And, for what its worth, the best critiques of Theonomy are those that arise from post-theonomic thinkers like Jim Jordan. Of course, I say that as a Covenanter sympathizer!

So, if we (at least I, and I take it Jeff Meyers) is not protesting the “deeply embedded in Reformed federal theology” nature of what Machen had to say (and please, let’s not dispute just who is saying what. I am not contesting it, and have no desire to do so).

What “FV” is doing is mining the insights of Vos and Murray and Gaffin and VanderWall and Van Til, and using different language to say different things because there are some other questions and perspectives out there. They said various things at the AAPC pastor’s conferences, and they came under fire for it. Dr. Morton Smith, at the 2003 conference, didn’t argue that they were not within the Reformed Tradition, just that they were not within the Presbyterian Tradition, as he understood it. Their perspectives were okay within the Continental Reformed tradition. Some FVers want to argue the case that they are not outside, or standing in contradition to, the Westminster Confessional strem, except as read through the Southern style “Spirituality of the Church” grid so prevalent in the PCA. But, again, let’s not argue this question. I wonder what you have against what I’ve said in my posts which raise questions about the nature of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ.
Is his pre-cross/resurrection obedience DIRECTLY imputed to believers, or is his resurrected priestly ministry, where he pleads the blood of the cross, not at least more central. Is Christ’s PRESENT righteousness imputed to us, or his pre-cross works and merits credited to us? I trust you can see that I find a unity (like his Unipersonality as God and man) in his works, but his ONE act of obedience centers upon the Cross, to which the rest is pre-requisite.
Again, the question is not “Does the I-AOC have provenance in the Reformed Tradition,” but Do YOU see a problem with the (mild?) reconstruction I have put upon the matter?

While I have preached and supported I-AOC in the past, and am still not against it, I did a long post from lots of Bible passages that gave two or three issues about which I wonder wrt the Imputation of the Active Obedience:
1. Is there not something odd about going back to the pre-resurrection righteous acts of Christ for something to impute to post resurrection Christians (see: 2 Cor. 5:16, Knowing Christ after the Flesh)
2. In Hebrews there are a number of passages that refer to the present ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially in his priestly role as the new Melchizedek. It contrasts the “days of his flesh” with him “living ever to make intercession for us.”
3. If there is righteousness granted to believers (imputed) based upon his ONE ACT of OBEDIENCE, which seems to reference the Cross, then do we need his pre-crucifixion righteousness and merits to be imputed to us in some distinct fashion?
4. I also went through each instance of the greek word for imputation, and found nothing that would imply the imputation of the pre-resurrection/pre-crucifixion righteous acts of Jesus, OTHER THAN his piety being the basis upon which God granted him what he requested in his prayers (this part was all in Hebrews). So, in one sense, Christ’s own piety and obedience was a basis upon which God granted HIS prayers. If there is any imputation there it is to Jesus himself(?). In looking through the instances of logizomai, I stumbled upon 2 Cor. 5:16, in the context of us being New Creation, in Jesus, and wondered at the statement, that some people who knew christ ‘after the flesh’ were now to know him thus no longer. Now, if that has any connection to the Hebrews usage of “in the days of his flesh” - wouldn’t this imply that what we get from Jesus by way of imputation is:
(A) the effect(s) of his one act of Righteousness (which appears not to be his whole life’s righteousness, but the obedience of/unto the cross)-
Rom 5:16-19 “And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Not that the pre-cross righteousness of Christ is insignificant - it is pre-requisite to his ‘one act’ of obedience. He gained maturity through what he suffered, up to and through the Cross.
(B) His present vindication - Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and *raised* for our justification.
(C) His on-going priestly intercession. (Melchizedek, Hebrews passim)
(D) Our union with him, not only covenantally in ‘organic’ terms by way of the indewlling of the Spirit, but also forensically: Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
(E) Our Death to the Law (of Sin and Death), even the Covenant of Works inso far as it was re-published in the Mosaic law - Rom 7:4 “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” Note here that, of course, the Active Obedience of Christ is, in effect, ‘imputed’ to us, in that through his active obedience, His death could fulfill the Law’s penalty on our behalf. But, the continual focus of the Epistles is upon his Crucifixion as the basis of our justification, and not directly upon his law keeping. Of course, Rom. 7 is notoriously disputed. But, I note that “living in the flesh” and beng bound by “the old way of the written code” not only may apply to us / or to Paul in some pre-conversion way, but applies to Jesus living under the law (though as the immaculate second Adam - though the first Adam was immaculate until he sinned!). Whatever Rom 7 is really about, the power to change from under the law and in the flesh to alive and in the Spirit, comes from Christ’s law fulfillment and his subsstituionary sacrifice for us.

Of course, this is no exhaustive list, just some ideas that spring to mind.

So, what I don’t really understand is what do you brothers mean when you speak of the imputation of the Active Obedience of Jesus Christ? Even if you spell it out in terms of Merit, there does not appear to be any direct imputation of Christ’s pre-cross actions to his post-resurrection disciples (or to Abraham or David, who are the given examples of imputation in Romans 4).

Wondering in Sewickley…

1) What the WCF says, and

2) Read our “Joint Federal Vision Profession,” especially the section “Union with Christ and Imputation.”

Anyway, most theological arguments require citing more than one passage. It does seem odd that James Jordan can wave his wand over Gen. 3 and produce “the gospel” and no one on the FV side bats an eye. But when FV is challenged by referring to specific passages, critics need to give precise interaction with specific words and phrases to show FV is wrong.

As I understand theological reasoning, a set of questions and answers get going and areon the table and the people doing the reasoning go to relevant passages in Scripture for answers. They haven’t typically asked a passage to say exactly, “the active obedience of Christ,” but have actually interpreted certain passages to mean phrases like that on the basis of the theological conversation leading up to the exegesis and on the basis of exegesis that tries to be responsible to the Bible’s meaning. We don’t find “two natures” and “one person” written down in the Bible. But we accept those phrases as biblical.

(By the way, this explanation is one indication of why I find biblicism so frustrating, and uneven biblicism downright annoying.)

So how do you, Jeff, think Christ’s obedience leads to your justification and salvation? What role does Christ’s active obedience play?