Heidelcast 29: The Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience (pt 2)

Lane Keister joins the Heidelcast again for part 2 of our discussion of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Did Jesus obey only to qualify himself to be a Savior, did he obey for only himself and suffer only for his people or did he obey and suffer for his people? Did Jesus owe both obedience to the law and suffering the consequences of lawbreaking for himself or for his people?

Heidelcast 4 April 2010, The Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience (pt 2)

Thanks for listening

7 comments

  1. Dr. Clark,

    Please respond to Doug Wilson’s selective quoting of Turretin, on precisely this point.

    Just a taste of the real Turretin, “Nor is it absurd that in this way justification takes place by works and by faith –by the works of Christ and by our faith.”

    As much as we might disagree on the nature of the two kingdoms, on Lloyd-Jones and Edwards, I am grateful for your work on the FV. Keep it up.

    • I’ve had this discussion with several Shepherdites and Federal Visionists over the years. They cannot seem to tell the difference between “is” and “through” or “because.” Turretin was only giving an account of the graces that always accompany justification. There are fruits/evidences but they don’t become any part of faith in justification. They can’t see that distinction because they don’t want to see it. The truth is that entire Reformed tradition rejects the FV account of faith in justification as contrary to the Word of God. They are nothing but a sect organized around a few odd personalities.

  2. Pierce

    Doug first need to represent clearly and faithfully the position of his critics. He is misrepresenting the position of his critics, like in the following quotation:

    “But when saving faith comes, we then realize that we are distinguishing things that cannot be separated — provided we are considering them in Christ, and not in abstraction.This lack of separation is not as dangerous as it sounds — height, breadth, and depth cannot be separated but a child can distinguish them.”

    I’m appealing here to some Christological distinctions about the two natures of Christ: the divine and human nature are distinct but not separate. If the two natures are not distinct the heresy is Monophysitism, if they are separated the error is Nestorianism,

    The same is true with faith and works, they are distinct but not separate.

    Doug Wilson is constructing a straw man since he implies that the opponents of FV are criticizing him for a “lack of separation” between faith and works. He implies that they look at him as a kind of Nestorian in regard to faith and works; in reality the criticism he receives is for a kind of Monophysitism in regard to faith and works, a confusion of these two elements.

    Gabriel

  3. I have attempted to personally appeal to Doug Wilson privately and publically on the FV distinctives and to date DW has refused to acknowledge that ANY of the FV points of contention are even slightly off base- therefore I now view him in light of 1 Tim. 6:1-5 .

  4. GLW Johnson,
    So, let me get this straight, these FV guys are the ones under attack constantly by you and your posse and because they dont agree with you and are tired of having to defend themselves all the time you think 1 Tim. 6:1-5 applies to them or in this case Doug? Yeah I can see how that works.

Comments are closed.