Article “The Active Obedience of Christ: An Intrusion into Baptist Life?” by John Aloisi

Occasionally, some well-meaning Baptists have asserted that belief in both the active and passive obedience of Christ as the ground of our justification is something foreign to Baptist life—perhaps something picked up from the Gospel Coalition, the now inactive T4G, or some other evangelical organization of recent vintage. But is this true? And more specifically, is this understanding of the active obedience of Christ something new to Baptist life or is it rather something that many Baptists have affirmed from the early decades of Baptist history?

Particular Baptists

In 1677, Particular Baptists in London produced a confession of faith that summarized the views they held in common with each other and, to a large extent, with other Protestants. Following the Act of Toleration (1688/89), messengers from more than one hundred Baptist churches in England and Wales approved and published this confession, now known as the Second London Baptist Confession (1689). In this confession, Particular Baptists affirmed the traditional view of the active obedience of Christ in several places. For example, they wrote, “The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself…hath fully satisfied the Justice of God” (LBC 8.5).

A few chapters later, these early Baptists more explicitly affirmed that God justifies sinners “by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith” (LBC 11.1). And they further explained, “Christ by his obedience, and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified…his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead” (LBC 11.3). In using this language, the Particular Baptists were expressing their essential agreement with both Presbyterians (Westminster Confession) and Congregationalists (Savoy Declaration) concerning the active obedience of Christ. However, interestingly, on this point, Baptists were even more explicit in distinguishing between Christ’s active and passive obedience and directly affirming the imputation of the active obedience of Christ than the Presbyterians were (esp. 11.1).

General Baptists

Particular Baptists were not the only early Baptists to affirm the active obedience of Christ. In 1678 General Baptists living in England drew up a doctrinal statement of their own. And much like the Particular Baptists, they also asserted that the righteousness secured by the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers.

They affirmed: “by faith we receive that righteousness that the Law, or the first covenant, required of the first Adam; which righteousness Christ hath fulfilled…by his active obedience” (Orthodox Creed 16). Even these early Baptists, who generally aligned themselves with Arminian theology, affirmed the active obedience of Christ.

Early American Baptists

By 1742 the Philadelphia Confession had become one of the most widely accepted confessions of faith among the Baptists living in Colonial America. In this confession, early American Baptists affirmed that God justifies sinners “by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith” (Philadelphia Confession 11.1). These Colonial Baptists essentially reaffirmed what English Baptists had confessed in the previous century.

More Recent Baptist Voices

In addition to such confessional statements, many Baptist theologians and pastors have taught the traditional view of Christ’s active obedience as well. For example, James Petigru Boyce (1827–1888), founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once wrote, “Our justification is due also to the active obedience of Christ, and not to passive obedience only. …the ground of justification is the whole meritorious work of Christ. Not his sufferings and death only, but his obedience to, and conformity with the divine law are involved in the justification, which is attained by the believer” (Abstract of Systematic Theology 35.2).

On the other side of the Atlantic, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) affirmed a similar understanding of justification. Concerning Romans 5:19, Spurgeon declared, “Now this is not Christ’s death merely, but Christ’s active obedience, which is here meant, and it is by this that we are made righteous” (sermon preached April 30, 1865). Spurgeon came to this conclusion not because he was influenced by the Gospel Coalition or some other group but because he found it in the text of Scripture.

In more recent years, Baptist theologians such as Wayne Grudem and John Piper have similarly argued for the traditional view of the active and passive obedience of Christ (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 570–71; Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, 123–24).

Conclusion

From this quick survey, it seems clear that many Baptists have affirmed the traditional view of the active obedience of Christ, and they have done so since the 1600s when modern Baptist history began. This understanding of Christ’s active obedience is not something foreign to Baptist theology, and it is certainly not something of recent origin. Rather, it is a doctrine that has been embraced by our Baptist forebears and included in many of their confessions of faith. Theoretically, one might object that the reason so many early Baptists affirmed the active obedience of Christ was because they were not dispensationalists. While it is true that the Baptists cited above did not embrace dispensationalism, a number of dispensationalists have held the traditional view of Christ’s active obedience as well. If you have been clicking the links above, you may have noticed that the link to the Spurgeon citation takes one to a blog post by Phil Johnson. Though not a Baptist, Phil is a committed dispensationalist, and he posted the quote from Spurgeon about the active obedience of Christ because he agreed with it. Elsewhere, Phil has also presented a very solid biblical and theological argument for the active obedience of Christ. Similarly, Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary has written affirming belief in “the importance of Christ’s active obedience for the justification of the believer” and pointing out this helpful article on the subject by Justin Taylor

And much closer to home, Rolland McCune, former professor of systematic theology at DBTS, was both a Baptist and a dispensationalist, and for decades he taught the traditional understanding of Christ’s active obedience (McCune, Systematic Theology, 2:198–205). In fact, concerning this issue, McCune wrote, “Any view of the atonement that cannot grant the merit of obedience as well as the just satisfaction of God’s outraged holiness is deficient. It calls into question, however minimally or inadvertently, the necessary, complete, and absolute ethical basis of one’s salvation” (2:201).[1]

While some Baptists have asserted that their fellow Baptists should reject the traditional understanding of Christ’s active obedience, this quick survey of Baptist history suggests that, from seventeenth-century London to twenty-first-century Allen Park, a great number of Baptists have held the traditional view of Christ’s active and passive obedience as the ground of our justification.

[1] Recently, Ryan Meyer and Mark Snoeberger sat down to discuss the question of whether or not belief in the active of obedience of Christ is compatible with dispensationalism. You may want to check it out: https://dbts.edu/captivate-podcast/is-active-obedience-anti-dispensational/.

Scotty Smith is the founding pastor of Christ Community Church in Franklin, Tennessee. In an article entitled ” to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him. Luke 2:39-40 (ESV)

Lord Jesus, though you began your life in our world totally on your parent’s care, Mary and Joseph didn’t realize how even more dependent they were on you. As obedient Jewish parents, they performed “everything according to the Law of the Lord” on your behalf. But for the next thirty-three years of your life, you perfectly fulfilled everything required in the Law for Mary and Joseph, and for us. Hallelujah, many times over!

You didn’t come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill for us. What we could never do, you’ve accomplished for us, once and for all. What we could never be, you became for us. You are our Substitute to trust, before you are our example to follow.

We praise, worship, and adore you, for so great a salvation, so firm a standing in grace, and so deep a rooting in the love of God. God’s favor, in which you’ve always lived, now rests fully and freely on us. Praise be to God!

Your last words from the cross, “It is finished!” have become our first and perpetual words of freedom. It’s not our obedience, but yours, in which we trust, boast, and hope. It’s not our righteousness, but yours, which has forever reconciled us to God. Now we obey you out of love and gratitude, not because of fear and pride.

By the same grace you’ve saved us, you’re now changing us. As you have fulfilled the Law for us, you are now fulfilling it in us. One Day we will see you as you are and we’ll be made like you. O the joy and wonder of such a gospel. Until that Day, keep us groaning and growing in grace, and free us to love others as you love us. So very Amen we pray, in your mighty and merciful name.

In this excerpt from his teaching series, What Did Jesus Do?, but for His people. And if His people are required to keep the Ten Commandments, He keeps the Ten Commandments. If His people are now required to submit to this baptismal ritual, He submits to it in their behalf. Because the redemption that is brought by Christ is not restricted to His death on the cross.

We’ve seen that in the work of redemption God didn’t send Jesus to earth on Good Friday and say, “Die for the sins of your people and that will take care of it.” No. Jesus not only had to die for our sins, but He had to live for our righteousness. If all Jesus did was die for your sins, that would remove all of your guilt, and that would leave you sinless in the sight of God, but not righteous. You would be innocent, but not righteous because you haven’t done anything to obey the Law of God which is what righteousness requires.

So we have a doctrine in theology that refers to the active obedience of Jesus, as distinguished from the passive obedience of Jesus. And this doctrine is in great dispute right now particularly among dispensational thinkers, which I find extremely, extremely unsettling. The passive obedience of Christ refers to His willingness to submit to the pain that is inflicted upon Him by the Father on the cross in the atonement. He passively receives the curse of God there. The active obedience refers to His whole life of obeying the Law of God whereby He qualifies to be the Savior. He qualifies to be the Lamb without blemish. He qualifies for the song, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,” through His total righteousness. He fulfills the Law’s demands, and if you remember the covenant with Moses, everybody who fulfills the Law receives the blessing, those who disobey the Law receive the curse.

What does Jesus do? He obeys the Law perfectly, receives the blessing, and not the curse. But there’s a double imputation that we will look at later at the cross, where my sin is transferred to His account, my sin is carried over and laid upon Him in the cross. But in our redemption, His righteousness is imputed to us—which righteousness He wouldn’t have if He didn’t live this life of perfect obedience. So what I’m saying to you is that His life of perfect obedience is just as necessary for our salvation as His perfect atonement on the cross. Because there’s double imputation. My sin to Him, His righteousness to me. So that, that is what the Scripture is getting at when it says Jesus is our righteousness.