The Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience
Is Christ’s law-keeping, as well as his suffering, imputed to the justified believer?
Alternative rejected
Background
Johannes Piscator (Herborn) had argued, against Calvin and Beza, that only Christ's passive obedience — his suffering of the curse — is imputed to the believer. His active obedience to the law, Piscator held, was required for Christ's own person as a man under the law; he did not perform it 'in our place' for imputation. The consequence was a doctrine of justification by Christ's punishment-bearing alone, with the believer's obedience following as the believer's own duty. The mainline Reformed (Ursinus, Polanus, the Synod of Dort, Davenant, Owen later) held both active and passive obedience to be imputed: Christ's whole righteousness — his law-keeping and his curse-bearing — is the believer's justifying righteousness.
The Assembly’s handling
The Assembly debated the question hard through August-October 1645, with Thomas Gataker, Richard Vines, William Twisse, and Daniel Featley reportedly siding with Piscator on imputation (a minority view); George Walker, Anthony Burgess, Edward Reynolds, and most others insisting that both active and passive obedience are imputed. The drafting committee resolved on language that secured the mainline position: WCF XI.3 speaks of 'the whole obedience and satisfaction of Christ' being imputed in justification, and VIII.5 includes both 'his perfect obedience' and 'sacrifice of himself' in Christ's mediatorial work. The Piscatorian minority lost the drafting fight.
Parties
Both active and passive obedience imputed (majority)
Christ's whole righteousness — his perfect law-keeping (active obedience) and his curse-bearing (passive obedience) — is imputed to the believer in justification. The believer is forensically righteous in Christ.
- George Walker (1581–1651)
- Anthony Burgess (d. 1664)
- Edward Reynolds (1599–1676)
- Edmund Calamy the Elder (1600–1666)
- Samuel Rutherford (c. 1600–1661)
- George Gillespie (1613–1648)
Passive-obedience-only (Piscatorian; minority)
Only Christ's passive obedience is imputed; his active obedience was required for his own person as a man under the law. Justification consists in the imputation of Christ's suffering of the curse, with the believer's renewed obedience following as the believer's own duty.
- Thomas Gataker (1574–1654)
- Richard Vines (1600–1656)
- William Twisse (1577–1646)
- Daniel Featley (1582–1645)
Confessional language
WCF XI.3: 'Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf…' Larger Catechism Q. 70: 'Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them.'
Ontology placement
This crux bears on the following attributes of the Westminster ontology. The Westminster baseline value is marked WCF.
IV · Christology · Active-Obedience Imputation
V · Soteriology · Justification Ground
Legacy
The full-imputation position became orthodox Reformed teaching and the basis of Owen's *Justification* (1677), Hodge, Bavinck, Murray. Twentieth-century discussions (Daniel Doriani; the OPC report on justification, 2006) have returned to the Piscatorian position only briefly. The 'New Perspective on Paul' (Wright, Dunn) has revisited the imputation question in ways the Assembly would have considered closer to the Piscatorian minority. The Westminster language — 'whole obedience and satisfaction' — remains the touchstone for subsequent Reformed debate.