The Spirit is Life BECAUSE OF Righteousness

Romans 8: 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

John 16: 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Romans 5:19 calls events in history “being constituted”. “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be appointed righteous.”

Notice, first, that “the many” are the elect in Christ. Like I Corinthians 15, Romans 5 is not talking about the non-elect who are also constituted sinners by Adam’s disobedience. The same exact number who are chosen in Christ were also all born legally dead in Adam and appointed sinners. Even though they are elect in Christ, they are born into this world needing Christ and needing life.

Trying to understand these imputation events in Romans 5 without talking about election is impossible, but almost everybody tries to do it. They end up changing God’s freely GIVEN salvation into something caused by sinners actively “receiving”, even though “receive” in Romans 5:17 is passive and does not refer to the consent of sinners.

Man does not become a sinner by consenting to Adam’s sin, and the elect in Christ do not become appointed righteous by consenting to Christ’s obedience. The elect in Christ become righteous by imputation. This legal event results in new birth, but it does not include new birth.

Why does this distinction matter? Even if you agree with me that sinners are made guilty in Adam by legal imputation,why does it matter? Don’t I agree that the moral corruption of sinners is the immediate result of the imputation of guilt? Am I just being picky, just arguing for argument’s sake?

NO! If the only problem elect sinners have is corruption and inability to believe, then the only need they have is for the Holy Spirit and the new birth. Then it finally does not matter what Christ did, and it certainly makes no sense to argue about for whom Christ did it.

If “life” in the Bible is ONLY about the ability to believe God’s testimony about the Son, then the good news is no longer what the Son did or did not do, but the good news instead becomes our believing, and being careful to give God all the praise for our believing.

But we need more than the life to believe. We need legal life by God’s judicial declaration based on God’s judicial sharing to the elect of what Christ did for the elect alone.

I agree that new birth is necessary, but it is a logical result and not a condition of God’s imputation of Christ’s death.. The elect don’t become united to Christ by believing. Nor do the elect become united to Christ by water baptism.

The new birth does not unite the elect to Christ. The Holy Spirit does not unite the elect to Christ. God unites the elect to Christ by judicial declaration. Romans 4:17, “God gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things which do not exist.”

The Bible gives first place to Christ and what Christ got done judicially. To look to Christ in us and to life in us (given by the Holy Spirit) is to look away from the testimony about what Christ has done at the cross and in His resurrection.

I Corinthians 1:28-30, “God chose even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no flesh can boast in the presence of God. God is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

It is not faith that made God the source of life. It is not the Holy Spirit who made God a source of life. God not only chose the elect in Christ; in time God also judicially declares the elect to have life in Christ.

Having Christ and having life is a result of God’s imputation of Christ’s death to the elect. If the elect could have life and Christ before that imputation, it would be too late for the imputation and there would be no need for the imputation or for the merits of the death which is imputed. After God’s imputation,  the ungodly elect  become godly and receive the Holy Spirit and the new birth. But if they could get the Spirit and life without the righteousness, they would not ever need the righteousness. Romans 8:10, “the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: imputation

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

23 Comments on “The Spirit is Life BECAUSE OF Righteousness”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    Let me simply rehearse what I think is inconsistent and wrong in Calvin. He denies that God’s imputation of righteousness is union-producing. Calvin teaches that “union” results in God’s imputation, and that the Holy Spirit unites the elect to Christ before they are justified, and that faith in Christ is before God’s imputation. Since this is what almost everybody teaches, I won’t multiply quotations. I agree that the new birth and faith in the gospel happens at once when God places the elect legally into Christ’s death. . Calvin agrees that, once an elect person has received Christ by faith by means of word or sacrament, that this person is also at the same time justified (and will be being justified). But Calvin seems to make everything logically depend on regeneration by the Holy Spirit. I think everything logically depends on God’s imputation of the righteousness of Christ’s death.

    I am suspicious of any gospel which makes its “reality” to be ultimately about what God does in us, metaphysically or habitually. I am aware of a long philosophical history of talking about infusion. While I don’t want to say that regeneration is an impartation of righteousness, and I certainly don’t think that regeneration comes by means of sacraments, I do not want to discount the wonderful news that God gives the elect a new heart to understand and to keep believing the gospel. Regeneration assures us that the justified, despite their continuing immorality, will never stop believing the gospel . “I John 3:9, “No one born of God sins, because God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot sin because he has been born of God.”

    I John 3:9 is not only saying that the justified elect cannot be charged with the sin of not believing the gospel. Christ died as a result of being imputed with the elect’s sins in not believing. But Christ also died in order to give the Spirit to the elect so that the elect would abide in the gospel, and the gospel would abide in the elect. When I deny that the Spirit gives Christ or that the Spirit unites to Christ, I am not denying that Christ gives the Spirit or that the Spirit gives the elect person a new heart. But I disagree with Calvin that the Spirit joins the elect to justification. Here’s one more quotation from Calvin (3:11:10): “I confess that we are deprived of justification until Christ is made ours. Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed.. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that His righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into His body—in short because he deigns to make us one with Him.”

    Of course you can say this is all much about nothing, but Calvin seems to think it is very important, and so do the academics like Torrance and Gaffin and Ferguson who write every essay so that they can get to a quotation from Institutes 3:1:1. As long as Christ is outside us, they say, His righteousness is not yet imputed to us, therefore faith in Christ comes before God’s imputation. They agree that there is an eternal election, but there’s hardly any need to ever talk about that, because the important thing we all supposedly have in common with people who don’t believe in election is that we agree that faith is the condition of union with Christ…

    • markmcculley Says:

      God’s sovereignty—something happened to me, not my doing

      God’s atonement—something happened for me, but not in me, outside of me, at a distance from me—at another time and in another place

      God’s justification of the elect—Christ’s humanity is not always dying, but the value of His one time death is imputed by God to the elect

      our life does not come from God’s life imparted or infused into us

      our life comes from Christ’s death credited to us

      our life does not come from sacramental medicine or sacramental union

      https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/sacramental-union-and-communion-with-christt

  2. David Bishop Says:

    I know an eternal justificationist who interprets the first “many” of Romans 5 as pertaining to the non-elect. It fits his eternal justification theory to say so. But he winds up with some of the very same problems you describe here, though he chooses to ignore it rather than confess to it.

  3. markmcculley Says:

    Almost all Calvinists think that the first all includes the non-elect. One exception is Tom Wells in Price for a People.

    http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Modern_Day_Reform_Teaching/Tom%20Wells/price_people_wells.htm

  4. Jeffrey Park Says:

    What would you say to Scripture’s persistent argument that faith is the ground of justification (justified by faith)? Historically, reformed people (including Calvin) have argued that regeneration precedes and causes faith and that faith brings the declaration of righteousness. Reformed Christians have not said that faith is the condition of union with Christ, but the reverse because apart from Him we can do nothing.

  5. markmcculley Says:

    Justified by faith does not mean that faith is the “ground” of justification, and nobody who is Reformed says that faith is the righteousness. 1. The Bible does not use the word “ground” and we need to be careful to define what we mean by that word. 2. But if we mean by “ground”, the basis and only cause for the elect being declared righteous, then we have to say that Christ’s righteousness (his doing even unto death) is the “ground” of justification. 3. Before or after the imputation of righteousness, faith is not imputed and faith is not the reason God considers the elect to be now justified. 4. Faith in the gospel is the result and evidence that the righteousness has been imputed.

    Jeff, there are many essays about the righteousness on this blog. I encourage you to read them. Reformed folks have not been careful in denying that union is because of faith. But we need to say that union results in faith, and that union is because of the imputed righteousness.

  6. jsm52 Says:

    mcmark: “But Calvin seems to make everything logically depend on regeneration by the Holy Spirit. I think everything logically depends on God’s justification by the righteousness of the cross.”

    Calvin: “Before his righteousness is received Christ is received in faith.”

    God, by the death and resurrection of Jesus secured justification, indeed salvation, for the elect. Yet “… the immutable counsel of God, by which he predestinated to himself whomsoever he would, was alone effectual for their salvation” (Calvin)

    Calvin: “Before his righteousness is received Christ is received in faith.”

    me: God issued the verdict of justified for the elect upon the completion of Christ’s work of the cross. The believer, already justified in God’s eyes and already united to Christ through election, is brought this verdict (good news) sovereignly by the Christ through his Spirit. By Faith, a saving grace (free gift) given, the believer receives in time and space the verdict of justified and the imputation of that verdict, the righteousness of Christ.

    Calvin: “In regard to the elect, we regard calling as the evidence of election, and justification as another symbol of its manifestation, until it is fully accomplished by the attainment of glory.”

    me: And regarding Salvation Calvin writes: “Still, in following out his liberality, he would have us always look to free election as its source and beginning.”

    – my two cents into the pot…

  7. markmcculley Says:

    Jack, do you teach justification of all the elect at the cross? Do you say that Abraham was not really justified back in Genesis, as Romans 4 seems to indicate? I certainly don’t think Calvin himself taught that God delivered the verdict only then. If anything, Calvin had some concept of a continual forgiving, a process of justification, in which the verdict keeps being made, in which the non-imputation of sins keeps happening. But in no way does he teach either eternal justification or justification of all at the cross.

    Of course I know that some Lutherans have a concept of an universal objective justification, which nevertheless may end up not being effective. But I don’t want to talk about Calvin and Lutherans. Rather, I am asking what you, Jack, teach about the timing of imputation. The obtaining of the righteousness is one thing, and the imputation of the righteousness is another thing. I agree with John Owen about that. The atonement itself is not the justification of the elect, even though Christ Himself was raised and justified because as a “public person” He had accomplished redemption and brought in the righteousness.

    And of course I certainly agree with you (and Calvin) that God’s election is the cause of justification. God’s election is God’s love. God’s justification is not the same thing as God’s election. But God will justify all those God loves.

  8. jsm52 Says:

    By the way, I’m not all about “defending Calvin.” I actually think you, at certain points, misread him.

    cheers

  9. markmcculley Says:

    Thanks, Jack, I agree that you are not all about Calvin and I thought you weren’t meaning to teach eternal justification (or justification at the cross) even though what you wrote could be read that way. I like the way you say it just above–secured justification.

    Also I agree that I can misread Calvin. I certainly am no expert, even though I have spent quite some time in the Institutes. I think you perhaps let the good stuff over-ride the more questionable so that you read the questionable through the good, where I tend to see lack of resolution, thought, consistency. Have you read McCormack on how he thinks Calvin’s focus on “regeneration” ( and ultimately sacramental union) skews all the good things Calvin says about forensic priority? I would love to talk more about that with you, to see if you think he is misreading Calvin. Mike Horton doesn’t think he is.

    BTW, I think we need to be very very careful when we talk about God reckoning faith for righteousness. i disagree with what John Murray says in his commentary about Gen 15 and Romans 4. Faith is not the righteousness, and God does not ever count faith as righteousness. Lutherans can say that, but they shouldn’t and the Bible does not. The object of faith is the righteousness of Christ, and what God counts as righteousness is Christ’s righteousness. Agree?

  10. jsm52 Says:

    One thing I try to keep in mind about Calvin’s Institutes is that it’s not a systematic theological work. It was written for the purpose, among others, in aiding pastors in understanding the doctrines of the Christian faith for their ministry and preaching. His language at times is ambiguous (at least in the modern’s mind) and the topics are not always progressively set out and unpacked, so one should look to those parts that are clear and unequivocal in order to help steer one’s understanding on those less so. And sometimes be content with some uncertainty as to what he may have meant. I’m certainly not saying Calvin can’t be wrong (none of the best is without some error and only Scripture is exempt from that ill), but often, with him and other reformers, readers will pounce on a sentence or two and conclude “Ah ha!, he does or doesn’t believe such and such.” All I trying to do is to let Calvin speak for Calvin, when it’s possible.

    Haven’t read McCormack or Horton on Calvin’s focus on regeneration. Any cut and pastes you can send me?

    cheers

  11. jsm52 Says:

    By the way, a very good definition of justification is in the Westminster Shorter Catechism: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone” (Q/A 33).

  12. markmcculley Says:

    Before Adam sinned, there was no condemnation for Adam. But except by election, Adam was not yet in Christ. This meant that, before Adam sinned, no condemnation and no sins counted against him. But neither was Adam yet “justified” before he sinned, because Christ’s righteousness had not yet been imputed to Adam. Christ’s righteousness was not counting FOR Adam before he sinned. Christ’s righteousness was counting FOR Abraham when Abraham sinned after Genesis 15.

  13. markmcculley Says:

    A focus on “the active obedience” of Christ CAN become a distraction from the death of Christ as that which frees the elect from sin and law and death. I have no big problem saying that Christ’s life of obedience also is imputed. But I don’t think we should think of the death (the passive) as that which only gets us back to where Adam was before Adam sinned, and then of the life (the active) as the “righteousness” which gets us justified. I don’t think we should distribute out the life and death in that way.

    Even talking about this makes me uncomfortable. because Norman Shepherd and federal vision and NT Wright deny the active obedience. Nevertheless I do think that the debate about the active obedience being imputed CAN BE a distraction. It doesn’t have to be.

    1. It CAN BE a distraction from Adam’s sin imputed to humans. Wright does not have any place in his theology for original sin as Adam’s original guilt. We should be talking about that more.

    2. It’s a distraction from the sins of the elect being imputed to Christ. This is the main thing. This is more important even that saying that Christ’s death is only for the elect or saying the Christ’s death is effective to save all for whom He died. This is about justice, about the justifying of God not only the justifying of sinners.

  14. jsm52 Says:

    Charles Spurgeion:

    “The promises in the Word of God are not made to suffering; they are made to obedience. Consequently, Christ’s sufferings, though they may remove the penalty of sin, do not alone make me the inheritor of the promise. “If You will enter into life,” said Christ, “keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17). It is only Christ’s keeping the commandments that entitles me to enter life. “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable” (Isaiah 42:21). I do not enter into life by virtue of His sufferings – those deliver me from death, those purge me from filthiness; but entering the enjoyments of the life eternal must be the result of obedience. As it cannot be the result of mine, it is the result of His, which is imputed to me….See what Christ has done in His living and His dying, His acts becoming our acts and His righteousness being imputed to us, so that we are rewarded as if we are righteous, while He was punished as though He had been guilty.

    Justification then comes to sinners as an act of pure grace, the foundation of it being Christ’s righteousness. The practical way of its application is by faith. The sinner believes God and believeth that Christ is sent of God. [He] takes Christ Jesus to be his only confidence and trust; and by that act, he becomes a justified soul. It is not by repenting that we are justified, but by believing; it is not by deep experience of the guilt of sin; it is not by bitter pangs and throes under the temptations of Satan; it is not by mortification of the body, nor by the renunciation of self; all these are good, but the act that justifieth is a look at Christ. We, having nothing, being nothing, boasting of nothing, but being utterly emptied, do look to Him Whose wounds stream with the life-giving blood. As we look to Him, we live and are justified by His life. There is life in a look at the crucified One—life in the sense of justification.

  15. markmcculley Says:

    Thanks for the quotation from Spurgeon. It’s a summary of the kind of thinking I question, in that it denies that the death and suffering are any part of the righteousness which entitles the elect to justification or other positive blessings of salvation. It sounds neat, as soundbites often do. But I don’t think it’s biblical, and I guess I think that means it can be dangerous.

    Btw, even though I am credobaptist, I am not much of a Spurgeon fan. He was kind of the DA Carson of his day, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. He preached like an Arminian, because at many points he was Arminian. He invited Arminians into his fellowship, and his tolerance is an indicator of his contradictory commitments to the theology of Andrew Fuller and the false idea that God in some senses loves all sinners and desires their salvation.

    Your quotation is only saying what many children in catechism classes are being taught. It lacks the nuance and qualifications you would find in Horton or Fesko. Let me say this. I don’t think Piscator is guilty as is often assumed. I know that some of this debate is motivated by an agenda to identify the “moral law” with the Mosaic economy and the Ten Commandments. That in itself is no reason to reject the idea that the death forgives and that the vicarious lawkeeping does the positive, but it does always include the question. Which law did Christ keep? Sure, He was born under the Mosaic law? Does that mean that the promise of life is fulfilled in Christ’s keeping of the Mosaic legislation? Or must we say that Christ was on an unique mission from God, in a specific “covenant of redemption”, with duties only given to HIm and which could only be done by Him? I suppose you can detect my answer from the way I frame the question.

    John Fesko—Even though we can talk about a distinction between the visible and the invisible, or between the external and internal, why should we have to choose between water and the Spirit (Word, Water and Spirit, p 241, baptism as covenant judgment)
    mark—They don’t say “water baptism”, because the Bible does not say “water baptism”, but then they add that “baptism” in the Bible is always water and that there is a “sacramental union” between water as the sign and the “efficacy” as the thing signified.
    And then almost all of them say that the water baptism of John was about the Holy Spirit, and therefore baptism by Jesus and by the church is about both the water and about the Spirit, but NOT about legal identity with Christ’s death or about justification.
    And then they explain there is one gospel only, there is only one church, and therefore the baptism by John is not water only and the baptism by Jesus is not with the Spirit only
    And in this way they know that it’s not Jesus who baptized with the Holy Spirit, but rather that the Holy Spirit “baptizes us into Christ” and so we know that water baptism is not about Christ’s death or righteousness but about the Spirit uniting us to Christ’s righteousness .
    John Fesko, 322— “It is unnecessary to choose between water baptism and Spirit baptism”
    And then Fesko on the same page ( 322) finds it necessary to say that Spirit baptism is not God’s imputation, and also Fesko explains that baptism (both water nd by the Spirit) is NOT Christ’s giving the Spirit, because the Confession teaches us that Spirit baptism is the Spirit giving us Christ by uniting us to Christ by faith.

  16. MARK MCCULLEY Says:

    Galatians 4 teaches us that we are given the Holy Spirit because we are legally adopted. We are not adopted because we have been given the Holy Spirit. 4:5, “to redeem those who were under the law, so that we would receive ADOPTION as sons. 6 And BECAUSE YOU ARE SONS, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” The Holy Spirit of Adoption does not cause the children to be adopted. Christ’s adoption of children results in Christ giving them the Holy Spirit.

  17. markmcculley Says:

    Calvin— Some would lead us away from the human earthly priesthood of Christ, and from his office of Mediator, to only look at Christ’s divinity, and to the Spirit’s work in us. But God the Father was not made unto us righteousness, and God the Holy Spirit was not made unto us righteousness. Christ the incarnate mediator was made unto righteousness by God. This certainly is peculiar to Christ’s unique office as the only mediator. Although Christ contains in himself the divine nature, yet Christ receives his own proper title, that Christ be distinguished from the Father and the Spirit.

  18. markmcculley Says:

    Psalm 32– 1 How joyful is the one
    whose transgression is forgiven,
    whose sin is covered!
    2 How joyful is the man
    the Lord does not charge with sin
    and in whose spirit is no deceit!
    3 When I kept silent, my bones became brittle
    from my groaning all day long.
    4 For day and night Your hand was heavy on me;
    my strength was drained
    as in the summer’s heat.
    5 Then I acknowledged my sin to You
    and did not conceal my iniquity.
    I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,”
    and You took away the guilt of my sin

  19. markmcculley Says:

    eternal justification person— now that the cross has occurred no waiting is required for justification, just a regeneration.
    mark–and so you have a gospel which waits to give spiritual life, regeneration and faith to a person even though that person is already according to you justified before God. I think that contradicts Romans 8:10 (righteousness demands life, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.). I also find it curious why you don’t have any problem with delaying regeneration after imputation. Why does that “time lag” not bother you? when the time lag between purchase for the elect at the cross and their receiving it by imputation DOES bother you so much. I am not really even making an argument here–just curious. Is the difference in your mind is that you assume that “conversion” is about new birth and not justification? I am not saying that this is the case, just wondering.

    I mean, I could say, why would YOU bother to talk about justification—why bother to say, regeneration and faith will cause you know you were justified at the cross? why bother to say, all who will ever be justified are already justified, so just like election, either you are already justified or not. Why would you bother to talk about justification at all. Is your gospel mainly about the new birth, which you define as the real ‘conversion”? Since justification is God’s legal declaration, from the mind of God and only in the mind of God, and of no great point in your gospel? I don’t assume that you are as horrified as I am by the implication of this. As I said, i am simply curious why one “time lag” bothers you and the other does not.

  20. markmcculley Says:

    ne blessing of salvation is glorification but we have not been glorified yet

    which is why I don’t say–Christians don’t fear physical death anymore

    it would be like saying—Christians don’t sin anymore

    let me be straight—it’s not just that I am still a sinner

    I still want to keep living, i still fear death

    now you can say—it’s sin for a Christian to fear death (it’s not a sin for a nonChristian to fear death? no matter–everything a nonChristian does is sin)

    so, doubt is sin, fear of death is sin

    but some say to me—i don’t doubt, i don’t fear death
    why do you?

    assuming that they are not lying, assuming that they are not self-righteous

    why do you to to the doctor?

    you can say you don’t want to live to be really old, but why do you even want to live the rest of the week?

    is it your holiness and piety that hates this world we live in, is that it?

    is your despair, lack of hope and faith/

    is it the content of your faith, not in this present kingdom but in the age to come?

    i fear death

    i fear the pain of dying

    i fear the idea of being dead until Jesus comes, on resurrection day

    and you can ask me-why? why do i sin? why do i doubt that I will even be raised?

    but after all your asking, your why questions don’t stop my fears

    the questions could only make me afraid because of my fear of death

    Christians do not fear death
    i fear death
    I am no Christians

    Job said to friends
    please keep on being silent, my friends

    I don’t like it when atheists try to take it easy on me
    as in “well I don’t want to offend you, I don’t want to shake your faith, since I know you need it”

    so condescending
    so maybe it’s better for people to keep asking me
    why do you fear death?
    why do you want to keep on living for a long time

    and spare me the “for my wife and others” bullshit

    Hebrews 2: 14 Now since the children have flesh and blood in common, Jesus also shared in these, in order that through His death He would destroy the one holding the power of death—that is, the Devil— 15 and free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death.

    I Corinthians 15: When this corruptible is clothed
    with incorruptibility,
    and this mortal is clothed
    with immortality,
    then the saying that is written will take place:
    Death has been swallowed up in victory.[o]
    55 Death, where is your victory?
    Death, where is your sting?[p]
    56 Now the sting of death is sin,
    and the power of sin is the law.
    57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory
    through our Lord Jesus Christ!

  21. markmcculley Says:

    https://www.faith.edu/2012/08/the-active-obedience-of-christ/

    it is unanimously recognized that the specific responsibilities of mankind change from dispensation to dispensation. As such, it might be argued, Christ’s obedience to the whole Mosaic Law is irrelevant to the NT believer. After all, as a NT believer I have no obligation to keep the whole Mosaic Law, so how can Christ’s obedience benefit me? My answer to this is fairly simple: what links Adam’s law-keeping responsibilities and my law-keeping responsibilities with Christ’s law-keeping success is that they all reflect mankind’s obedience to God in their respective contexts

    http://www.dbts.edu/2012/08/31/the-active-obedience-of-christ-and-dispensational-theology-a-follow-up/

    http://www.dbts.edu/2012/08/26/the-active-obedience-of-christ-a-brief-reply/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: