It seems to me there is bit of confusion in this thread.

(1)  No one questions the truth that Christ actively kept, or obeyed, the law.

(2)  The real question is whether that obedience was vicarious in the same sense as his cross work

Likewise, 
(1)  all agree that everything Christ did in his humanity, including perfectly obeying the law, was essential.
(2)  the question is whether Scripture presents justification as a two fold imputation, namely, (a)  our sin imputed to Christ, and (b) his earned righteousness, earned by his active obedience to the law, imputed to us.

I have often said in preaching, "If all Christ did for us was pay our sin debt, we could still not go to heaven. We also need a positive righteousness. Jesus was born under the law and kept the law perfectly thereby earning the righteousness that the law promised. This earned righteousness is imputed to us."

The question of a Covenant of Works with Adam has been raised in several posts. It would seem to me that a Covenant of Works with Adam necessitates a doctrine of the active obedience of Christ earning the righteousness that Adam failed to earn. Is the reverse also true? If we hold to a doctrine of the active obedience of Christ vicariously earning our righteousness must we also hold to a Covenant of Works with Adam? In other words is vicarious active obedience an essential component of Covenant Theology.

I think Mike's last post and Harry's response are getting to the heart of the issue.      JGR
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace