Part 2

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="03f085a3.jpg"> <div> <B><IMG SRC="0bb34410.jpg" border=0 width="52" height="65" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="4" VSPACE="0"></B><B>Norman Shepherd and His Critics</B><B>  - </B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Part 2</B></FONT></div> <div>   <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1"><IMG SRC="0440e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></A>  <A HREF="3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3"><IMG SRC="0450e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></A> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">Part 1</A>   |   <B>Part 2</B>   |   <A HREF="3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Part 3</A>   |   <A HREF="4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Part 4</A>   |   <A HREF="app.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Appendix">Appendix</A>   |   <A HREF="bibliography.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bibliography">Bibliography</A>   |   <A HREF="dwnlds.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Download Files">Downloads</A>   |   <A HREF="about.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="About">About</A></div> <div>        </div> <bR> <bR> <div>      </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=310 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" background="04107073.jpg"> <div> <A HREF="http://pro-rege.net/" target="_Blank" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://pro-rege.net/" target="_Blank">Support Biblical Higher Education Worldwide</A> |   <script type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ // Fill in email address here var address = 'r'+'a'+'l'+'p'+'h'+'.'+'b'+'o'+'e'+'r'+'s'+'e'+'m'+'a'+'@'+'c'+'a'+'n'+'r'+'c'+'.'+'o'+'r'+'g'; // Either fill in a non-email address here to serve as the text displayed in the link var title = 'Contact'; // or leave the 'title' variable empty (change to: var title = '';) // and the text of the link will default to displaying the email address if (title == '') { title = address; } document.write('<a href="mailto:'+address+'">'+title+'</a>'); //]]> </script>  | <A HREF="http://pro-rege.net/rfb/theology/justification" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://pro-rege.net/rfb/theology/justifi">Links</A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_e__faith_and_works"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>4.e. Faith and Works</B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> A major complaint leveled against Shepherd is that he does not distinguish clearly between faith and works. Phillips writes:</div> <bR> <div> The problem here is… a clear refutation of a definition of faith that is distinct from works. He is asserting that justifying faith is not merely "shown" by its works, as James 2:18 says and as the whole flow of James' argument indicates, but that justifying faith and its works are one and the same thing. For this reason, Shepherd has been able to say simultaneously that we are justified by faith alone and that we are justified by works. Faith, repentance, and the new works of obedience that follow are not merely joined in salvation, but are meshed together in what Shepherd calls "the obedience of faith," wrongly applying Paul's use of that expression in Romans 1:5 (Phillips, 2005, 121).</div> <bR> <div> Does Shepherd really make faith and works the same thing? Consider the following quotation:</div> <bR> <div> But if Paul says that the faith which avails for justification is faith working through love, does he mean that faith derives its power to justify from love so that it is after all love or works that justify and not faith? Not at all! This is the Roman Catholic interpretation of Gal. 5:6,which affirms precisely what Paul denies in the very same verse as well as in the Epistle as a whole. Faith alone justifies - that is Paul's doctrine. Faith looks neither to itself nor to its own working for justification. Faith lays hold of Jesus Christ and his righteousness and the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the one who believes. This is the distinctive function of faith in justification, which it shares with no other grace or virtue. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the sinner the moment he believes. He believes and is justified. But Paul nevertheless specifically says in Gal. 5:6 that this faith which lays hold of Christ for justification is not alone, it is a faith that works through love. Hence Calvin says of Gal. 5:6, “Indeed, we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies `but faith working through love.” (Institutes III, 11, 20) (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> We see, then, that Phillips' description of Shepherd's position is a misconstruction of his thought. He no more makes faith and works the same thing than do Calvin and Paul. The faith that alone justifies is a faith that works. Shepherd appeals also to Turretin to show that his position is that of Reformed orthodoxy:</div> <bR> <div> Francis Turretin is a leading exponent of classical Reformed orthodoxy in the latter part of the seventeenth century. In answer to the question whether faith alone justifies, Turretin observes: “The question is not whether solitary faith [fides solitaria], that is, separated from the other virtues, justifies, which we grant could not easily be the case since it is not even true and living faith; but whether it alone concurs to the act of justification, which we assert: as the eye alone sees, but not when torn out of the body. Thus the particle alone does not modify the subject but the predicate, that is, faith alone does not justify, but only faith justifies; the coexistence of love with faith in him who is justified is not denied, but its coefficiency or co-operation in justification….”</div> <bR> <div> The analogy of the eye which Turretin uses is one that is frequently found in Reformed authors to accent the distinctive office of faith in relation to justification while preserving what must be said about the vitality of this faith. The eye alone sees. The ear or the nose or the arm do not see. There is no other instrument of vision but the eye alone. However, there is no such thing as a seeing eye in isolation from the body. The eye sees only as it is organically joined to the body. Similarly, justification is by faith alone, but a faith, which is alone, does not justify. This is the teaching of James and Paul and it has been characteristic of Reformed theology (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> It is evident that Shepherd's teaching about the relationship of faith and works is the doctrine of the Reformation. Faith cannot exist alone, so justifying faith is never without works. However, faith and works do not both justify. Works do not cooperate with faith or with grace to effect justification. Despite Shepherd's clarity, Michael Horton, as we have already noted, sees similarity between Shepherd's teaching and the late medieval theory of congruent merit and concludes his comparison by saying that Shepherd insists “that faith and obedience (or faith as obedience) are the instruments of final justification” (Horton, 2007, 205). Shepherd teaches that works cannot be lacking for justification, that it is only those who persevere to the end that will be saved, but it is a misreading to say that he teaches something similar to Catholicism or that faith and works are instruments of justification in virtue of their obedience. Neither faith nor works effect justification at any point.</div> <bR> <div> Robertson reports, “The controversy began with Mr. Shepherd's assertion that works paralleled faith as the instrument of justification. The issue continued as Mr. Shepherd insisted that works were the way of justification, and that faith included in its essence the good works that justify” (Robertson, 2003, 19). We have not verified the earlier statements, but the later writings would suggest that earlier statements, too, were meant to teach the orthodox view expressed in the writings made public since 1978. </div> <bR> <div> One of Shepherd's points is to insist that works must not be seen as only subsequent to justification by faith. When we are justified, they parallel faith. We are not justified by faith unaccompanied by works and then sanctified by faith and works. As the Reformers pointed out, we cannot be justified by dead faith. Even if some of Shepherd's earlier expressions could have left some doubt, this has been cleared up for many years. We have already cited sufficient statements to show that he holds that faith is the alone instrument of justification and that it does not share its distinctive function with any other grace or virtue. It cannot be said that he confuses faith and works. He distinguishes them, but follows Scripture in not abstracting faith from works or works from faith.</div> <bR> <div> When critics give a Romanist sense to Shepherd's early statements about works paralleling faith as instrument, they interpret him with a view of instrumentality that contradicts his teaching. He has been clear about justification being forensic and not through inwrought righteousness. The Reformed view of the instrumentality of faith in justification is that faith does not have the power to justify. It only expresses our communion with and dependence on Christ. When works are associated with faith in justification, faith is still seen as only an instrument of trust in the Lord. This trust is not an abstraction, but expresses itself in works, works that manifest extraspective dependence on Christ as our only righteousness. Any analysis of Shepherd that gives a non-Reformed sense to faith's instrumentality, evidenced in works, is not even close to being on target. Contrary to the claims of Robertson, Horton, and Phillips, a concept of instrumentality that functionally makes faith and/or works a basis or ground for justification is totally absent from Shepherd's theology.</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd's burden is that our theology reflect Scripture in teaching that true repentance, faith and works exist together and cannot do otherwise. The controversy started when Shepherd became convinced that in James 2 the same forensic sense of justification is used as in Romans and Galatians. What does he conclude, then?</div> <bR> <div> James does not deny that faith justifies, but he does deny that inactive faith justifies. Faith without works is dead (2:26). Dead faith does not save (vs. 14) and dead faith does not justify (vs. 24). This is what James has in view when he says that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> The following illustration may help understand James. If we say that a pedestrian was struck down by a red Ford, we do not mean that the victim was hurt by the redness or fordness of the moving object, but the description is important to identify what hit the person. Similarly, when James tells us that we are justified by works and not a faith that is alone, he does not mean that works effect justification, only that it is not inactive faith that justifies. To conclude that Shepherd teaches that faith and works cooperate as instruments that produce justification is to miss his point. As Calvin taught, works are required for justification, but they do not have the power to justify.</div> <bR> <div> Seeking to express the doctrine of an important theme in Scripture, Shepherd speaks of perseverance in works as necessary in the way of justification. He calls attention to the necessity of works, but his opponents persist in reading a measure of coefficiency into what he explains, identifying “way” as a different expression for “instrument.” The following is an example of what Shepherd writes:</div> <div>  </div> <div> Hebrews 10:36-39 together with chapter 11 of which it forms the preface is closely related to James 2:14-26. Vs. 36 says that you have need of endurance or perseverance. This is perseverance in the face of opposition. Specifically it is perseverance in doing the will of God. It is perseverance in obedience to God. Why is this perseverance in obedience necessary? The answer given is that you may receive what is promised. Perseverance in doing the will of God is the way in which the believer comes into possession of what is promised. </div> <bR> <div> Vs. 38 specifies what is promised as life, the fullness of redemptive blessing and privilege. The path of obedience is the way into eternal life. Our Lord taught the same truth in Matt. 7:14. “For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> It is evidently difficult to express oneself in a satisfactory way, once the intended audience has adopted a mindset that construes the message differently. While Shepherd seeks to have our theology do justice to the historical process described by Jesus and the author of Hebrews, his opponents work with a paradigm that grants only two options to the human role in justification. Man either seeks to provide his own ground for it, or God gives him faith as the instrument of justification. With only two options, works cannot be considered necessary and are, therefore, limited to having a role in sanctification. They are viewed as the necessary fruit and evidence of faith, but not in association with justification. </div> <bR> <div> Shepherd has shown, however, that limiting ourselves to only two options cannot do justice to the dynamic of much biblical language. He does nothing that is new to Reformed theology when he describes works as necessary for justification, but many critics do not seem to hear what he is saying. Hence, they read him as teaching that we are justified by faith as obedience or that final justification is by both faith and works or that faith and works are one and the same thing. None of these is true. He only teaches that works are necessary for justification (whether at our effectual call or on Judgment Day) because we can be justified only by living faith, that is, active faith.</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd argues that repentance has a role in justification that is similar to works. This is helpful because the necessity for repentance is well established in Reformed confessional statements and it is generally accepted that this role is not limited to one of the two options just mentioned:</div> <bR> <div> The demand for repentance is not a demand that men save themselves by the merit of their own accomplishment of self-righteousness. The Westminster Confession makes this very clear in the very same sentence where the indispensable necessity of repentance is affirmed. Repentance is not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, nor is it any cause of the pardon of sin. Pardon is the act of God's free grace (XV, 3). Therefore the proclamation of repentance is not the introduction of a doctrine of salvation or justification by the “works of the law.” Repentance is rather the necessary implicate of coming to Christ in faith. The Shorter Catechism, Qu. 85 (cf. Qu. 86, 87), and the Larger Catechism, Qu. 153, immediately join repentance to faith. The one is not required without the other. Neither repentance nor the works appropriate to repentance (Acts 26:20) constitute satisfaction for sin or the ground of pardon because these benefits are found in Jesus Christ and his mediatorial accomplishment. The faith invariably intertwined with repentance rests upon Christ alone for justification of life (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> Repentance for the remission of sin and the works appropriate to it are indispensable for the pardon of sin. They are inextricably intertwined with saving faith, but never supplant faith in its unique function of entrustment to Christ for deliverance from condemnation. </div> <bR> <div> Repentance, faith and works do not merge in the sense of becoming one and the same thing or losing their distinctive functions. Nevertheless, they can be said to merge as they join together in obedient response to the call of the Gospel. We can think of a car merging into a lane with other cars as part of one stream of traffic. That car does not become part of one of the other cars. It merely joins the others in the same lane. Even if we use a different illustration that brings the two even closer, as is done below, namely, that faith is like blue in a blue car, it is still clear that blue is not a car. When Christ calls us to follow him, come to him, repent, and do the will of his father, he calls to faith at the same time. The call to faith and repentance is a call to obedience and vice versa, not in the sense that they all are the same thing, but in the sense of always being conjoined. They cannot exist or act separately:</div> <bR> <div> Because faith is called for in all gospel proclamation, exhortations to obedience do not cast men upon their own resources to save themselves, but are grounded in the promise of the Spirit to accompany the proclamation of the whole counsel of God with power so that the response of the whole man called for in the gospel is wrought in the sinner (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 31). </div> <bR> <div> Just as the truth that salvation is wholly of God's grace cancels out neither the need to exhort men to faith in order to be saved nor the need to warn men against the disastrous consequences of unbelief, so also the fact that this grace is realized experientially by faith which will inevitably bear fruit in the life of the believer, cancels out neither the need to exhort believers to obedience which issues in eternal life nor the need to warn them against disobedience whose consequence is death (Rom. 6:4, 12, 16, 22; and Rom. 8:1, 4, 12, 13). Gospel proclamation that calls upon men to accept Jesus Christ as Savior without either expressly or by implication calling upon them to submit to him as Lord, is a gospel that calls men to dead faith. Gospel proclamation that calls men to obedience of life as anything other than a manifestation of faith in Jesus Christ, is a gospel that calls men to dead works. Dead faith and dead works are equally soul-destroying, and the gospel that urges either is an anti-gospel. Jesus calls upon men to believe in him and to become his disciples (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> Just as it is only the eye that sees, but it cannot see except as part of the body, so it is only faith that rests in Jesus Christ for justification, but true faith cannot exist except as part of faithfulness. As Beza affirmed, faith can no more exist without good works than the sun without light or fire without heat. Faith is a heart commitment, a human attitude and activity, similar to love. Although it can be defined in the abstract, it cannot exist in the abstract. Just as blue can only exist as blue pigment, a blue car, etc., so faith can only exist as expressed in thoughts, words, actions, prayer, praise, confession, adoration, obedience, etc. When we say that we are justified by faith, we use the word faith as a part for the whole. We are really talking about faith that embraces Christ through prayer, obedience, etc. Believing works are also part of the whole, namely works expressing faith and trust in the Lord.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_f__fruit_and_evidence"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.f. Fruit and Evidence</B></div> <bR> <div> Having established that Shepherd does not confuse faith and works, or suggest that they are one and the same thing, we do well to also clarify his position about works as the fruit and evidence of faith. We have seen already that his critics repeatedly express the idea that Shepherd needs to limit his description about works in relation to faith as being only the fruit and evidence of it. They understand that, in some form or another, he blends faith and works and makes works to be more than fruit and evidence of faith.</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd agrees that works are the fruit and evidence of faith. However, he is rightly concerned about possible misuse of this terminology. We cannot permit a perception that falls short of James' description of the relationship of faith and works. For James, they are so closely united that just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Faith is completed by works (James 2:22). If fruit is what faith always produces as fire produces heat and if evidence is understood as expressing that works are integrally related to faith as normal body temperature is one evidence of good health, then we need say no more about the relationship of the two. However, if it is argued that a tree does not always bear fruit, and it is possible to have faith without there always being evidence of it, then the terminology of “evidence and fruit” is insufficient. </div> <bR> <div> Also, if we try to conceptualize total reliance on Christ by viewing faith as only a mental attitude and urge that all human exercises need to be removed from justification and associated only with sanctification, then we construct an impossibility. Faith acts. It cannot do otherwise. There can be no living faith if there is no action of entrustment, even if only expressed in thought. Regarding faith as only attitude brings us no further in removing all reliance on ourselves. Even the mental attitude of faith is ours and presents the same problem as anything else that is ours.</div> <bR> <div> In an article on justification by faith alone, after establishing that faith is the alone instrument of justification, Shepherd argues:</div> <bR> <div> Chapter 16, section 2, speaks of the good works done in obedience to God's commandments as "the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith," and they certainly are that. But we have to avoid misunderstanding the metaphor used at this point. It is not as though faith could exist without its fruits and evidences the way an apple tree can exist without apples hanging from its branches. An apple tree without apples is still an apple tree, but faith without its fruits and evidences is neither true nor lively. Such faith is hypocritical and dead. It does not come to life after it has justified. The Confession declares that justifying faith is never, ever alone (Shepherd, 2002, 82).</div> <bR> <div> Machen speaks of works as the expression of faith and Shepherd calls works the manifestation of it. Such terms are helpful. The fiducial aspect of faith can be prejudiced if we limit works to evidence and fruit of faith. By faith we rest in Jesus (Westminster Confession of Faith 11.2) and embrace him (Belgic Confession 22). Resting and embracing can only occur in confession of inability and dependence, in pleading the blood of the Savior, in loving him by keeping his commandments, in offering your son when commanded to do so, etc. When done in faith, these are all works that express faith. To say that works such as pleading the blood of Jesus are only the evidence and fruit of faith makes it difficult to escape the conclusion that faith does not include fiducia. </div> <bR> <div> Of course, neither true faith in Christ nor works done in him do themselves justify us before God. Both faith and works are the obedience that expresses that God himself provides the Lamb for the sacrifice (Gen. 22). Together they embrace Christ for righteousness. Both lack the perfection that alone can stand before the tribunal of God. If we then speak of the necessity of faithfulness for justification, we do not mean that faithful covenant keeping contributes to our justification by constituting (part of) the righteousness that justifies. Rather, we mean that the faith that receives Christ and his righteousness must be living, active faith in Christ that is more than just saying that one believes. In other words, the faith that saves is faith that expresses itself in faithfulness to the Lord. If faith and works are abstracted from each other, it is impossible to do justice to the language of Scripture:</div> <bR> <div> It is both striking and significant that the Great Commission in neither Matthew nor Luke speaks of calling upon sinners to believe. Faith is not mentioned specifically, but only by implication. What is explicitly asserted is the call to repentance and obedience. When the call to faith is isolated from the call to obedience, as it frequently is, the effect is to make good works a supplement to salvation or simply the evidence of salvation. Some would even make them an optional supplement. According to the Great Commission, however, they belong to the essence of salvation, which is freedom from sin and not simply freedom from eternal condemnation as the consequence of sin. Because good works are done in obedience to all that Christ has commanded, they are suffused with and qualified by faith, without which no one can please God (Heb. 11:6) (Shepherd, 2000, 104).</div> <bR> <div> Robertson objects to speaking about the necessity of specific actions and actions that take time:</div> <bR> <div> …[A]lthough it is commonly acknowledged that the grace of repentance in terms of a whole-hearted commitment to turn from sin always will accompany the faith that justifies, it is somewhat different to say that specific actions arising from repentance also are necessary to be carried out as the way of justification. For to say that concrete actions of repentance are necessary as the way of justification is to join works to faith as the way of justification. </div> <bR> <div> …Mr. Shepherd affirmed that not only faith and actions of repentance are necessary as the way of justification. Also works that take time, including even the diligent use of the outward means of grace, are necessary for justification (15, 17) (Robertson, 2003, 21). </div> <bR> <div> If works are understood to necessarily be meritorious and the “way of justification” is regarded as the ground or instrumental cause of being accounted righteous, then concrete works, done over a period of time become the basis for justification as an ongoing process of progressively becoming more just. Such a construction directly conflicts with the biblical definitive declaration of forgiveness and peace with God upon repentance. If, however, works are viewed as the evidence and expression of faith and the way of justification is seen to refer to the historical covenant relationship with God in which we continue to be forgiven from day to day, while in the state of justification, and are declared righteous on the day in which all men are judged, then repentance cannot be just a commitment when we first believe. Repentance and the works of repentance are necessary the whole while we are in Christ and they evidence that we do not have just any kind of faith, but the lively, active faith in God that really brings us into fellowship with Christ and his righteousness.</div> <bR> <div> When Shepherd speaks of the necessity of works for justification, he is reflecting Scriptures that associate salvation and life eternal with perseverance in concrete works of faith. James gives the concrete example of feeding and clothing a poor brother to illustrate that faith without works cannot save (James 2:14-17). The righteous who live by faith and preserve their souls are those who need to endure in doing the will of God in order to receive what is promised (Hebrews 10:36-39). The righteous who will enter eternal life are those who perform specific works of love for the least of Christ's brothers (Matthew 25:31-46). Scripture conditions eternal weal and woe on our works in this life, not as meritorious ground, nor as instrumental cause, but as manifestation of living faith worked in us by the Spirit of God.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Shepherd provides an able exegesis of James 2 to show that James uses justification in the same forensic sense as Paul. When he writes that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24), James is saying that we are forgiven and saved by having faith that works through love and not faith that is alone. Robertson calls this exegesis into question: </div> <bR> <div> … even though [Shepherd] analyzed rather carefully the optional meanings of the word "to justify" in James, he never established that James meant specifically that the guilty, polluted sinner had all his sins forgiven "by works" and not merely "by faith." In this case, it would not be adequate to show that James used the term justified" semantically to mean "declared to be just" rather than "demonstrated to be just"…. In order to establish that Pauline "justification" is "by works," Mr. Shepherd would have to show that James' intention was to affirm that all the guiltiness of the polluted sinner is removed by the sinner's own actions - actions which in themselves at best are imperfect and sinful (Robertson, 2003, 94-95).</div> <bR> <div> Robertson fails to convince. First, he argues against a position he mistakenly attributes to Shepherd. We have already seen how Shepherd is clear that James (or Paul) does not teach that works effect justification.  Second, Robertson uses an argument that would imply that it is faith itself that removes the guilt of the polluted sinner. James teaches that we are justified by works and not by faith that is alone, because it is only working faith that brings us into fellowship with Christ, who removes all the guilt of the polluted sinner - even though his faith is imperfect and sinful.</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd distinguishes properly between faith and works, promoting the historic Reformed doctrine that faith is the alone instrument of justification, but it is not alone when it justifies by bringing us into union with Christ. He does not confuse faith and works, nor does he confuse justification and sanctification - another charge often leveled against him.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_g__justification_and_sanctification"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.g. Justification and Sanctification</B></div> <bR> <div> Many think Shepherd confuses justification and sanctification. He is thought to not clearly distinguish between the two and his close association of faith and works is said to make justification dependent on sanctification, while we must preserve the order that justification precedes sanctification. God works holiness in us only after he declares us to be just on the ground of Christ's righteousness. Now, it is true that Shepherd has real differences (not just misunderstandings) with many of his critics on this matter, but, in this writer's judgment, this is not a confusion of justification and sanctification and actually some of his critics confuse them.</div> <bR> <div> It has already been noted how (in thesis 26) Shepherd distances himself from the Romanist view that justification is a process in which the unjust man is transformed into a just man by the infusion of grace and how he observes that this confuses justification with sanctification. As a Reformed theologian, he states that this “…contradicts the teaching of Scripture that justification is a forensic verdict of God by which the ungodly are received and accepted as righteous on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.” </div> <bR> <div> He also makes a clear distinction when he writes:</div> <bR> <div> There is a radical distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is an act of God's free grace with respect to his people whereby he pardons their sin and accepts them as righteous on the ground of the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone. Sanctification is a work of God's free grace in them whereby He transforms them progressively into the image of his Son (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> There is, therefore, no difference between Shepherd and other Reformed ministers about how justification and sanctification are to be defined and about how Romanism confuses the two. There are some differences, however, about how to relate the two. For Shepherd, the inception of sanctification precedes justification and there are aspects of justification that both accompany sanctification and follow it. His critics generally insist that justification only precedes sanctification and sanctification only follows justification. They tend to wrongly conclude that Shepherd makes justification to be grounded in sanctification.</div> <bR> <div> In his article about justification by faith alone, Shepherd reviews the teaching of the Westminster Confession on effectual calling, regeneration, justification, and sanctification and writes:</div> <bR> <div> Faith is logically prior to justification. We believe with a view to being justified. Because regeneration is prior to faith and is the initiation of sanctification, we have to say that the process of sanctification is begun prior to justification. This does not mean that justification is sanctification, or that sanctification is the ground of justification. This was the erroneous teaching of the Council of Trent. Justification is forensic, not transformative (Shepherd, 2002, 83).</div> <bR> <div> In this connection, he points out that there is a difference between Lutherans and Reformed with regard to the order of the application of redemption: </div> <bR> <div> Lutheranism can also maintain that "faith is never alone," but means by this that saving faith is always followed by works and is productive of works. The sequence is of fundamental importance. This is not what the Westminster Confession means when it says that justifying faith is never alone and cites James 2:17, 26 together with Galatians 5:6 to support that affirmation.</div> <bR> <div> The pattern in Lutheranism is similar to Romanism with unformed faith (faith alone) prior to justification, and a formed faith subsequent to justification. Lutheranism could never confess in the same way as the Westminster Confession that justifying faith is never alone. For Lutheranism that would be to deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone. </div> <bR> <div> The Confession says that faith is the alone instrument of justification, but this faith is never alone. The "alone" in the expression "by faith alone" in the Catechisms is not an adjective but an adverb. The point is not that the faith is thought of as existing all by itself, even in the act of justification. Rather, the point is that the justifying verdict is received only by faith and in no other way (Shepherd, 2002, 81).</div> <bR> <div> Lutherans and Reformed both hold that faith is the only instrument of justification, but Lutherans generally teach that faith is alone when it justifies and classic Reformed statements do not. Lutherans insist on a sequence that has all sanctification follow justification. The Lutheran Formula of Concord states, “…after that man is justified by faith, then that true and living faith works by love (Gal. v. 6), and good works always follow justifying faith….” (Art. III, Affirmative VIII) and rejects as error the teachings “that faith does not justify without good works, that therefore good works are necessarily required for righteousness, and that independently of their being present man can not be justified” (Art. III, Negative XI). Of course, when the Reformed say that justifying faith is accompanied by works, they do not mean that works have the power to justify, only that they are present when faith justifies, something the Formula of Concord rejects as error.</div> <bR> <div> In contrast to many of his Reformed critics, Shepherd asks us to consider that justification and sanctification accompany each other. The beginning of sanctification supplies the faith that is the instrument of justification. The aspect of justification that pertains to the daily forgiveness of the believer accompanies his sanctification, and the final declaration that we are counted among the righteous when Christ divides the sheep from the goats takes place when our sanctification is complete. This does not mean that justification is grounded in sanctification, nor that justification is accomplished through sanctification, only that the two should not be defined sequentially. </div> <bR> <div> If the daily pardon of the justified sinner is counted as sanctification the two are confused. This is also the case if justifying faith is thought to not be part of inward renewal, i.e., sanctification. Although justification should not be defined as wholly preceding sanctification, it must be maintained that justification is always grounded in the one sacrifice of Christ, that the believer experiences only one justification, and that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus in a union that is definitive at the moment of his effectual call.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_h__the_nature_of_righteousness"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.h. The Nature of Righteousness</B></div> <bR> <div> One of the points of contention between Shepherd and his critics is the function of merit in man's relationship with God. Shepherd finds himself in agreement with theologians such as S.G. De Graaf, K. Schilder, J.G. Woelderink, G.C. Berkouwer, John Murray, Anthony Hoekema, C. Vander Waal and J. Faber who call into question the idea that in the Adamic administration confirmation in righteousness and entrance into eternal life were grounded in the merit of the works man was to perform. They prefer to not call the original covenant a covenant of works. They do not question the necessity of perfect , perpetual, and personal obedience in that administration, only whether the reward was to be in exchange for merits produced. Murray writes:</div> <bR> <div> From the promise of the Adamic administration we must dissociate all notions of meritorious reward. The promise of confirmed integrity and blessedness was one annexed to an obedience that Adam owed and therefore, was a promise of grace. All that Adam could have claimed on the basis of equity was justification and life as long as he perfectly obeyed, but not confirmation so as to insure indefectibility. Adam could claim the fulfillment of the promise if he stood the probation, but only on the basis of God's faithfulness, not on the basis of justice. God is debtor to his own faithfulness. But justice requires no more than the approbation and life correspondent with the righteousness of perfect conformity with the will of God (Murray, 1977, 56).</div> <bR> <div>  In criticism of Shepherd and in defense of merit and a covenant of works, Phillips, for example, writes, “The logic of God's covenant with Adam was that obedience produced righteousness, righteousness received justification, and justification received life” (Phillips, 2005, 113). Before discussing the Adamic covenant, it will be helpful to reflect on the nature of righteousness in relation to justification.</div> <bR> <div> Good works have merit in the sense of being worthy. They are to be approved, encouraged, honored, and praised. They deserve to be recognized and God both blesses and rewards man for obedient good works. We can even speak figuratively of God repaying an upright person for his good works. Nevertheless, there is a concept of merit produced by works that is not correct.</div> <bR> <div> The American Heritage Dictionary gives as one of its meanings for merit: in “Christianity, Spiritual credit granted for good works.” Here we have a Romanist concept of merit that should be rejected. In Rome good works take on the character of a spiritual currency, credits exchanged for God's favors. Rome teaches that God owes nothing to man, but gives man grace. God's grace is counted as meritorious and, by cooperating with grace, man earns more merit - recompense owed for actions or accomplishments. Merit is governed by a principle of equality. Each action merits a corresponding reward or punishment. A modern Catholic Catechism states:</div> <bR> <div> Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God…. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993, 2025, 2027).</div> <bR> <div> In Rome's view, merit is treated as capital that can be exchanged for other commodities. All God's graces are such merits or commodities. Justice becomes the administration of merits. A ledger of debits and credits is drawn up. Debits can be compensated by penance, grace and works of supererogation. Heaven is earned by means of a cooperative effort of God, man and saints. </div> <bR> <div> Elements of this view of merit can also be found in Reformed theology. Charles Hodge, for example, writes, concerning the imputation of active obedience:</div> <bR> <div> The second consequence attributed to the imputation of Christ's righteousness, is a title to eternal life. This in the older writers is often expressed by the words “adoption and heirship”. Being made the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. iii. 26), they are heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ of a heavenly inheritance. (Rom. viii. 17.) The mere expiation of guilt confers no title to eternal life. The condition of the covenant under which man was placed was perfect obedience. This, from all that appears in Scripture, the perfection of God requires. As He never pardons sins unless the demands of justice be satisfied, so He never grants eternal life unless perfect obedience be rendered. Heaven is always represented as a purchased possession (Hodge, III, 164).</div> <bR> <div> Without, of course, denying that God requires perfect obedience, it is noteworthy how similar Hodge's paradigm is to the Romanist. For him, it is not sufficient that sins be expiated but eternal life needs to be purchased. Here we see both the debit/credit ledger and the merit/purchase idea. Hodge's construction is different from Rome's in that it does not settle for anything less than perfect obedience and the only one who purchases heaven is Christ, but the merit model is similar.</div> <bR> <div> It is telling that Hodge says the older writers used the words adoption and heirship to express entitlement to eternal life. Not only is entitlement by inheritance based on a significantly different principle than entitlement by purchase, but this also sounds like a concession that the early reformers generally did not have a theology of imputation of active obedience with a view to meriting (in the sense of purchasing) God's favor and eternal life.</div> <bR> <div> The “purchase of heaven” paradigm represents a confusion of economic and judicial concepts. Righteousness is about justice, about right and wrong, not about producing a commodity with value that can be exchanged for another commodity. Judicial concepts of merit apply to obedience to God's laws, but not economic ones. Eternal life is not a wage and is not purchased. As a matter of fact, the Gospel is not about acquiring heaven but about restoring fellowship between God and his people. For justification, then, the point is not to do away with all uses of merit, but to not confuse judicial merit and economic merit.</div> <bR> <div> With regard to our service to the Lord, we need to distinguish between economic perspectives  relating to production and performance and judicial perspectives concerning right and wrong, good and evil. The principle that obtains when the Lord rewards man for his stewardship is not that of justification, but of rewarding accomplishments. A laborer is worthy of his hire and his salary is his due. This is so, not because righteousness merits such rewards, but because the labor or the work produced merits it. The labor must be done righteously for the salary to be received, but it is not the righteousness that is being recompensed. </div> <bR> <div> Righteousness is fair play in a soccer game. It is not the achievement of winning the game. A team that commits no infractions of the rules is righteous, but that does not lead to a reward for winning. Although righteousness in a game is indispensable for winning, the winning team is rewarded for effort and skill, not for righteousness. This distinction is essential for the proper understanding of biblical justification. God rewards achievement and performance, but that reward is not merited justification.</div> <bR> <div> Do good works merit justification? In a judicial sense they do, but not in the sense of wages or economic value. Good works deserve judicial approval and that is what justification is about. Righteousness can even be rewarded, but not as repayment of credit. A finder who returns a lost wallet to its owner may be given a reward, but the owner is under no obligation to give a reward to the finder for doing what is right. God may wish to encourage us to do what is right, but doing what is right does not place God under obligation to give recompense. Eternal life is not compensation for righteousness, not even in the sense that God voluntarily or graciously is pleased to place himself under such an obligation. This would be foreign to the concept of righteousness.</div> <bR> <div> In justice, righteousness and unrighteousness do not call for equal consequences. Unrighteousness deserves punishments that correspond to the severity of the crime committed, but there are no degrees of righteousness that merit corresponding rewards. With regard to law-breaking we can speak of wages for sin (possibly a figure of speech), but we should not speak of a declaration that one is upright as being a wage. Civil authorities pursue after the criminal until he is brought to justice. No one goes after a righteous person to give him some kind of remuneration for doing what is right and one cannot accumulate merits by being more and more righteous. Such ideas are naturally foreign to justice. We simply hold that everyone is obligated to be righteous and to do righteous acts. A covenant servant obeys his suzerain, not in order to merit wages, but just because it's the right and loyal thing to do.</div> <bR> <div> Righteousness is a gift of God and life and liberty are conjoined with it. Sin merits death and thus the sinner loses life as a matter of justice. When restored to righteousness, life and liberty are also restored to the former sinner. They accompany justification. It is legally wrong for a just person to be incarcerated or put to death. He has a right to life and liberty, but that does not mean that his works have produced the righteousness that guarantees this right. When we reason that obedience produces righteousness, which receives justification which merits life, we are probably using logic that applies to economics rather than justice, since righteousness is not a commodity that is produced. </div> <bR> <div> It can be said that righteousness is produced or achieved in the sense that a righteous person produces works that are righteous or in the sense that a person can take action to change sinful situations into righteous ones. In a more basic sense, however, works do not produce righteousness (i.e., right-standing) and thus achieve justification. Righteousness precedes works. A person must first be righteous in order to do what is righteous. This is demonstrated in the Adamic covenant.</div> <bR> <div> Adam was already righteous when created. He did not start out as only innocent with the obligation to produce a righteousness that was still lacking. Innocence is righteousness. Adam was justified from the beginning. His righteousness would, of course, express itself in obedience and love to God. He did not have to produce something he already had. Righteousness and justification were not something to be gained. They could only be lost. It is possible that for this reason Adam was not prohibited from eating from the tree of life. He already had the right to life and may have been free to eat of the symbol of life as long as he remained righteous. Adam was called to be actively obedient. In this he would express his covenant pledges of love for God, rather than seek to earn a righteousness he already had.</div> <bR> <div> God granted Adam righteousness and life, not as a salary for righteousness produced by works. God gave life to Adam as a gift when he created him righteous, and he gave it before Adam had done any work. Adam was God's workmanship, created for good works prepared beforehand that he should walk in them. He was justified, approved for his good works, not because he produced spiritual credits worthy of compensation for their righteousness, but because, having received righteousness as a gift, he walked by faith in God, doing the good works prepared for him.</div> <bR> <div> Adam was justified from the beginning and so was Jesus. He did not have to produce righteousness (right-standing) through active obedience. He already had it. The sense in which he achieved, accomplished or produced righteousness was in paying the just penalty for sin and propitiating the wrath of God towards sinners. Having restored righteousness to man through the cross, Christ did not additionally have to achieve righteousness through active obedience. When the penalty for crime is paid, the former criminal is forensically innocent. When freed from incarceration, he only needs to be sure to not again commit crimes. He does not also have to “achieve” righteousness after having paid his debt in prison. This is the case in our human system of justice. It is also true for God's justice. </div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_i__covenant_of_works_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.i. Covenant of Works?</B></div> <bR> <div> Having been raised on the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and the Belgic Confession (1561), I did not hear about the covenant of works until my later teens. When I did, I simply understood it to mean that righteous Adam and Eve were called to remain obedient to the Lord if they were to inherit eternal life. I did not attach particular significance to the term, “works,” other than a call to obedience. I imagine many others think about this covenant similarly. Adam and Eve were righteous from the beginning and had to express this in perfect obedience. No Reformed Christian would ever want to deny the necessity of absolute obedience to God. However, if works are understood as referring to the way of acceptance with God that Paul contrasts with the way of grace, then a different picture emerges. </div> <bR> <div> Paul criticizes the view that man earns God's favor as a meritorious reward for doing enough good works or the right works in keeping the law. He rejects the view that man finds acceptance with God on the ground of achievements presented to him. The justification of a sinner cannot be through works regarded as those of a laborer who is worthy of his hire. God's approval and rewards are not wages for worthy works presented to him. Paul sharply contrasts works with grace: “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5). </div> <bR> <div> Now, what is it that Paul condemns? Proponents of the covenant of works answer that it is only the idea that a sinner's imperfect works can merit justification. They hold that perfect law-keeping does, in fact, merit the reward of eternal life. God's justice functions on the principle that acceptance by God, confirmation in righteousness, and life eternal are like wages for works performed. After the fall no one is able to achieve the perfect obedience needed to merit justification, but Adam was called to and could, in fact, earn God's favor before he sinned and Jesus Christ did earn justification and the meritorious reward for us through perfect obedience. </div> <bR> <div> On the other hand, Paul's condemnation of works righteousness can be regarded as a rejection of more than imperfect works. He could be condemning the very idea of justification being achieved through the presentation of works to God. Rather than earning justification as a laborer earns a salary, obedient works can be viewed as the fruit and evidence of righteousness already possessed. Righteous works and the doer of them are honored as they express a righteousness received as a gift from God. If righteous works are then referred to as meritorious, what is meant is that they are worthy manifestations of righteousness and the doer of such works is to be counted as just, but there will be no element of approval being purchased, no concept of wages in justification. </div> <bR> <div> There can actually be a great deal of overlap between how the two views of works are described. To avoid driving a wedge between Reformed brothers, both sides should be appreciative of what others are trying to say and not attribute views to them that go beyond what they are really seeking to express. For example, in this discussion terms like, “earn” and “merit” can be used with various meanings. In the debates, there is a tendency to assume that they are self-explanatory, while, in reality, speaker and hearer often do not have the same understanding.</div> <bR> <div> The representation of God's administration with Adam has not, among the orthodox Reformed, been universally conceived of as a covenant in which justification is grounded on the earning power of works. That God's justice always requires perfect obedience to his law is, of course, not challenged. All agree that God's relationship with man incorporates a call to good works and that God recompenses the obedience of his servants and curses with death all disobedience not atoned for by Christ. What has been questioned is that God's favour towards man and his judicial acceptance are earned through works and that the key concept in the Adamic covenant is works in contrast with grace.</div> <bR> <div> As was noted above, John Murray disassociates all notion of meritorious reward from God's promises of confirmation in integrity and blessedness. For him, God's promises to Adam were promises of grace. In defending this position he teaches the same as a number of theologians in the Dutch Reformed churches. In 1982, J. Faber wrote some editorials for Clarion, a Canadian Reformed magazine, in which he expressed his concern about the opposition to Shepherd's teachings. In his articles he provides an overview of what several Dutch theologians said in rejection of the covenant of works. It is beneficial to highlight some of the statements of these Reformed brothers. Let us start with Faber himself:</div> <bR> <div> . . . [O]ne should. . . not bring a Pharisaic or Judaistic work-principle into the good covenant of Paradise. The term "covenant of works," used in the Westminster Standards in distinction from the expression "covenant of grace," must lead to misunderstanding. The misunderstanding of Prof. Shepherd's opponents is that the works in Paradise would have been meritorious. Adam would have earned eternal life. But the question must arise: Can man ever earn anything in relation to God? The Belgic Confession states in Article 24, speaking about man's sanctification and good works: Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?); nay, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He who worketh in us both to will and to work, for His good pleasure. Would this confession be valid only for the life in the covenant of God's grace and not also for the covenant in the Paradise situation? The question "For what can we merit?" is a strong and striking rhetorical statement concerning the basic structure of the relation between God and man, Creator and creature. Each and every breath was a gift of God of life, and the creation of man as the image of God was fruit of God's favour (Faber, Clarion, 31 : 5).</div> <bR> <div> Faber quotes S. G. De Graaf's explanation:</div> <bR> <div> We are accustomed to speaking of this covenant as the covenant of works. However, we should not take this name to mean that man was expected to earn eternal life as a reward for doing good works, as though eternal life was man's payment for services rendered. Because man owes everything he is and has to God, we may never speak of man earning wages paid out by God. Therefore it might be wiser to speak of the covenant of God's favor (Faber, Clarion, 31 : 5).</div> <bR> <div> Faber continues:</div> <bR> <div> G.C. Berkouwer resolutely took the side of de Graaf over against the criticism of Hepp. Man's original life under God's rule can not be regarded, for even a moment, apart from God's love and communion:</div> <bR> <div> Because of that fact we can never construe an antithesis between the covenants of 'works and 'grace. We err if we interpret this distinction as though God's original covenant had to do with our work or our achievement or our fulfillment of his law, while the later covenant of grace has reference to the pure gift of his mercy apart from all our works. If we assume this we are compelled to say that God's original relation to man was strictly legal,' or that the structure of that relation was determined by man's merit. In that case, we lose sight of the fact that man's obedience to God's command can never be different from a thankful response to God's own fellowship. . . .</div> <bR> <div> “Even the obedience which men originally owed to God could only be regarded as the product of God's own love and graciousness and could only root in God's own fellowship, If we drive a wedge between these concepts of works and grace we interpose the notion of an impersonal legalism within the original relation of God and man” (Sin p. 208).</div> <bR> <div> The way of works is condemned by God because it is not the way of God. Should we then in a speculative vision see this by-God-forbidden way laid out  by Himself in Paradise? Berkouwer rightly asks: How can this infusion of merit leave room for a genuine criticism of Rome concerning their good works (Faber, Clarion, 31 : 5)?</div> <bR> <div> Further, Faber calls attention to J.G. Woelderink (1886-1956) and K. Schilder (1890-1952). Rephrasing a citation of Woelderink, he comments: </div> <bR> <div> Alas, People committed the unforgiveable error of calling this covenant a covenant of works. Woelderink makes this sharp and pointed remark: While Scripture teaches that the desire to be justified by works is the very sin of man, people adorn this sin with a crown of righteousness in the covenant before the fall. If one objects to using the word "grace" before the fall, then one should speak of a covenant of sovereign favour, in which promise and demand have their place exactly as in the covenant of grace (Faber, Clarion , 31 : 6). </div> <bR> <div> With regard to Schilder, Faber explains:</div> <bR> <div> Schilder argued that in the so-called covenant of works, the possibility to work was given to man and his ability was created. If there is spoken of a reward in Paradise, then this reward is not of merit, but of "favour." If you want to use a less clear word - a word from answer 12 [of the Heidelberg Catechism], you may say: this reward is not of merit but of "grace." God Himself made and created the connection between work and reward; both work and reward are given; all boasting is excluded, also in Paradise.</div> <bR> <div> [Under the heading], "Gratuitous, a word also from the beginning," Schilder writes about the dogmatic Idea that man would have obtained eternal glory, if he would not have fallen into sin. God had spoken to man: You, second party in the covenant, may enter Into My Sabbath in the way of obedience. . . .This eternal bliss would have come upon man in the way of obedience, not because of his obedience. There is no apodosis; there is no payment legally due to man on the basis of his achievements. To speak in the words of I Cor. 4:7: What does man have that he did not receive? His reward is not of merit, but of free favour. . . . There is no contrast of works and grace, as if the covenant before the fall would have been a covenant of merit rather than favour (Faber, Clarion, 31 : 6).</div> <bR> <div> When considering the Adamic covenant, it should also be noted that the discussion about whether entrance into eternal glory is payment for works performed or the receipt of a promised gift is not about justification. John Murray correctly observes in the citation above, that justice only requires approbation. Justification is about justice. In the Adamic covenant the declaration that Adam was just was applicable from the beginning. Among the gifts received at creation was also the gift of righteousness. From this righteousness flowed the obedience that was to be the way in which Adam would receive the gift of the promised inheritance. </div> <bR> <div> It is sometimes argued that in the covenant of works the concepts of merit and earning are not used in an absolute sense. All Reformed theologians recognize that the covenant is monopleuric in its origin. God is under no obligation to enter into covenant with man. He does so only in gracious condescension, but, it is argued, in the covenant, the Lord, in this condescension and wisdom, establishes a principle of works to govern his relationship with man. This is not, however, an adequate answer to the objections raised against the idea that the first covenant was one of works (contrasted with a post-fall covenant of grace).</div> <bR> <div> This can be demonstrated by a comparison with the marriage covenant. The grace in the Lord's condescension to make his covenant can be compared to the fact that a young man is not bound to marry any particular woman. His bride has not earned the right to be asked in marriage. We can say that it is by grace that the man binds himself in covenant with his wife. More needs to be said, however. The wife is true to her husband and lovingly serves him, not in order to earn his love and not because he is true to her on the basis of the merit of her works. Rather, she obeys him as an expression of her commitment to her promises and she receives his promises as a gift, trusting him to fulfill them. The principle at the heart of the marriage covenant is not one of earning merit, but of mutual love and commitment to vows. The same is true of God's covenant with man. The eternal inheritance is not a quid pro quo for services rendered, but a promised love gift from God.</div> <bR> <div> In his teaching about faith never being alone, Shepherd holds the same Reformed doctrine as Calvin, Turretin and the Westminster divines. In his doctrine concerning the Adamic covenant, he promotes the Scriptural views of Murray, De Graaf and Schilder, views that have their counterpart in doctrinal expressions of early reformers, before the rise of the idea that the first covenant should be viewed as one of works. </div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_j__grace_and_faith_in_the"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.j. Grace and Faith in the Preredemptive Covenant?</B></div> <bR> <div> In 2004, Shepherd provided a summary of his position that the Adamic covenant was not one of works. For him, God did not have a work contract with man. Of course, this is not a denial of the presence of a Lord/servant relationship, nor of the necessity of obedience, just that God's favor was with Adam from the beginning - an expression of love, not a relationship to be earned or purchased:</div> <bR> <div> The Bible teaches that God created Adam and all of mankind in his own image for covenant fellowship. The relation established in this covenant is not analogous to the relation of an employer to an employee, but is analogous to the relation of a father to a son or a husband to a wife. It is a relationship of union and communion in the bonds of mutual love and faithfulness. This is the way the covenant relationship is described throughout the Bible and the covenant relationship established as a result of the program of redemption is similar to the original relationship. It is not a structurally different kind of relationship with the first one based on works and the last one based on grace. The program of redemption does not destroy creation but recreates, restores, and renews what was there from the beginning. </div> <bR> <div> The command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not a task to be performed in order to earn the right to eternal life. In this command the Lord does not actually ask Adam to do anything, but not to do something. Obedience to this command is a pure act of faith. There was no reason not to eat of the tree except for the word of the Lord. The issue in the probation was whether Adam would live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. In other words, the issue was whether he would live by faith or perish in unbelief.</div> <bR> <div> Consider the fact that Adam was created holy and righteous, without sin. He was the original just man. He would live and live forever not by the merit of his works but by faith. He would exhibit the principle stated in Habakkuk 2:4 and reiterated by Paul in Romans 1:17, "The righteous will live by faith." Whatever blessing was in store for him was not a reward to be earned by performance but a gift to be received by faith. </div> <bR> <div> Paul writes in Romans 4:4, "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." If Adam had turned a deaf ear to Satan and obeyed the Lord's command he would not have received what was his due, but a gift. He would have received that gift by faith. The Lord God did not and never does deal with his image bearers in terms of a principle of works and merit but ever and always in terms of a principle of faith and grace (Shepherd, Law and Gospel, 2004, 3-4). </div> <bR> <div> Among those who have rejected the covenant of works, some have avoided the term grace for the Adamic covenant, explaining that Scripture always uses grace to describe the Lord's favor to man after the fall. On the other hand, Shepherd has followed Murray in freely speaking of grace, also before the fall. This is not to deny the dissimilarity between grace to the righteous and grace to sinners. Certainly, there is a difference between unmerited favor and demerited favor. The Bible's words for grace cannot, however, linguistically be restricted to mercy to sinners, and if the absence of the term before the fall would be decisive, then terms like covenant and justification ought also to be reserved for after the fall into sin. </div> <bR> <div> The use of the term faith before the entrance of sin into the world can be discussed similarly. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were not righteous on the basis of the alien righteousness of Christ, received by faith. The word “faith” gains this added dimension only after the fall. Again, linguistically no objection against speaking of the sinless living by faith is decisive. Also, theologically, notitia, assensus, and fiducia are all included in man's reliance on the Lord in Paradise. Believing and faith are limited improperly if they are reserved for justification through the work of Christ. God wants our faith to extend to a far broader content. Shepherd speaks of preredemptive grace and faith in order to call attention to the fact that all God's covenants with man are structurally similar.</div> <bR> <div> Let the reader be assured that, in speaking of preredemptive grace and faith, Shepherd does not at all detract from the truths that sinners are saved by grace alone, when they deserve nothing but eternal death, and that faith is the alone instrument of coming into fellowship with Christ to be justified only through his imputed righteousness. His motivation is not to minimize how horribly offensive sin is or how disastrous its results. What he is doing is seeking to follow the lead of his predecessors, that is, to continue to develop theological understanding on the basis of exegesis. This has resulted in joining others in giving greater emphasis to the fact that even before man's rebellion, his fellowship with the Creator was fruit of undeserved favor, leading to loving thankfulness that all boasting is in the Lord who is all in all. Clearly, there is nothing legalistic or otherwise unreformed in this perspective.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> [This study continues in Part 3.]</div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=80 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000"> <div> Contents</div> <bR> <div> 1. <A HREF="index_1__introduction.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">Introduction</A></div> <div> 2. <A HREF="index_2__understanding_james.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">Understanding James</A></div> <div> 3. <A HREF="index_3_the_point.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">The Point</A></div> <div> 4. <A HREF="index_4__the_criticisms.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">The Criticisms</A></div> <div>      a. <A HREF="index_4_a__justification.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">Justification</A></div> <div>      b. <A HREF="index_4_b__when_are_we_justified_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">When Are We Justified</A></div> <div>      c. <A HREF="index_4_c__the_necessity_of_works_for.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">The Necessity of Works for Justification</A></div> <div>      d. <A HREF="index_4_d__are_obedience_and_works_always_to.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 1">Are Obedience and Works Always to be Viewed as Meritorious?</A></div> <div>      e. <A HREF="2_m.htm#4_e__faith_and_works" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 2">Faith and Works</A></div> <div>      f. <A HREF="2_m.htm#4_f__fruit_and_evidence" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 2">Fruit and Evidence</A></div> <div>      g. <A HREF="2_m.htm#4_g__justification_and_sanctification" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 2">Justification and Sanctification</A></div> <div>      h. <A HREF="2_m.htm#4_h__the_nature_of_righteousness" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 2">The Nature of Righteousness </A></div> <div>      i. <A HREF="2_m.htm#4_i__covenant_of_works_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 2">Covenant of Works?</A></div> <div>      j. <A HREF="2_m.htm#4_j__grace_and_faith_in_the" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 2">Grace and Faith in the Preredemptive Covenant?</A></div> <div>      k. <A HREF="3_4_k__law_and_gospel.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Law and Gospel</A></div> <div>      l. <A HREF="3_4_l__two_covenants_or_one_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Two Covenants or One?</A></div> <div>      m.<A HREF="3_4_m__the_perspective_of_the_covenant_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3"> </A><A HREF="3_4_m__the_perspective_of_the_covenant_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">The Perspective of the Covenant in History and the Eternal Decrees</A></div> <div>      n. <A HREF="3_4_n__baptism_the_mark_of_conversion.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Baptism, the Mark of Conversion</A></div> <div>      o. <A HREF="3_4_o__time_eternity_and_the_covenants.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Time, Eternity and the Covenants</A></div> <div>      p. <A HREF="4_4_p__imputation_of_christ_s_active.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience?</A></div> <div>      q. <A HREF="4_4_q__entitlement_to_eternal_life.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Entitlement to Eternal Life</A></div> <div> 5. <A HREF="4_5__communication_style.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Communication Style</A></div> <div> 6. <A HREF="4_6__theological_influences.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Theological Influences</A></div> <div> 7. <A HREF="4_7__what_difference_does_it_make_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">What Difference Does It Make?</A></div> <div> 8. <A HREF="4_8__the_impact_of_the_covenant.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">The Impact of the Covenant Perspective</A></div> <div> 9. <A HREF="4_9__why_the_concern_about_merit_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Why the Concern About Merit?</A></div> <div> 10. <A HREF="4_10__two_paradigms.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Two Paradigms</A></div> <div> 11. <A HREF="4_11__the_point.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">The Point</A></div> <div> 12. <A HREF="app_appendix.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Appendix">Appendix: The Critics</A></div> <div> 13. <A HREF="bibliography_bibliography.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bibliography">Bibliography</A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>