tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post8948250819565877266..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: Doug Wilson on Wright's New BookMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-64772626372314802912009-02-13T13:29:00.000-06:002009-02-13T13:29:00.000-06:00Eric: Everything I have to say about imputation an...Eric: Everything I have to say about imputation and Paul can be found in my book "Saving Righteousness of God" and "Introducing Paul". Also, it is cross AND resurrection that is the means of our justificaiton - see Rom. 4.25.<BR/><BR/>Tim: I agree that union with Christ is the source of justification and sanctification for Paul (1 Cor. 1.30!) and the notion of twofold grace sounds kosher to me. But I think it is a quibble to think of union with Christ as an anchor rather than mechanism. Maybe union is the mechanism and grace are the cogs in the wheel!<BR/><BR/>Andrew Faris: Mate, I think incorporation and participation needs alot more air time in discussions of Pauline soteriology and all talk of imputation must be ancillary to it.<BR/><BR/>Andrew Cowan: I prefer to speak of the faithfulness and obedience of Jesus Christ in his life and death to his divinely given role as the new Israel, Messiah, and second Adam.Michael F. Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-16058130847436694752009-02-13T13:13:00.000-06:002009-02-13T13:13:00.000-06:00On #3, I sympathize with what you are saying about...On #3, I sympathize with what you are saying about the NT and active/passive obedience. But I think that what a lot of the people who are making that distinction mean is that we need Jesus not only to take the punishment for our sins (passively) but also to be the (actively) obedient son that God intended for Adam and then Israel to be. Perhaps in light of the NT's emphasis on the cross as "the" act of obedience (e.g. Rom. 5:18-19) and suffering generally as the crux of his obedience (Phil. 2:6-11 and Heb. 5:8), we ought to come up with better terminology than "active" and "passive," but some way to speak about Jesus' suffering and death having soteriological import as obedience and not simply as God's punishment on sin needs to be included.Andrew Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988271380078306035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-12133584024630765822009-02-13T13:09:00.000-06:002009-02-13T13:09:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.A.C. Slaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15368568598656784232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-65767866722322295932009-02-13T12:57:00.000-06:002009-02-13T12:57:00.000-06:00Dr. Bird,When Jeff was reading SRoG and reviewing ...Dr. Bird,<BR/><BR/>When Jeff was reading SRoG and reviewing it at CiC, he and I interacted quite a bit about incorporation, and I have to say that the more I read the NT with that idea in mind, the more I think it's on the money. It covers such a broad range of texts, yet without being so broad as to be meaningless.<BR/><BR/>So, uh, thanks is I guess what I'm saying...<BR/><BR/>AndrewAndrew Farishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16500885575497425538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-8902748205749947742009-02-13T12:08:00.001-06:002009-02-13T12:08:00.001-06:00Just for what's it worth. I am new to this blog, b...Just for what's it worth. I am new to this blog, but it is extremely interesting. <BR/><BR/>I would experiment here for the scripture, but I don't think that Scripture really distiguishes from active/passive obedience of Christ. In fact, when Paul talks of justification, he is focused upon the cross for our salvation.Erick Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13888813194089988051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-321610062713012822009-02-13T12:08:00.000-06:002009-02-13T12:08:00.000-06:00Your quotes on Wilson actually made the Federal th...Your quotes on Wilson actually made the Federal theological position make more sense to me. Thanks for sharing.Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14847912389789698622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-2093858527724292722009-02-13T08:11:00.000-06:002009-02-13T08:11:00.000-06:00Michael,I've been reading your blog for a little w...Michael,<BR/><BR/>I've been reading your blog for a little while and I appreciate your thoughts and insight particularly in NT studies. Before that I had encountered your work in your ETS article on this subject.<BR/><BR/>With respect to #4, I agree I didn't see Doug Wilson mention union with Christ by those words, but whenever you are talking about Federal Headship, it seems to me, you aren't ignoring it even if you don't say those words. The reason I say that is with the idea of federal headship one is either 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'. There is in federal headship both the legal, federal, representation aspects and the union aspects. One is either in the old humanity or the new humanity of the eschaton.<BR/><BR/>Second, excuse me as I quibble over words... is it entirely accurate to say 'union with Christ' is '<I><B>the mechanism</B></I> that communicates righteousness'? I agree the righteousness of our justification comes through our union with Christ. I agree there is no imputation without participation and incorporation into Christ.<BR/><BR/>Yet in our union with Christ there is a two fold grace: righteousness that comes in justification and righteousness that comes out of that same union that is sanctification. If union with Christ is strictly the mechanism then, personally I think there is a danger at missing the distinct but inseparable elements of justification and sanctification. <BR/><BR/>Again, excuse the quibble--and maybe you'd disagree, but I would say the grace we have flows out of union with Christ (through our incorporation/participation) and there are two mechanisms by which this is communicated: legal reckoning (imputation) and inward transformation (sanctification). I would distinguish the overarching anchor (union with Christ) from the particular mechanisms (imputation and transformation)<BR/>(Calvin's duplex gratia is driving my thinking here--as well as Reformed soteriology--and [hopefully] solid Pauline/Biblical exegesis, especially Romans 4-5 vs. 6)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for letting me comment. Oh, your readers might be interest in <A HREF="http://thomasgoodwin.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/union-with-christ-in-owen-and-goodwin/" REL="nofollow">this post </A> over at ThomasGoodwin on the significance of union with Christ for Owen and Goodwin. Sometimes we forget union with Christ has always been crucial for Reformed Theology.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Timtimbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13059862238106919852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-88117801273296394332009-02-13T06:24:00.000-06:002009-02-13T06:24:00.000-06:00Thank you for this post. I was wondering if anyone...Thank you for this post. I was wondering if anyone would like to have a discussion via emails on the issue of imputation. I am struggling through this doctrine in my study of the SCriptures.Erick Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13888813194089988051noreply@blogger.com