From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: Re: PCRT
In a message dated 1/17/2005 12:44:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, rwlusk@bellsouth.net writes:
If you get a chance to talk to him, perhaps you can ask: Why is it better to have the imputed active obedience of Christ than to share in his resurrection verdict? What does the former give that the latter lacks? This is the question I’ve posed repeatedly to Horton, with no real answer beyond quotations from the confessions (which provide him dubious support at best). Maybe I should just email Rick myself . . . .
RL
Perhaps the emotional attachment arises from the fabled story about Machen’s words near his death about active obedience. I admit to being touched by the story when I first heard it. However, my nine years in Charistmatic circles have jaded my views of experiential testimonies. I smile, appreciate the moment, and then think through the experience to see what really is happening. I had one RC Charismatic give a breathy testimony how the bread in communion had the texture of flesh and the wine tasted like blood to him, since he had received the Baptism of the HS. Presbyterians have their mythic stories too!
What made me remember this Machen connection was conversation I had with a CTS student in my congregation. He quoted this Machen story with wide eyed wonder as he talked about his passion for the concepts of Christ’s Passive and Active obedience. Myths live on. When you challenge them don’t expect a reasoned response.
Eric
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:38:34 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: PCRT
Perhaps the emotional attachment arises from the fabled story about Machen’s words near his death about active obedience. I admit to being touched by the story when I first heard it. However, my nine years in Charistmatic circles have jaded my views of experiential testimonies. I smile, appreciate the moment, and then think through the experience to see what really is happening. I had one RC Charismatic give a breathy testimony how the bread in communion had the texture of flesh and the wine tasted like blood to him, since he had received the Baptism of the HS. Presbyterians have their mythic stories too!
What made me remember this Machen connection was conversation I had with a CTS student in my congregation. He quoted this Machen story with wide eyed wonder as he talked about his passion for the concepts of Christ’s Passive and Active obedience. Myths live on. When you challenge them don’t expect a reasoned response.
Eric
Interesting thoughts. You may very well be right. I used the Machen example in my colloquium essay, but (hopefully with more humility than audacity) suggested Machen would have been more Pauline had he said, “I’m so thankful for the *resurrection* of Christ! No hope without it!”
RL
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:53:43 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: Machen myth
Rich:
“Resurrection” doesn’t cut it, because it’s too broad/catholic. We (sectarian Presbyterians) like something that is *distinctively* Presbyterian/WCF (“active obedience”), so that we can say, “And *that’s* why you all need to learn the Standards!”
BDN
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:42:11 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: Machen myth
I detect a little sarcasm Brian.
Seriously, what’s so ironic about these detractors camping out on the active obedience issue (in a highly sectarian way, as you point out) is that the framers of the confession had the grace and humility to actually revise the document so as to allow more than one position. The historical revisionism (or historical ignorance) at work is too much to bear sometimes.
RL
From: Jonathan Barlow
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:57:13 -0600
Subject: PCRT
How did I miss this myth? Can someone remind me of it? If I ever heard it, I’ve forgotten it now.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:03:10 -0600
From: Todd and Lisa Harris
Subject: PCRT
Machen sent a telegram to John Murray just before his death: “I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”
Todd
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:06:56 -0800
From: “David E. Scott”
Subject: PCRT
From Ned Stonehouse’s biography of Machen, pp.507–508
On New Year’s Eve Mr. Allen called briefly and offered prayer. And then Machen told him of a vision he had had o being in heaven: “Sam, isn’t the Reformed Faith grand?” The following day he was largely unconscious, but there were intervals when his mind was thoroughly alert. In one of those periods he dictated a telegram to his colleague John Murray which was his final word: “I’m so thankful for active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” And so he died at about 7:30 p.m. on January 1, 1937._____
The reference to the active obedience of Christ finds its background in a sermon on that theme which he had preached over the radio on December 20th. Previously he had been discussing the doctrine with Murray, as he occasionally did other topics with which he dealt. And now that he realized that he was about to pass over the river into the eternal city, he bore testimony to the confidence that he reposed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. And so he gave expression to the conviction that he had assurance not only of remission of sin and its penalty but also of being accepted as perfectly obedient and righteous, and so an heir of eternal life, because of the perfect obedience of Christ to the divine will. And it was most characteristic of Machen that, eve in his agony, he wanted to express his exultant faith to one who shared it with him in rich measure. His eyes were upon Christ as his living hope. But he was also virtually thanking his colleague for his contribution to the appreciation of that doctrine as they had discussed it together on the basis of the Word of God
Rev. David E. Scott
Covenant Presbyterian Church
Issaquah, Washington
www.covenant-pca.org
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:09:37 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: PCRT
I am profoundly bothered by the idea that someone might think that God would both forgive a person and yet find him unacceptable because he hadn’t been good enough. If I treated my children this way I would be considered and evil father.
Mark
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:10:01 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: PCRT
Jonathan:
Machen went to ND in Dec., 1936, where he got pneumonia and died on 1/1/37. His last known communication was a telegram to John Murray that read in part (or whole?), “So thankful for active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”
BDN
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:20:19 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: PCRT
I am profoundly bothered by the idea that someone might think that God would both forgive a person and yet find him unacceptable because he hadn’t been good enough. If I treated my children this way I would be considered and evil father.
I have to admit that I often have found this distinction confusing, as well. Yet I think there is a correct instinct which underlies it: Adam sinned. But the forgiveness of sins would only mean restoration to Eden, it would not mean the fulfillment of God’s design for him. Thus, there is in Scripture a distinction between forgiveness and eternal life.
The problem, of course, is that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 what gains us eternal life. And it’s . . . um, yeah . . . the resurrection of the man from heaven.
Oops.
tim
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:20:10 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: PCRT
I think this just points out how silly it is to take anything and divvy up its merits into active vs. passive. It might be useful to distinguish for purpose A, but for B-Z, it just usually causes trouble. To me, submitting to death on a cross is pretty active.
A recent car commercial refers to a skateboard as having “active” suspension. Give me a break.
— Jonathan
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:34:28 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: PCRT
I agree with both you and Tim. My point is that making this a matter of merit rather than maturity leaves us with some rather ugly things to say about God. IMO, the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is a completely obvious thing, only made obscure by this vision of the need for an imputation of Christ’s active obedience.
Mark
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:36:51 -0600
From: James B. Jordan
Subject: PCRT
At 11:28 AM 1/17/2005, Joel wrote:
Thus, in union with Christ, our justification not only returns us to the position of the pre-lapsarian Adam, but brings us to the eschatological reward that Adam would have received had he obeyed.
Yeah. In the Old World, broken bread was Memorial (Lev. 2), but wine libation was not (Num. 15). Now each is Memorial, bread of Alpha, and then wine of Omega. It is finished. Bread of Garden is supplemented now with Wine of Eden, upstream.
JBJ
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:49:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: Scott Linn
Subject: PCRT
Greetings,
Joel wrote:
I’d resituate this in terms of union with Christ who, in his person, received that eschatological verdict on the other side of [a] faithfully fulfilling all righteousness and [b] taking the curse of the law upon himself in order to deal with the curse and penalty of sin. Thus, when we are united to this vindicated, resurrected Christ, the verdict pronounced over him is ours and that verdict can be construed imputatively, so that all that this verdict sums up and is bestowed upon in Christ’s own person is also ours in being united with him in that verdict. In this case, imputation of active and passive obedience is logically coterminous with union with Christ in his resurrection and not a logical precondition for a verdict that is rendered over us only as consequence of union.
[Excellent summary as always Joel.]
I think this is where your detractors get hung up. It seems as if nothing is happening to or changing this wicked sinner (me) — it’s all happening to Jesus. How then am I changed? This question gets back to the subjective, but it is so much a part of our thinking and expectation that it’s hard to shake.
Scott Linn
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:53:27 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: Re: Re: PCRT
Joel:
Actually, the Heidelberg basically says this when it says that X’s entire life was one of suffering/”passion.” Barth says some interesting stuff about this when he has a chapter in his Apostles’ Creed commentary that says, “He suffered . . .” (i.e., not just “he suffered under PP”).
I preached a sermon on this where I talked about his circumcision, his rejection by his family/disciples (“Get behind me, Satan!”), etc.
BDN
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:28:54 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: PCRT
Mark Horne wrote:
I am profoundly bothered by the idea that someone might think that God would both forgive a person and yet find him unacceptable because he hadn’t been good enough. If I treated my children this way I would be considered and evil father.
From Ned Stonehouse’s biography of Machen, pp.507–508
And so he gave expression to the conviction that he had assurance not only of remission of sin and its penalty but also of being accepted as perfectly obedient and righteous, and so an heir of eternal life, because of the perfect obedience of Christ to the divine will.
Is the notion perhaps not so much one of “acceptability” per se, but “acceptability” qua “heir of eternal life”?
Remission of sin and its penalty would put a person back into the position of the pre-lapsarian Adam, but would not grant him eschatological life. Through Jesus’ “active obedience” he became an heir of that eschatological life, becoming perfect through suffering obedience, receiving that resurrection life as a gift he shares with us.
Thus, in union with Christ, our justification not only returns us to the position of the pre-lapsarian Adam, but brings us to the eschatological reward that Adam would have received had he obeyed.
Machen’s point, then, is not so much that God impute one without the other or remit sin without accepting us into eternal life, but rather that there is a two-fold benefit in justification, that justification is, “more than redemption.”
Now, I don’t think of this two-fold justification (vindication as deliverance from the guilt and power of sin and vindication as granting of eschatological) in terms of an imputation that is logically prior to the justifying verdict itself. Traditionally, I think the notion has been that God [1] imputes Christ’s righteousness (conceived in terms of active and passive obedience) to us and then, as a logical consequencence, [2] we are regarded as righteous (forgiven and entitled to eschatological reward).
I’d resituate this in terms of union with Christ who, in his person, received that eschatological verdict on the other side of [a] faithfully fulfilling all righteousness and [b] taking the curse of the law upon himself in order to deal with the curse and penalty of sin. Thus, when we are united to this vindicated, resurrected Christ, the verdict pronounced over him is ours and that verdict can be construed imputatively, so that all that this verdict sums up and is bestowed upon in Christ’s own person is also ours in being united with him in that verdict. In this case, imputation of active and passive obedience is logically coterminous with union with Christ in his resurrection and not a logical precondition for a verdict that is rendered over us only as consequence of union.
joel
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:46:07 EST
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: Re: PCRT
In a message dated 1/17/2005 12:27:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, jon@barlownet.com writes:
I think this just points out how silly it is to take anything and divvy up its merits into active vs. passive. It might be useful to distinguish for purpose A, but for B-Z, it just usually causes trouble. To me, submitting to death on a cross is pretty active.
A recent car commercial refers to a skateboard as having “active” suspension. Give me a break.
— Jonathan
Ahh,
Myth does not have to make sense only inspire faith and devotion. I believe many a Christian has gone to the grave clutching a blessed crucifix, a medalion, or some other personal relic because their priest, parent or friend has told them it will do them good. Faulty connection, but I would be the last to proclaim someone lost simply because they frame faith in faulty terms.
I really believe the real historical Machen account others have cited, has a far reaching effect in the lives of many PCA and OPC ministers. While I may fully agree with the locus of our hope is in the resurrection, I must minister in the cultural context of the popular myth. Maybe I’m wrong putting so much weight here, but I know my reaction, my congregant’s reaction and have heard sem profs quoting this very account when they teach the Passive and Active Obedience distinction. It holds more sway than it should, it is a myth.
So if we want to re-educate; really retrain and ween folks off Presbyterian or other myths, we will have to realize we will not do it necessarily by getting them only to THINK differently. Rather we will have to lead them to experience the fullness of the real means of grace within the communion of the saints. When they hear the Word proclaimed in the context of the real communion of all the baptised saints gathered around the Lord’s Table, human props and false supports will pale in the light of real fellowship.
All that takes time, training and personal sacrifice which makes me glad I believe there is a lot more history ahead for the Church. I’m also thankful for those who have labored to retrain us without much public recognition or appreciation. The Lord only knows where I would be in my ministry if JBJ hadn’t taught that worship seminar for PRPC in St Louis in the early 80’s. My life and work has not been the same since. Yeah, its all your fault Jim.
Eric
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:53:04 EST
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: PCRT
In a message dated 1/17/2005 1:16:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, garvers1@yahoo.com writes:
Given the context of the deathbed, I suspect Machen’s reference to the active obedience of Christ was focused upon Christ’s gift of eschatological life — ultimately resurrection. A comforting thought on one’s deathbed, I imagine.
joel
You may be right about Machen’s intent, but he did not live to really nuance his statement. Thus, the event was reinterpreted by his devotees and it has taken on a mythical quality.
Eric
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:13:27 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: PCRT
Mark Horne wrote:
I agree with both you and Tim. My point is that making this a matter of merit rather than maturity leaves us with some rather ugly things to say about God.
Though the quotation from Stonehouse said nothing about merit. . .
Given the context of the deathbed, I suspect Machen’s reference to the active obedience of Christ was focused upon Christ’s gift of eschatological life — ultimately resurrection. A comforting thought on one’s deathbed, I imagine.
joel
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:14:56 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: PCRT
Scott Linn wrote:
I think this is where your detractors get hung up. It seems as if nothing is happening to or changing this wicked sinner (me) — it’s all happening to Jesus. How then am I changed? This question gets back to the subjective, but it is so much a part of our thinking and expectation that it’s hard to shake.
Well, that’s where Peter’s “deliverdict” comes in. When I am united to Christ by faith, it is a vital union. This talk of justification is merely the forensic and imputative side of that union, but that union is also a deliverance from the power and pollution of sin unto newness of life.
I’ll also add that I’m not convinced by how the “active/passive” distinction is often drawn: Christ’s life of obedience = active; Christ’s death = passive.
Christ’s entire life — especially after his baptism--had both sides always present.
On the one hand, Jesus was being continually “handed over” by his Father to temptation, testing, the Jewish official, the Romans, and finally, the curse of the law itself. That’s all “passive.” On the other hand, this very same series of events manifests the faithfulness of Jesus in trusting his Father and obeying his will in all things so that “no one takes my life from me, but I lay it down” (John 10:18). That’s all “active.”
Jesus’ death on the cross, as the culmination of that baptismal way, is both his being “handed over”/”given up” and his “laying down” — passive and active.
At least it seems that way to me. Otherwise the distinction seems to become rather artificial.
joel
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:15:20 -0000
From: “Robert Maddox”
Subject: Re: PCRT
Calvin3Max@aol.com wrote:
I really believe the real historical Machen account others have cited, has a far reaching effect in the lives of many PCA and OPC ministers.
I concur. for years, I was willing to give this idea of imputation of active much sway, making many arguments in its favor, because I had the opportunity to lecture from behind that very pulpit in which Machen had preached his last sermon. And since he and I hailed from the same town, and our last names started with the same letter, I felt the power of the myth.
rob
