Wayne Grudem and his theology

[DeaconDean]

deleted as I am once again, wrong.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not here to debate, rather, I'm here to find out whether I'm wrong or not.

I have been in a discussion regarding Christ's active obedience.

John Calvin and Wayne Grudem seem to be in agreement in saying that Christ was able to achieve this (Calvin) or "earn" (Grudem) a "righteousness"

Is this true, do you guys believe Christ had to achieve "righteousness" as Calvin taught?​

Do you guys believe that Grudem was correct in that Christ earned "righteousness"?​

​

Christ's active and passive obedience imputed to us is on that basis considered for our righteousness. This is a highly developed theological conclusion, which I believe is built on certain statements of Paul. For instance, "In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Gal 4:3-5

To me, this highly developed and concluded theology is reasonably accurate in its conclusions -- but the source of these conclusions is so much richer than these terse, reductionary conclusions -- much of the truth has been lost, because a truth reduced is no longer the whole truth.

When you meantion "had to", The question of "had ro" always accompanies a purpose or a reason, "in order to do what?" or "on what basis?" Y'just can't add a "had to" unless you're looking for a motive or a basis.

There was no absolute necessity that the Son of God must live a perfect life in Creation. But there must be some motive that concludes in Jesus being required to live a sinless life. Why? Because He did. It would be in order to accomplish some purpose.

Reformed theology asserts this purpose was to save us. Given that purpose, yes, Reformed theology asserts that Jesus Christ would "have to" carry out a life as a completely righteous human being, in order to impute the righteous life of a human being to other human beings.

If He had no need to do so, He wouldn't need to have grown in humility as a human being.

Numerous schemes are attempted to attack this view. Some of the most simplistic are that Jesus didn't need this life, He simply did so to prove He was God. Yet there are much easier ways for God to grant forgiveness to us, if God simply grew up, demonstrated He was God, and brought people to Him. It doesn't seem to me there's any reason for the Crucifixion. Similarly, if Christ didn't need to grow as God, but the Crucifixion actually imputes to Christians God's righteousness, then the question comes, why Jesus didn't simply appear and be crucified? Yet Paul in Philippians 2 points to this humility as significant, even vital for the Christian mind. Pp 2 definitely says it's needed as an example for our own lives, too.

==========

This is actually one subject among many involving the New Perspective and Federal Vision, though. Those holding a different view from imputed righteousness among the New Perspective and Federal Vision, they have been ousted from most conservative Presbyterian bodies.

NT Wright alleges that the highly-developed imputation is not in play in Paul. He proposes an explanation from union with Christ, which imputation also considers essential -- and then spirals away into requiring works in evidence for believers to be justified at the Last Day. Just exactly how this is meant is unclear in Wright. But one thing is clear: that lack of clarity reintroduces works-righteousness in the minds of some, which is intolerable to Paul (cf Rom 4:1-5). Wright actually agrees with this intolerance -- he's utterly unclear how all this really works.

There're other people within Federal Vision that are much further off the wall.

On the other hand, the New Perspective's accusers have made allegations that are simply false. So to my mind both have left us less scholarly people without a reliable source of information. Advocating for the New Perspective, I'd probably recommend someone like Mark Horne and I've heard a man named Armstrong is also a possibility, he used to work with a paper publication, I don't remember the name off the top of my head. Advocating imputation, I believe a man by the name of Phillips from Third Millenium Ministries is about as level-headed a person as is available.

I have my own ideas, but I can't say I'm anywhere close to the scholarship of the

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted as I am once again, wrong.

 

[mlqurgw]

Thanks again, but I think you missed the point I was asking.

Did Christ achieve or "earn" righteousness?

Being God, wasn't He righteous already?

Evidently not, least wise, that is the message I'm getting.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean you know I love you. That is why I have refrained from getting into the thread here and in the Baptist area. I believe that Christ did " earn" a righteousness that is imputed to His chosen redeemed people. Yes He was inherantly righteous as God and had no need of righteousness in Himself. But I needed a righteousness that came from obedience to not only the Law but to all the will of the Father. I could never obtain it or earn it. It must be given to me and Christ came into this world and brought in an everlasting righteousness as a man. One which God will accept and in which He is pleased. I believe in the same way Christ must be a man to die in the place of men He must have brought in a righteousness as a man. So yes He "earned" righteousness as a man because I need a man's perfect righteousness. He "earned " what I could never earn. Now I know some might say that is a works salvation and it is only to the extent that the work was done by He who Is God. All that God requires of me He did.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted as I am once again, wrong.

 

[mlqurgw]

Ron, you know I love you as a brother in Christ, so I do not want to debate with you. However, I only bring this up as a side point.

However, if I am to understand you, if Christ "earned" a righteousness, then in essence, Christ worked, and God rewarded Him for His obedience with "righteousness".

Just like you go to work and earn a paycheck, Christ worked at perfect obedience, and as a result, God "paid" Him, God "rewarded" with a "righteousness" that He now gives to us.

Is this right?

I just want to make sure before I go and make a horses-ass out of myself and delete all my posts in JM's thread and issue a public apology.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Though I think we must be extremely careful when seeking to understand the significance of the Man Christ Jesus that we do not separate Him from His divinity it is helpful to see them in a distinct light. Yes as a man the Lord Jesus Christ eraned a reward from the Father which we participate in by virtue of our union with Him. All men will be judged according to their works. My works by which I shall be judged is that which Christ did in my place. As God He had the right to sit on the throne of Heaven but as a man He earned that right by His obedience. He now sits on the throne the GodMan. There are several passages of Scripture I would like to point you to but right now I must get ready to go to work. In Christ's love, Ron.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted as I am once again, wrong.