he was Christ and that was proven due to his perfect obedience; something no other man could have done or ever will. That righteousness was passed to us through the cross.

So to me, John 14:6 sort of backs all this up in saying, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Again to me that says as Christ I am righteous, but you are not and so my righteousness must be imputed to you for you to be righteous to God. I'm sure some could argue that..., but I think of that verse in this discussion.

 

[Vince]

Danus, that was a good link.

I regard infused righteousness as a Catholic attempt to explain away the Biblical teaching that righteousness is a gift. The doctrine teaches that if you are good enough, Jesus will reward you by giving you a little more righteousness. Eventually, this righteousness will become fused into you, and you yourself will have a righteous nature.

 

[Danus]

Danus, that was a good link.

I regard infused righteousness as a Catholic attempt to explain away the Biblical teaching that righteousness is a gift. The doctrine teaches that if you are good enough, Jesus will reward you by giving you a little more righteousness. Eventually, this righteousness will become fused into you, and you yourself will have a righteous nature.

True, I can get behind that.

Infused vs Imputed; It's a big debate and one that I think spills over to many protestants with the idea that when we sin our salvation is cut off from God and we have to regain it by seeking forgiveness. However, those that follow the infused view have some compelling arguments. Personalty I'm in the imputed camp, but I played around with Wikipedia and found this reference to N. T. Wright. Check this guy out when you get a chance. He has a view on this that will make your head spin. You'll have to do a little digging, but these links should be a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

Thanks for bringing this topic up. It's going to be a good thread I think. Time for me to hit the hay!

 

[Vince]

Part of the question is: Where did Christ get the righteousness that He gives us? Is it His Own inherent righteousness? Then why not give us the righteousness of the Father or the righteousness of the Holy Spirit?

Another question is: WHY, specifically, did Jesus keep the commandments?

 

[Danus]

Part of the question is: Where is Christ get the righteousness that He gives us? Is it His Own inherent righteousness? Then why not give us the righteousness of the Father or the righteousness of the Holy Spirit?

Another question is: WHY, specifically, did Jesus keep the commandments?

Off the top of my head I'd say Jesus got his righteousness from the fact that he was God in human form. (he was God and he proved that.) So I guess I would say his righteousness was inherent, but further it was proven. I don't think you can split the trinity in saying give us the righteousness of the father or that of the spirit. SO, I think we might be nudging into an issue of the trinity. I'd have to read up on that and I will.

In other words, I think it is a mistake as a Christian to look at Jesus outside of the trinity of which he is clearly part of. He's not some guy who got a beam of righteousness from God, especially due to earning it, even though he did by his obedience exemplified in his life. I think the full understanding of Christ righteousness comes from a stronger understanding of the trinity.

So lastly, why did he keep the commandment? Well, again, off the top of my head, He was part of the God-Head (the trinity) As such (as the father, the son and the holly spirit; one God in three forms) Could he have not kept the commandment? I assume you mean the 10 commandments? I say no. Could he be tempted? Sure and he was, but he did not do to his relationship. If he had given in to temptation, we would not be reading about him. He would not be the Christ. This line of thinking stops me from supposing anything further, but I'd like to see what others think. What about you?

 

[Joe67]

Some important testimony as to the righteousness of our Lord is in the following.

Heb 5:8-10
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. KJV

Phil 2:8-11
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.KJV

This righteousness is imputed to us in heaven before the judgment bar of God, the Father. Dan 7:13.

His kingdom comes to earth and we are made conformable to his death as we dwell under his shadow and he fulfills his will through us.

Joe

 

[Vince]

The "active obedience of Christ" refers to all the good deeds, obedience, etc., that Jesus did on earth EXCEPT for His Death and Sacrifice. As is often the case, not everyone who accepts the doctrine believes the exact same thing, but essentially, it goes like this:

Being God, Jesus didn't have to obey the Law. In doing so, He earned a righteousness that He did not need. His Death takes away all our sins, pays our debt to God, etc., but then leaves us at "zero." In that case, our righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharisees. By giving believers His active obedience, after He had saved them, Jesus has made us sinlessly perfect and fit for Heaven.

There are some Christian objections:

1) A righteousness of "zero" IS better than the righteousness of the Pharisees.
2) With our sins taken away, we are acceptable to God without the righteousness that comes from good works.
3) The purpose of Christ's perfect life was to prove, and make possible, His worthiness as a Sacrifice that God would accept.
4) Christ has provided us with a glorified Resurrection life, and since our sins are forgiven, that makes us acceptable to God.

Wikipedia gives a fair and balanced short article on it at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_obedience_of_Christ

 

[Danus]

vince, R C Sproul was talking about this on his radio show as I was driving home from work today.

You are right in your assessment of Jesus following the law and his obedience. R C Sproul says that the reform movement described it in that same way as earning righteousness. So, I think I see what your saying, that Jesus had to live the life of a man as God to first earn the righteousness we could not possibly earn in order to be the sacrifice that he was for us? I'm I following you sort of?

 

[Vince]

Danus, that is what the doctrine teaches. The question is: Is this what the Bible teaches? I've learned some good theology while researching it.

 

[Vince]

John Gresham Machen (1881-1937) remains a famous fundamentalist Calvinist Presbyterian scholar. A distinguished thinker and theologian, he was professor of New Testament at Princeton University for fourteen years before revolting against the modernism that was taking control.

He took the lead in establishing Westminster Theological Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and was effectively defrocked by the Northern Presbyterian Church for leading a Christian mission board in opposition to their modernist one.

Leery of the fundamentalist movement because it wasn't Calvinistic enough, he was and is considered a fundamentalist hero. His scholarly works showed that Paul's epistles are in accord with other Scripture (and were not Christianized Greek philosophy); that Christianity, not modernism, is scholarly; and that genuine Christianity is rooted in Christ's literal Atonement.

Unlike most Christians, Machen regarded "the active obedience of Christ" as a major doctrine. Knowing he was near death, he even sent a telegram "I’m so thankful for active obedience of Christ.. No hope without it."

Why did he think this was so important?

 

[Vince]

The Bible teaches that you cannot lose your salvation. Some Christians therefor believe that you cannot do anything to lose it. Others believe that you CAN do something to lose your salvation, but God won't let you. Machen was in the second group.

Machen explained that when a person accepts Christ, he is made righteous. He compares the new Christian to Adam, who was also righteous. But Adam had the ability to become unrighteous by committing sin. Likewise, the new Christian can become unrighteous by sinning. Since the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God, the Christian will lose his salvation once he sins.

Like Adam, the new Christian would be on probation. Starting out with a perfect record, he would now have to earn his way into Heaven by perfect obedience, and he would almost certainly fail.

But by giving the new Christian Christ's active obedience, God gave the new Christian the perfect obedience that he needs. The Christian would remain righteous because of Christ's obedience, not his own.

 

[Danus]

Vince, I have been studying this all week weather I wanted to or not. I have heard this brought up in detail on 2 radio programs, 1 sermon and a few other discussions I've had with believers (One catholic and one a new Christian friend who was just baptized last week) Absolutely fascinating and freaky don't you think?

My wife and I have this young couple friend. He became a Christian about a year ago and she just became a Christian last week officially I guess. We had them over last night, cooked out and such, and when I asked my new Christian friend what brought her to Christ she said that she finally understood why Christ died for her. How; she said; could I not devote my life to him? She understood and described this very doctrine we are talking about.

She was brought up in a church, knew the bible stories, but it never clicked for her enough until she came to an understanding of this doctrine.

So, does the bible teach it specifically? I found this document on line that seems to be in favor of John Gresham Machen. I have a lot more study to get caught up, but can you look at it and tell me you thoughts?

http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFA ... 2W1002.pdf

In my own walk with God and in my own understanding of scripture along with my involvement in churches and such, I have come to this same conclusion of inputted righteousness. However, I'm certainly no biblical scholar. As a Christian I've struggled with my own salvation and sins just like any other Christian, but I've accepted and even believe that I have experienced God's hold on me despite me.

Like a lot of new Christians I first tried to walk the line so to speak only to stumble and fall. I have left church thinking I just got a stamp of approval only to see it faded the next day and asking for it back. At some point I came to understand this very doctrine but I came to it less scholarly than many of the great thinkers who have put it together. Perhaps that's why It excites me so much. To read about it knowing I came to the same conclusion largely on my own, but also how it's influence through the years also played a part in my coming to the same conclusion. I would say this doctrine is the fulcrum of my own Christianity and I have become a better Christian for understanding it then I could ever become without it. To me it is essential for all and I am enjoying exploring it more.

Check out this other document I found. This is the argument against inputted righteousness
http://thesinmuststop.org/video/2009b/T ... usness.pdf

The origins of this are http://thesinmuststop.org (Apparently those behind the sin must stop.org are in fact perfectly sinless or something. How do they do it? "I must know their secrets")

 

[Vince]

Danus, it was an excellent article, and I'm glad that your friends accepted Christ. But I need to do a little clarifying.

The Bible CLEARLY teaches that everyone who accepts Christ has the righteousness of Christ imputed to him or her. In addition, the Bible even explains what imputed righteousness does. Romans 4:6-8 tells us "just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: " Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

Having the righteousness of Christ imputed to you, apart from works, means that:

1) Your lawless deeds are forgiven
2) Your sins are covered
3) God will not impute sin to you

To explain away the frequent Bible teaching that righteousness is a gift, theologians invented "infused righteousness." This doctrine teaches that if you do good, Jesus will reward you with small amounts of righteousness over time. Eventually, you will have earned enough righteousness that it starts fusing into you, and you become righteous. There is no such teaching anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Vince]

Folks, I've enjoyed researching this subject on three threads, but I'm ready to close the books.

Hebrews 10:14 tells us: "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." It is Christ's sacrificial Death that both saves us AND keeps us. The next two verses tell us that the new birth is also the result of Christ's Death: "But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,'"

And the next verse describes imputed righteousness, which is also given to us as a result of Christ's Sacrifice: "then He adds, "'Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.'"

I am unable to find any Scripture that says that by His obedience to the Law, Jesus earned a righteousness that He did not need, and He gives it to us. Jesus does indeed give us His righteousness, but it is His Sacrifice on the Cross that He uses to do it.