"In sum, this dissertation has examined the progress of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience with a focus on the thought of Joh"In sum, this dissertation has examined the progress of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience with a focus on the thought of Johannes Piscator. It has shown that the earlier scholarship that regarded the doctrine as clearly present in the Reformers was mistaken (chapter 2). Rather, examination of the sources showed how 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 (chapters 1 and 3). The shift from relatively rare formulation of the doctrine (as in Beza) to significant and extended debate took its focus from the figure of Johannes Piscator, who through exegetical (chapter 4) and theological (chapter 5) arguments refuted the doctrine. In response to his arguments, and of those who followed him, the seventeenth century witnessed several disputes surrounding Christ's active obedience which arose in different parts of Europe (chapter 6). These disputes highlighted three issues - namely, the stability of the law in a covenantal framework, the twofold righteousness in justification and Christ's relation to the law according to his humanity -which became the trademarks of the matured doctrine (chapter 7), as it was formulated in response to Piscator and various of his followers. These later formulations constituted not a departure from the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace through faith, but a development of the understanding of Christ's satisfaction in order to provide us with such gracious redemption. There was no shift in paradigm. The Reformers stressed faith and grace in order to substitute our passivity in justification for the Medieval understanding of our participation in the process of justification. Seventeenth century Reformed theology continued the same teaching of passive justification. It maintained the same gracious element of redemption that a righteousness extra nos was reckoned as ours in order that we be legally proclaimed just. The very fact that the majority of the Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century hinged their understanding of justification on the idea of an alien iimputed righteousness is a testimony to the continuity of grace in justification. The imputed righteousness of Christ is what made sixteenth and seventeenth century Reformed theology in contrast to the teaching of works in Medieval and Roman Catholic teachings on justification. Whereas there was continuity of grace in teaching an alien imputed righteousness, seventeenth century Reformed theology had a more robust understanding of Christ's satisfactory work. These Reformed theologians regarded that Piscator's doctrine of satisfaction did not do justice to divine law within a federal framework. The pre-Iapsarian promise of life based on perfect obedience, which even Piscator complied with, could not be abrogated after the fall. Either obedience or punishment for fallen humanity did not correspond to stability of the whole law. Since the law is primarily concerned with its precepts, the appended threats cannot be the only element ofthe law which remains stable. Therefore, Reformed orthodoxy considered both obedience and punishments as dividends of any fallen human being. Righteousness, in the fallen state, is twofold according to the demands of the law. Hence, Christ's vicarious righteousness also needs to be twofold. He merits for us both deliverance from punishment and right to eteniallife. None can be to him alone for he is not liable to the first and entitled to the second due to the hypostatical union. Covenantally, however, he assumes the role of representative viator in order to obtain the covenant promises for us. "...more
Loading...
