New Insight Into Olevianus And Ursinus On The Imputation Of Active Obedience

by on June 16, 2025 | 11 Comments

The publication of this new research, completed only in the last month, may surprise some readers, disappoint others, and delight still others but it is important research that changes what we know about the origins and development of the controversy over the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Until now, the dominant story has been that it was the Lutheran minister George Karg (1512–76) who had denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ and it was the Reformed theologian Johannes Piscator (1546–1625), son-in-law of Caspar Olevianus (1536–87), who picked up Karg’s view and transmitted it to the Palatinate and beyond. It has occasionally been claimed that Olevianus agreed with Piscator in the denial of the imputation of active obedience but the documentary evidence for this claim has, until now, been wanting. The same is true of Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83). After all, given the clarity and force with which Olevianus and Ursinus articulated and defended the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the sole ground of our justification before God and the strength and clarity with which they defended justification sola fide it seemed easy to show that they assumed and impliedly taught the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. As it turns out, that reading of Ursinus and Olevianus, which I defended, was incorrect. The evidence tells a different story and we must follow the evidence. The correspondence of Olevianus and Ursinus shows that, in fact, they read Karg’s arguments against the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and they agreed with him, even though their teacher Theodore Beza (1519–1605) stoutly opposed Karg and just as stoutly advocated the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.

What was the controversy? The great medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109), who’s voice echoes through the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), argued in Cur Deus Homo (1.9) that God’s justice means that Christ owed his active obedience for himself, that he had to qualify himself to become our Savior so that only his suffering (passive) was for us but that aspect of his obedience was sufficient for the atonement of our sins.1 Karg drew upon this aspect of Anselm’s work to reject the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. New research by Westminster Seminary California historical theology student Matt McDaniel, however, has shown that Olevianus and Ursinus agreed with Karg.

Some notes and explanations are in order. First, it should be observed that Olevianus and Ursinus agreed with Karg’s rejection of the imputation of active obedience because they were sought to preserve justification sola fide. This puts their relationship to this controversy on a rather different footing from that of the nomists (legalists), who have also denied in the imputation of active obedience. The nomists have denied the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in order to revise or even deny the Reformation doctrine of justification sola fide. In our time the most notorious example of one who denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is Norman Shepherd, the father of the self-described federal vision theology.

Second, it is vital to distinguish between historical theology and systematic or dogmatic theology.2 The principal work of the historian is to tell the truth about the past. His job is to be descriptive of what was taught not prescriptive of what may or should be taught. That is the work of the theologian. Matt has done excellent historical work and clarified through the excellent use of primary sources a hitherto misunderstood historical question. For that reason I was pleased to nominate him for our department’s Van Til prize this spring, which is given to the best research paper that year in a given department. The faculty agreed and awarded him the prize. Third, even though Olevianus and Ursinus  disagreed with Beza and Bullinger on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, all of them sought to prevent this disagreement from damaging the Reformation doctrine of justification sola gratia, sola fide. They all agreed on what Calvin called the axis of the Christian faith. So, they intentionally kept their disagreement private in order to preserve the Reformation consensus.

Speaking theologically and pastorally, we should share their desire to preserve and defend the Reformation consensus on justification sola gratia, sola fide. We should defend those doctrines as vigorously as they did. Finally, though we should sympathize with their aims we should disagree with their assumption that Christ had to qualify himself and that only his passive/suffering obedience was for us. We should agree with Beza, Bullinger, Polanus, Owen, Turretin  et al. who rejected Karg’s analysis and defended the proposition that all  that Christ did for his elect, his whole obedience (as some of the English defenders of the imputation of active obedience said) was for us and is credited to us.

It is not true that Christ qualified himself, suffered for us to wipe clean the slate for us, but now our final state is contingent upon grace and cooperation with grace. This is the use to which the nomists have put Karg’s view but it was not the use to which Olevianus, Ursinus, and the early Piscator put Karg’s view. The idea that our final justification and salvation are contingent upon our sanctification and obedience is the very notion that the Reformation rejected and sought to purge from the church. Rather, we should continue to stand on the glorious truth, as Owen explained, “that Christ had to provide active obedience because Adam was under the law (“do this and live”). The life promised to him “is not to be obtained unless all be done that the law requires.” By analogy, just as our first federal head, Adam, actively disobeyed God, so Christ our surety necessarily provided active obedience in our place. If he provided only remission of sins, then we still owe active obedience ourselves for justification. In other words, for Owen, either Jesus is a complete Savior or he is not.”3

I am grateful to Matt for clarifying the historical issues around the origin of the controversy and its transmission to Heidelberg.

notes

  1. See Anselm, Cur Deus Homo (Why The God-Man?), 1.9.
  2. Some distinguish between systematic and historical theology but the distinction is immaterial to my point.
  3. R. Scott Clark, “Do This And Live: Christ’a Active Obedience As the Ground of Justification,” in R. Scott Clark, ed., Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays By the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (Phillisburg: P&R Publishing, 2007), 236.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


11 comments

  1. Interesting question: if the authors of the HBC deny the IAOC, and this is reflected in the catechism itself, as the current research seems to posit, then what does this mean for the full subscription cenfessionalist who also holds to the IAOC?

    Reply ↓

    • Brian,

      Remember, Matthew is discussing what Ursinus and Olevianus et al wrote privately to Beza et al.

      We are bound to what we confess, not to what the authors wrote privately. Ursinus and Olevianus thought it was a good idea to kill heretics. I don’t. We don’t subscribe their private opinions.

      We subscribe the words of the Heidelberg, the Belgic, and the Canons.

      Now, if someone, who wanted to enter our ministry, agreed with their private opinions for the same reasons that would be something for classis to consider. I’m sure that there are ministers in the URCs who deny the imputation of active obedience.

      Reply ↓

  3. When you say Mr. McDaniel engaged in the “the excellent use of primary sources”, will his paper be published so that other scholars may check it? A syllable error here or there in the reading of Latin can materially affect conclusions.

    Reply ↓

    • Hi David,

      Indeed. The correspondence between Olevianus and Beza, Beza and Bullinger, et al. is quite clear. They didn’t argue the issue publicly for the reasons I gave. You can see a Matt’s own summary of his conclusions linked above. He has submitted the work for publication. He’s awaiting on a response from the editor.

      Reply ↓

    • While it may be disappointing, I don’t think it really undermines the status of the doctrine because Ursinus and Olevianus were definitely *not* nomists, and they were still relatively early. As our covenant theology developed, it brought with it a much stronger consensus on these questions, I think. You can see it even from the Westminster Confession to the Savoy Declaration (1658): “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth… by imputing Christ’s active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness…” – SD 11.1

      Reply ↓

      • Mason,

        This is exactly right. Again, though we may disagree with their conclusion (as I do) we must appreciate that Olevianus and Ursinus sided with Karg in order to preserve the Reformation doctrine of justification sola fide on the ground of Christ’s actual righteousness imputed.

        This concern becomes very clear in, e.g., Firm Foundation, which I just covered in the Heidelcast series, The Comfort of the Covenant.

        Reply ↓

    • Hi Connor,

      Please see my reply to Mason.

      As I wrote in the brief intro above, Olevianus and Ursinus denied IAO because in their view, it undermined justification sola fide. I don’t agree with them. Indeed, I disagree with them rather sharply, as did Beza but we mustn’t assume, as I explained above, that they denied IAO for the same reasons as the Federal Visionists and others do today.

      In fact, as I understand it, Doug Wilson is a federal visionist who affirms IAO but, because he also teaches a two-stage scheme of justification, his affirmation of IAO is meaningless.

      So, it’s possible to reject IAO and be orthodox and it’s possible to affirm it and be heterodox.

      The goal should be to be orthodox and to affirm it.

      Reply ↓

Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.