I don’t know what specifically you regard as revisionist. But say, for example, you are tripping over my claim that Edwards at Stockbridge was more forbearing with the sins of his congregation. This is illustrated by his attitude toward his interpreter John Wauwaumpequunnaunt. Edwards had a great regard for JW, especially for his understanding of Scripture and theology, but was also aware of JW’s weakness for alcohol (Works 16:451-52, 476). This is also illustrated by the change in preaching style – especially after his first year (see Wheeler’s analysis in “Living upon Hope” pp 131-207).

For a broader view of Edwards’ time at Stockbridge see Frazier’s “The Mohicans of Stockbridge” which is unquestionably the definitive history of the Stockbridge Indians during this period.

Jesus was qualified to be the spotless sacrifice the moment He was conceived because He was divine by nature, rather than succeeding through a checklist of tests and qualifications that He endured during His lifetime. His successful life then should be seen as a confirmation of who He was from the beginning. I bring this up because it shows that the merit that Jesus had was had from the beginning, instead of earning a slow building up of meritorious works which could be dispensed to His children later.

And I would rewrite what you said like this… to affirm the “entire obedience” or “entire righteousness” of Christ is the same thing as affirming his “active obedience and passive obedience.”

And … neither of us would say that His active obedience ONLY qualified Him

Finally, are you sure you mean this:
“…through his death and resurrection we receive both the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness.”
…because it looks like you are saying that the passive obedience imputes righteousness to us. I think you want to say BOTH AO and PO complete His work. If so, we can throw out Shepherd and Machen as 3rd rate quancks….!

I am in complete agreement! Maybe you are misunderstanding me; I have no desire or reason to make this separation and am using it only because some others have insisted upon this distinction as a rule of orthodoxy.

I will agree not to make a distinction any more if I am not asked to defend a distinction.

I am also wondering why Shepherd, Machen, and others can see a clear distinction when we cannot.

You refer to WCF Q7, above:

Westminster Larger Cat q. 70, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them [my emphasis], and received by faith alone” (Compare also L. Cat q. 77, S. Cat. Q. 33, WCF 11.1).

But this answer still doesn’t distinguish whether the obedience referred to is Christ’s active or passive obedience! It appears ambiguous the way it is used here, as compared to the way you are wanting to use it in your essay.

The most that can be said is that the two types of obedience cannot be made somehow separate – but of course, this separation only exists in the theories of the learned theologian!