Appendix

<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>Appendix</B></FONT></div> <div>   <A HREF="4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4"><IMG SRC="0440e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></A>  <A HREF="bibliography.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bibliography"><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>   |   <A HREF="2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Part 2</A>   |   <A HREF="3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Part 3</A>   |   <A HREF="4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Part 4</A>   |   <B>Appendix</B>   |   <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 ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="appendix"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>Appendix</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The Criticisms</B></div> <bR> <div> The following are more extensive quotations of  some of the criticisms of Rev. Norman Shepherd, interspersed with a few questions and observations, intended to help put them in perspective. We limit ourselves to five of the many critics.</div> <bR> <div> Dr. O. Palmer Robertson describes Mr. Shepherd's views in The Current Justification Controversy:</div> <bR> <div> First, Mr. Shepherd affirmed that not only faith, but also the concrete actions of repentance are necessary as the way of justification (13-15 [October 1976 Paper]). </div> <bR> <div> In making this affirmation, appeal was made to the Statement of the Westminster Confession of Faith, that repentance was so essential to salvation that "none may expect pardon without it" (WCF 15.3). Elsewhere the Westminster Confession affirms that "all other saving graces" will ever accompany the faith that justifies (WCF 11.2). </div> <bR> <div> While placing his analysis in the framework of classic Confessional statements, Mr. Shepherd's formulations were certain to engender controversy. For although 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> Secondly, 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). </div> <bR> <div> In a subsequent paper, Mr. Shepherd attempted to explain his statement that the diligent use of the means of grace was necessary for justification. He indicated that he intended to refer to the justification of the last day (March 1, 1978 paper, 4f.). </div> <bR> <div> Yet this explanation hardly could prove adequate to relieve the tension felt by many between Mr. Shepherd's statements and the assertions of Scripture. For little if any evidence may be found in Scripture that forgiveness of sins shall occur in the judgment of the last day. Essential to "justification" is the forgiveness of sins, yet the unbeliever certainly will not be forgiven at the last day. The believer already stands justified. The cleansing forgiveness associated with sanctification hardly will be needed by the saints who already will have been changed into the glorious likeness of Christ at his appearing. </div> <bR> <div> Indeed, a "vindication" of the status of the believer shall occur at the last judgment. He shall be "openly acknowledged, and acquitted in the Day of Judgment" (Shorter Catechism Q.38). But in that vindication, good works arising from repentance shall function only as fruit and evidence of the unshakable status of justification which had been realized at the moment of believing. </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Shepherd's efforts to explain his statement about the necessity of good works as the way of justification could not relieve the tension created by his earlier assertions. Good works indeed may be perceived as the necessary fruit and evidence of the faith that justifies, but good works cannot be acknowledged as the way of justification without creating confusion. </div> <bR> <div> A third point made by Mr. Shepherd in his October 1976 paper ultimately proved to be significant in clarifying his whole system of thought about the relation of good works to justification. In the October paper, Mr. Shepherd posits that good works are necessary to maintain a person in the state of justification (14). In order to continue in justification, a person must perform good works. </div> <bR> <div> In various subsequent discussions, Mr. Shepherd affirmed that a person could lose his justification. He proposed that an individual who was elect according to the election of Ephesians 1 could become non-elect if he did not continue to walk in covenant faithfulness. </div> <bR> <div> So when Mr. Shepherd posited the necessity of good works for justification in the last judgment, and the necessity of the diligent use of the means of grace for continuing in justification, he was affirming that the justified actually could become non-justified. In this construction, good works must be seen as actually necessary to maintain a person in a state of justification. </div> <bR> <div> Mr. Shepherd later presented as his model for this argumentation the exile of -Israel under the old covenant. He also found support in the illustration of the branches cut off from Christ in the new covenant. For from his perspective these cut-off branches first were savingly united to Christ. </div> <bR> <div> According to Mr. Shepherd, the election of individuals described in Ephesians 1 consisted of the same kind of election experienced by -Israel as a nation. -Israel's movement to a state of non-election thus could serve as a warning to the elect of the new covenant that they too could become non-elect. </div> <bR> <div> As the full consequences of Mr. Shepherd's teaching became apparent, the controversy over his formulations inevitably deepened. For if the only election and justification that the sinner who trusts in Christ can know may be lost, then all enduring assurance is lost. It was this point in particular that served ultimately to clarify the implications of Mr. Shepherd's various formulations, and to evoke a steady resistance to his teachings. For he clearly had introduced a new element into the classic formulations of the Reformers when he declared that justification and election by God could be lost. </div> <bR> <div> Fourthly, Mr. Shepherd modified the generally accepted understanding of the proper pattern of the Gospel call for justification. In his view, "the command to believe, the command to repent and be baptized, and the command to follow Christ doing as he commanded are not ultimately different answers" to the question concerning how a man is to be justified. For although Paul told the Philippi an jailer that he must believe to be saved, he just as well could have told him to rise up and follow Christ. For "to ask for obedience is not a fundamentally different thing than to ask for faith, though faith and obedience maybe distinguished as descriptive of a single total response from different perspectives" (October 1976 paper, 51). </div> <bR> <div> In analyzing these assertions, it must be remembered that the subject under discussion was the way to justification. "Salvation" in the broader sense includes sanctification as well as justification, and clearly obedience performed by faith is an essential aspect of holiness. </div> <bR> <div> But Mr. Shepherd by his formulations had merged faith and obedience as a "single total response" which brings justification. According to his view, faith is united with works as a single response to the Gospel call for justification. As a consequence, justification is by faith and by works, or by faith/works, or by the works of faith. Or, justification is by "obedient faith," which could be interchanged with "faithful obedience." (Robertson, 2003, 20-24)</div> <bR> <div> Questions and observations:</div> <bR> <div> 1. Robertson argues as if the only way our theology can use the concept of justification is in relation to the forgiveness granted to the believer at the point of first believing. Is this necessary? This is not a point that Reformed theology has historically made.</div> <bR> <div> 2. What is wrong with speaking of a single response of repentance, obedience and faith? The only way in which speaking of a single response in which works, repentance and faith come together is problematic, is when one or all is taken as itself effecting justification. Faith does not itself accomplish justification and repentance and works do not, either. </div> <bR> <div> 3. Robertson objects to pointing out that specific actions accompany faith when Scripture speaks of justification, but his objection cannot be sustained. Faith never exists apart from specific works. For example, when Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6) he gave a specific response to the Lord's promise. He probably said, “Amen.” It was counted to him for righteousness when he said it. As a concept, one can abstract faith from repentance and works, but in the historical expression of faith this is not possible. </div> <bR> <div> 4. Robertson does not do justice to how we are to understand the Final Judgment. “Open acquittal” is forensically declaring to be just. It is justification and “…we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10). Just as Paul in this text, Shepherd does not say that what we have done in the body produces the righteousness that is the ground of our acquittal.</div> <bR> <div> 5. Shepherd does not admit that an elect person, eternally justified in Jesus, can lose his salvation. He does not teach that all in the church at Ephesus were elect. He only argues that Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, addressed all in the church at that time as elect. From the perspective of the covenant in history we are to be regarded as justified while in covenant with God and, from that perspective, Scripture reveals that the Lord, in fact, cuts off the rebellious and unrepentant.</div> <bR> <div> 6. To allow that someone who has received covenant promises,  is holy, and is not unclean (1 Cor. 7:14) can be cut off from the Lord if he rebels, no more robs a believer of assurance than does self-examination that looks for evidences of regeneration. In the final analysis, assurance is a gift of God.</div> <bR> <div> Robertson seeks to summarize Shepherd's views as follows:</div> <bR> <div> It is somewhat difficult to capture all the nuances of a perspective that still is emerging. Yet an effort may be made to summarize the distinctiveness of Mr. Shepherd's formulations that generated this controversy:</div> <bR> <div> (1) Justification has been perceived inadequately by the church through its use of a Roman legal model. The Biblical perspective requires that justification be understood in terms of the dynamic of the covenant model. The "covenant of life" must not be reduced to a legalistic courtroom setting, even when discussing specifically the doctrine of justification. </div> <bR> <div> (2) Election has been viewed deficiently by the dominance of a static model of God's unchanging decrees. Since man cannot perceive the elect as God sees them, it is fruitless as well as misleading to assume this perspective. Instead, the church must view election as Scripture does, which is out of the dynamic of the covenant. God indeed elects unchangeably. But he nonetheless functions in the dynamic of the covenant. In this framework the movement from reprobation to election also opens the real possibility that God's elect may become reprobate. </div> <bR> <div> (3) Church membership and the sacraments must be seen for what they really are. They define genuine positions and experience in the covenant of grace. Any lesser perspective on their significance mocks the divine ordinances and contradicts the clear teaching of many portions of Scripture. Baptism rather than regeneration marks the point of transition from death to life. But discontinuation in the covenant ordinances means damnation. </div> <bR> <div> (4) Faith and its fruits never can be abstracted from one another, for to believe is to obey. As a consequence, the way of justification before God is the way of obedience, and obedience is the way of justification. The unity of man's salvation finds its realization in the dynamic of covenant living. </div> <bR> <div> Time will uncover the ultimate consequences of Mr. Shepherd's distinctive formulations. But as novel perspectives on the Biblical teaching concerning justification, the covenant, the sacraments, and the relation of faith to works, they provided the catalyst for the current controversy. This issue was one of theological substance and not of incidental disagreements that could have been avoided (Robertson, 2003, 90-91).</div> <bR> <div> Observation:</div> <bR> <div> A close look at the points Shepherd makes, without reading into his writing what he does not intend to say, leads to the conclusion that his views are not so distinctive or novel. He does not hold that the believer's performance contributes anything to his justification, nor does he believe that eternal justification in Christ can be lost. He is only seeking to do justice to the dynamic of historical covenant language. He is dealing with a different matter than Robertson understands him to be treating.</div> <bR> <div> Further, Robertson writes:</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Shepherd was not altogether convincing with respect to his basic exegesis of certain portions of Scripture which have played a crucial role in the development of his new "Biblical Theology." He posited that justification had identical significance in the letter of James and in Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians. Yet even though he 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." For the meaning of justification in Paul can be understood properly only in terms of the total context which deals with the way guilt is removed. 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. </div> <bR> <div> In a similar manner, when Mr. Shepherd asserted that Paul excluded only works done in an attitude of boasting and pride from the "way" of justification and did not intend to exclude also the "good works" done in faith by the regenerate as the "way" of justification, he had the obligation of establishing this point on clear exegetical grounds. Working in the context of history since the Reformation, he basically had a responsibility to answer the argument of John Calvin and others in their analysis of the scope of the "works of the law" excluded from justification by Paul. Calvin had argued quite convincingly that if Paul were excluding only boastful works from justification, then he would not have cited the Old Testament to show that if a person should do these very "works" he would be blessed with life (see John Calvin's treatment of Galatians 3:10,13 in his <I>Institutes</I> III, ii, 19). </div> <bR> <div> When Mr. Shepherd's exegesis of Paul is joined to his exegesis of James, the implication is that a man is justified by good works done in faith, although he is not justified by works done in prideful boasting. His ambiguous use of the phrase "obedience of faith" then serves as a means of communicating the idea that justification is by the obedient acts done in faith as well as by faith, which inevitably comes to expression in obedience to God (Robertson, 2003, 94-96).</div> <bR> <div> Observations:</div> <bR> <div> 1. These statements imply that Robertson is reasoning from an incorrect view of faith. Robertson argues as if Shepherd is talking about works actively removing guilt. Works do not  remove guilt. Faith does not itself remove guilt, either. Only Christ removed guilt when he paid the penalty of our sin and God declares us guiltless on the ground of Christ's righteousness. </div> <bR> <div> Shepherd speaks only of works that express faith. Boastful works are unbelieving works that seek to establish self-righteousness. Works of faith, on the other hand, exercise trust in God and look to Christ for the only righteousness that stands before God. Shepherd does not teach that they justify through their action, as Robertson implies. They only accompany and express the faith by which alone we receive Christ.</div> <bR> <div> 2. The ambiguity of which Robertson speaks is not to be found in Shepherd but in Robertson's reading of Shepherd.</div> <bR> <div> Robertson writes on page 19 of his book:</div> <bR> <div> Subsequent discussion of the "justification" issue must begin with a full awareness of the original state of the matter, Otherwise, later assertions by Mr. Shepherd that actually continue his initial perspective will be heard only as affirmations of traditional orthodoxy. 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.</div> <bR> <div> Observation:</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd's position is, indeed, traditional orthodoxy. His earlier statements are also to be understood in the line of Reformed theology. He  never said that the Christian's works contribute anything to his justification. He never taught that faith includes in its essence good works that justify. Robertson recognizes that Shepherd's clarifications are an expression of faithful Reformed doctrine. It is disappointing that this recognition has not led him to see that his earlier reading of Shepherd was inaccurate.</div> <bR> <div> Dr. Cornelis P. Venema of Mid America Reformed Seminary wrote an extended review of Shepherd's book, The Call of Grace. From his evaluation of Shepherd, we distill the following:</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd's study has several evident strengths. The book is clearly written and makes a good case for recognizing the unity of the covenant of grace in its various historical administrations. Shepherd's general description of the covenant as a divinely-initiated relationship of union and communion between God and his people is unobjectionable and fairly traditional. In his brief survey of the administration of the covenant of grace in its Abrahamic, Mosaic and New Testament forms, Shepherd properly insists upon the mutuality and conditionality of the covenant relationship. When the Lord enters into a communion or covenant with his people, this covenant stipulates or obligates its members to live together in the bonds of mutual fidelity and love. There are, accordingly, senses in which the covenant of grace is both unconditional in its initiation and conditional in its administration. In his treatment of the Mosaic covenant, Shepherd rightly opposes any view that would interpret it exclusively as a kind of "covenant of law," neglecting thereby to recognize the priority of God's grace and promise in this administration of the covenant as well as others. Whatever the peculiar features of the Mosaic covenant, Shepherd correctly maintains its continuity with the formal establishment of the covenant with Abraham and its subsequent fulfillment in Christ.</div> <bR> <div> Since the covenant, according to Shepherd, invariably includes the elements of God's gracious promises, stipulations of obedience, and sanctions for disobedience or unfaithfulness, it provides a framework for understanding how God's sovereign grace does not diminish but undergirds human responsibility. When the doctrine of salvation is viewed exclusively in terms of God's sovereign and unconditional electing grace, and not in terms of the covenant in history, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate the Scriptural emphasis upon human responsibility in the context of gracious privilege. In this way the error of antinomianism can be resisted, since the privileges of God's gracious covenant serve not to diminish but rather to establish the responsibilities of the covenant relationship. Shepherd effectively makes these points throughout his study.</div> <bR> <div> In his treatment of the relation between covenant and evangelism, Shepherd also offers a number of helpful observations regarding the benefits of a covenantal approach. In his exposition of the Great Commission, he rightly observes that it can only be understood against the background of God's promise to Abraham. The promise of blessing for all the families of the earth is now being fulfilled through the discipling of the nations. This promise of blessing and salvation, moreover, does not aim simply to save sinners from condemnation and death. Rather, it aims to gather the nations in order that God's kingdom may come, and that the peoples serve the Lord in truth and faithfulness. Evangelism, therefore, is not merely a matter of "snatching a few brands from the burning," but includes the goal of preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the ends of the earth. On the basis of this covenantal emphasis, Shepherd also resists the temptation to draw an inappropriate line between the nurture of covenant members and the evangelistic seeking out of non-covenant members in order to bring them into the fellowship of the church. The same covenantal gospel is preached to all, and it is preached with the same goal in view. </div> <bR> <div> Perhaps the primary emphasis of Shepherd's advocacy of a covenant-evangelism approach is that the gospel preacher should not approach sinners from the perspective of God's decree of election and reprobation. When this is the case, and the primary focus of interest is upon the regeneration (or non-regeneration) of covenant members, insoluble problems arise for the evangelistic task of the church. Since no one knows precisely who is elect and who is non-elect, the gospel promise may not be generally extended to all recipients of the gospel (for fear that non-elect persons be improperly addressed). Furthermore, since no one knows the "secret things" of God's electing or non-electing counsel, the gospel may not be communicated in a way that assures its recipients of God's promise and faithfulness. Anxiety about the assurance of salvation often follows and believers become preoccupied with looking for evidences of regeneration, which then become the basis for a confidence about one's salvation. Because the electing grace of God in Christ is unconditional, evangelism that is oriented to the decree of election also suffers, according to Shepherd, from an inordinate fear of emphasizing the gospel's conditions of faith and obedience. However, when we approach people in terms of the covenant with its promises and obligations, we can simultaneously herald the good news of God's grace in Christ and the corresponding summons to new obedience. Shepherd's main point regarding covenant evangelism, therefore, is the helpful reminder that we should approach lost sinners with the gospel of God's covenant grace in Christ, making judgments respecting people in terms of the covenant's administration (through Word and sacrament) rather than curiously inquiring into the secret things of God (Venema, 2002, 239-241). </div> <bR> <div> Observation:</div> <bR> <div> It should be kept in mind that the purpose of Shepherd's book is to argue for the points above. Shepherd does not deal with other matters. In the criticisms that follow, Venema sometimes draws conclusions from what Shepherd does not say and so raises concerns that are not valid. Arguments from silence are always troublesome.</div> <bR> <div> Venema continues:</div> <bR> <div> Despite these evident strengths of Shepherd's study, there are also a number of deeply troublesome features to his book that I do not believe can be ignored or minimized…. </div> <bR> <div> First…, it is rather perplexing… to read Shepherd's study and discover that he cites almost no authors in the course of his study…. Shepherd's bold claims for the advantages of his formulations, as contrasted with (unnamed and unidentified) formulators of traditional Reformed theology, would seem to place a greater burden of proof upon his shoulders. That burden includes, minimally, a significant amount of interaction with the exegetical, confessional and theological tradition known as "Reformed." Readers of this little volume, however, will find such interaction notably lacking.</div> <bR> <div> Second, in making a case for the unity of the covenant of grace throughout the history of its various administrations, Shepherd treats the covenant relationship between God and his people as largely identical at every point, including its administration before and after the fall into sin. In all of God's dealings with human beings, whether before or after the historic fall into sin, the covenant relationship consists of a graciously established bond of union and communion between God and his people. This covenant relationship is born of God's free grace, stipulates faith and obedience, and threatens with sanctions those who fail to fulfill its obligations.</div> <bR> <div> This flattening out or virtual identifying of the pre- and post-fall covenants has unavoidable and mischievous implications for our understanding of the way of salvation. For example, one implication of Shepherd's argument is that the way of salvation, whether for Adam or Christ or any believer, is always one and the same - the way of covenant-keeping faithfulness. Thus, one of the ironies of his formulation of the covenant at this point is that, though Shepherd introduces grace into the covenant relationship before the fall into sin in a way that parallels the priority of grace in the post-fall covenant, he also treats the stipulation of obedience for believers in the covenant of grace as though it were merely a reiteration of the pre-fall obligation of obedience. Salvation is by grace through faith(fulness), before as well as after the fall. God's promise secures or guarantees the believer's covenant inheritance. However, that inheritance can only be received by way of the believer's covenant keeping (p. 19).</div> <bR> <div> Third…, Shepherd makes clear that he rejects the traditional Reformed doctrine of a pre-lapsarian "covenant of works" that promised Adam life "upon condition of perfect obedience" (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. VII.ii.)….</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd treats Christ as though he were little more than a model believer whose obedient faith constituted the ground for his acceptance with God in the same way that Abraham's (and any believer's) obedient faith constituted the basis for his acceptance with God. In his zeal to identify the covenant relationship between God and man in its pre- and post-fall administrations, Shepherd leaves little room to describe Christ's work as Mediator of the covenant in a way that honors the uniqueness, perfection and sufficiency of Christ's accomplishment for the salvation of his people.</div> <bR> <div> Fourth, these features of Shepherd's reformulation of the doctrine of the covenant raise questions regarding his understanding of the doctrine of justification…. </div> <bR> <div> Shepherd does not make it clear, for example, that the believer can only obtain eternal life upon the basis of the perfect obedience, satisfaction and righteousness of Christ alone received by faith alone (compare the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Days 23 & 24)….</div> <bR> <div> Fifth, the ambiguity in Shepherd's formulations (the reader will look in vain in this book for a clear, express statement of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone) is undoubtedly related to his antipathy for the idea of merit….</div> <bR> <div> The problem with Shepherd's wholesale repudiation of the idea of "merit" in our understanding of salvation, however, is that it has detrimental implications for other aspects of the traditional Reformed view of salvation. As we have already noted, it requires a thorough revision of the classic Reformed view of the covenant of works. However, it also would seem to require a revision of the classic Reformed view of Christ's saving work as Mediator of the covenant of grace….</div> <bR> <div> Unlike Shepherd, who seems to think grace and justice, fatherly mercy and judicial satisfaction, are at odds, the Reformed view always insisted upon and assumed their harmony. The covenant is an expression of God's fatherly favor, to be sure. But it is also a relationship that God justly administers.</div> <bR> <div> And sixth, though Shepherd offers some helpful observations in his apology for covenant evangelism, his treatment of the relation between covenant and election also raises some troubling questions. To put it somewhat simplistically, Shepherd seems to want to view election exclusively through the lens of the covenant of grace in its historical administration….</div> <bR> <div> Remarkably, because Shepherd is unwilling to distinguish between those with whom God covenants in a broader sense (covenant in its administration) and those with whom God covenants in a narrower sense (covenant in its fruition), he ends up with what sounds suspiciously like a conditional election doctrine. Covenant members are elect in Christ so long as they persevere in faithfulness. However, should they become unfaithful, they may become subject to covenant discipline and lose their election. But this is not the end of the mischief that his approach creates for our understanding of the doctrine of election. For example, Shepherd maintains that the Reformed preacher is authorized by the doctrine of the covenant to address all with the message that Christ died for them, even though some so addressed may choose not to believe and obey the gospel (p. 85). Does this mean that persons for whom Christ died, because they fail to persevere in the way of obedient faith, do not receive the covenant's blessings? In Shepherd's formulation of the covenant's significance for our understanding of election, notes such as these are sounded that can hardly be harmonized with those found in the Canons of Dort….</div> <bR> <div> The solution, for example, to the supposed problem of faith and works is not to confuse justification and sanctification, or to stress the believer's obligations of obedience as indispensable to the inheritance of blessing. Rather, the solution lies in a careful presentation of the riches of God's grace toward us in the Person of our Mediator. Christ, as Calvin often remarked, is given to us by God for righteousness and sanctification. In Christ, and in Christ alone, God provides every spiritual or covenantal blessing, whether it be the blessing of acceptance with him, on account of the righteousness of Christ, or the blessing of renewal in holiness, on account of the Spirit of Christ at work in us (Venema, 2002, 241-248).</div> <bR> <div> Observations:</div> <bR> <div> 1. Shepherd's point is to demonstrate in which ways the covenant structure is the same throughout history, and he does not deal with the other issues that Venema raises. On these points he adopts the traditional Reformed teaching. Because he is in agreement with these doctrines, there is no need for the interaction with the Reformed confessions that Venema desires. With regard to the covenant, besides arguing for the Reformed understanding that Venema also endorses, Shepherd's concern is that the relationship of love that obtains between God and his people not be poured into a works/merit, quid pro quo mould.</div> <bR> <div> 2. Venema seeks to show that he does not misread Shepherd, but in fact, he does. All of Shepherd's writings make very clear that he does not at all consider Christ to be little more than a model believer. </div> <bR> <div> 3. Shepherd does not question that pre-fall Adam was called to perfect obedience and that he lost eternal life because of his rebellion. His argument is just that the conditions of the pre-fall covenant should not be characterized as meritorious in contrast with grace, as if there was no grace or faith before the fall. The covenants are structurally the same, but they differ with regard to sin and the need for redemption.</div> <bR> <div> 4. For Shepherd, grace and justice are not at odds. He does not reject the idea of satisfaction in justice, nor salvation through Christ's satisfaction to the justice of God. The point is not to set aside the concept of justice, but only to question that earned merits are what make active obedience righteous. That disobedience merits punishment and that Christ suffered the punishment in substitutionary atonement is not questioned at all.</div> <bR> <div> 5. Shepherd does not deny election in favor of the covenant of grace in its historical administration. He does not question the Canons of Dort at any point. </div> <bR> <div> 6. Suggesting that Shepherd confuses justification and sanctification reflects a lack of understanding of what he teaches. For Shepherd, justification removes the guilt of sin and sanctification removes the corruption of sin. Justification is God's forensic verdict of innocence. Sanctification is inward renewal of the believer.</div> <bR> <div> 7. Shepherd wholeheartedly joins Calvin and Venema in affirming that “Christ… is given to us by God for righteousness and sanctification. In Christ, and in Christ alone, God provides every spiritual or covenantal blessing, whether it be the blessing of acceptance with him, on account of the righteousness of Christ, or the blessing of renewal in holiness, grounded in that same righteousness and worked through the Spirit of Christ at work in us.”</div> <bR> <div> In a chapter in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, Dr. Michael S. Horton of Westminster Seminary California affirms:</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd and others within our circles share the view of advocates of the new perspective on Paul that merit-a crucial category in Reformation theology [particularly with respect to Christ's)-is an idea we can live without. Not surprisingly, the crucial doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience-indeed, imputation of Christ's righteousness at all-is denied (Horton, 2007, 201).</div> <bR> <div> And:</div> <bR> <div> At this point Lusk appeals to Shepherd's contrast between a merit principle and a covenantal approach. Yet like the new perspective in Paul, Lusk (and Shepherd) ignores not only that the Reformed held ) the principle of merit [Christ's) within a thoroughly covenantal theology, but also fails to recognize that Rome had a covenantal paradigm-very much like the covenantal nomism already described.</div> <bR> <div> Identified especially with the school of nominalism, the slogan of this medieval covenant theology was this: "God will not deny his grace to those who do what lies within them." Strictly speaking, no one merits salvation (condign merit). Rather, God accepts the imperfect obedience of those who belong to the church as if it were satisfactory for final justification (congruent merit). Although no one is strictly meritorious of final justification, God has instituted a covenant in which cooperation with infused grace will be accepted in place of perfect fulfillment of the law. Grace was provided through the sacraments, just as it had been through the sacrifices of the old covenant. As faith became formed by love-in other words, as faith became obedience-it became justifying. The "new law," as the New Testament was called, is a kinder, gentler form of conditionality than is the old covenant. Jesus is a new Moses, but a milder one (evidently, the Sermon on the Mount, with its far more demanding interpretation of Torah, was not determinative). Similarly, the Arminians on the Continent and neonomians (such as Richard Baxter) in England sought a rapprochement with Rome on justification by saying that faith-construed as obedience-was the only work substituting for full obedience. The law now relaxed, one could be justified simply by having the beginnings of holiness. It was a "kinder, gentler" justification by works.</div> <bR> <div> While Shepherd and the federal-vision proponents oppose the category of merit in principle, they do insist that faith and obedience (or faith as obedience) are the instruments of final justification, which amounts to the congruent merit advocated by late medieval theology. While our confessions affirm that the faith that justifies is a living, active, and obedient faith, they universally insist that faith is justifying only in its act of resting in Christ's merits (Horton, 2007, 204-205).</div> <bR> <div> Observations:</div> <bR> <div> 1. Shepherd does not deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. </div> <bR> <div> 2. There is no sense in which Shepherd teaches something like congruent merit. For him, the believer's works constitute no part at all of his justification.</div> <bR> <div> 3. There is nothing in Shepherd's thought that can be described as relaxed law or justification through imperfect obedience. </div> <bR> <div> 4. Shepherd's view of justification is that of the Confessions as referred to by Horton.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> The Rev. Richard Phillips spoke at a conference at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 2004. He discusses N. T. Wright and then says:</div> <bR> <div> This aligns with the teaching of Norman Shepherd in The Call of Grace, which sees our justification taking place in a manner parallel to Christ's own. Shepherd writes, "Just as Jesus was faithful in order to guarantee the blessing, so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the blessing."  It is difficult to avoid the inference that we are justified by being like Jesus, by our faithfulness which is just as Jesus' faithfulness, instead of, as Paul puts it in Romans 5:19, being made righteous by the one man's obedience, namely, Christ, who lived and died not merely as our example but first as our federal head and our substitute. Both Wright's and Shepherd's views of justification require a mono-covenantal view of redemptive history and permit no place for the biblical covenant of works (Phillips, 2005, 107).</div> <bR> <div> Numerous objections are made to this teaching, surprisingly from many who vow to uphold the Westminster Confession, to which clear biblical answers may be and have been presented. But the most important objection, in my view, follows from a hotly contested word I used above, that is, merit. Some critics consider it unseemly that man could ever stand before God on the basis of earned merit. This objection takes many forms. First, is the rejection of merit as the basis for divine-human relationships on the grounds that God is Father and fathers receive their children on the basis of fatherly love rather than on earned merit. Second, it is said that man cannot add to God's glory, nor can a creature ever put God in his debt. Third, the idea of earned merit is rejected for depicting the divine-human relationship as that between an employer and an employee. </div> <bR> <div> Fourth, it is objected that God's dealing with Adam was, in fact, gracious. This is so because God was not obligated to offer any covenant to man and especially because the promised reward offered to Adam - eternal life - was far out of proportion to the value of his obedience, which Adam already owed to God apart from reward. This complaint was made famous by John Murray and is advanced today by many. Murray also complains that the word covenant is not used in the Bible for God's dealings with Adam. </div> <bR> <div> Last are objections leveled by Norman Shepherd, in addition to the above objections. He complains that the covenant of works stands in direct opposition to the idea of salvation by grace alone. That God accepts us by the grace/faith principle rules out the merit/works principle. Furthermore, he protests that until we reject the idea of earned merit, "we feel threatened by passages of Scripture that speak of repentance and obedience as conditions for entering eternal life," and are forced to use "exegetical and dogmatic devices of dubious validity" to avoid legalism (Phillips, 2005, 108-109).</div> <bR> <div> Most credible of all the objections to the covenant of works is the one that argues that God's pre-fall dealings with Adam entailed a good deal of grace. That this was raised by a stalwart of Reformed theology, John Murray, has made this point all the more deserving of consideration. Murray writes, "The term [covenant of works] is not felicitous, for the reason that the elements of grace entering into the administration are not properly provided for by the term 'works'." The question must be asked, however, if grace is the proper term for God's favor shown to Adam in the Garden. Cornelis P. Venema argues for a distinction between God's kindness to Adam prior to his sin and the grace shown to him after the Fall. He writes, "There is a real difference between undeserved favor shown a sinless, obedient creature, and the undeserved grace granted the disobedient covenant breaker" (Phillips, 2005, 110). </div> <bR> <div> The logic of God's covenant with Adam was that obedience produced righteousness, righteousness received justification, and justification received life. Apart from our desire to note God's goodness in the Garden (which Kline helpfully reminds us to keep distinct from God's grace towards sinners), this covenant reflected God's justice, not his grace. Complaints against non-biblical, medieval vows and teachings of merit do not change the fact that the pre-Fall covenant was conditioned on Adam's obedient works and that acting as our federal head he failed to meet the stipulated condition. As Paul so meticulously works out in Romans 5:12-21, Adam's disobedience produced guilt, guilt received condemnation, and condemnation yielded the bitter curse of death. Likewise, we can see that Jesus achieved our righteousness by fulfilling the covenant of works….</div> <bR> <div> It is noteworthy that John Murray, though rejecting the term covenant of works, treats what he calls the Adamic administration as possessing all the features of a covenant. His discussion is organized around the headings the condition, promise, and threatening, the very features common to biblical covenants. In this, he affirms one of the strongest arguments for calling God's dealings with Adam a "covenant", namely that it contains all the features found in all other covenants identified as such in the Bible. This is why Murray's soteriology was safeguarded from the debilitating effects commonly resulting from a denial of the covenant of works. While objecting semantically, he retains all its important features, thus safeguarding the doctrine of justification in his thinking. Writing of God's dealings with Adam, Murray lays out the very progression I noted above, saying, "Righteousness, justification, life is an invariable combination in the government and judgment of God. There would be a relation that we may call perfect legal reciprocity." Therefore, Murray observes that in the covenant of grace God does not set aside his justice, but rather satisfies it through the substitutionary atonement and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, offered to us by faith alone (Phillips, 2005, 113-114).</div> <bR> <div> The problem here is not an ambiguity in terminology, as has often been said in Shepherd's defense, but 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. Furthermore, Shepherd's intent becomes clear when he adds that justification ultimately takes place at the final judgment and that the obedient believer may lose his or her justification by failing to continue in faithful obedience.</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd's definition of faith does not direct us to look to and rely upon Christ and his work, but ourselves and our work (Phillips, 2005, 121).</div> <bR> <div> What about Christ's saving blood? Smith allows that we need to be forgiven through Christ "when we sin," which one gains the impression is not likely to be very often for a faithful covenant-keeper. But we are justified by works, that is, by our works, at least so long as we continue to do them. One wonders what was the effect of  the Fall; it must have been very slight if the view of Smith and Shepherd and others in their camp is correct. Perhaps here more than anywhere else, in its low view of the consequences of  the Fall, this new theology of covenant intersects with Roman Catholicism, along with sharing an approach to justification which depends on the grace of God working in us rather than the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to us by grace and through faith alone (Phillips, 2005, 122).</div> <bR> <div> Observations:</div> <bR> <div> 1. When Shepherd points out similarities between Christ's faithfulness and ours, it is not at all in order to call into question his federal headship or substitutionary obedience and mediation. </div> <bR> <div> 2. Shepherd fully endorses Phillips' view:</div> <bR> <div> …that the pre-Fall covenant was conditioned on Adam's obedient works and that acting as our federal head he failed to meet the stipulated condition. As Paul so meticulously works out in Romans 5:12-21, Adam's disobedience produced guilt, guilt received condemnation, and condemnation yielded the bitter curse of death.</div> <bR> <div> His point is not to deny the pre-fall covenant and its stipulations, only to affirm (with Murray) that the elements of grace entering into the administration are not properly provided for by the term “works”. </div> <bR> <div> 3. Shepherd does see a radical difference between the pre-fall and the post-fall covenants. Pre-fall there was no sin and no imputation of Christ's righteousness. Post-fall, the only righteousness is the righteousness of Christ, both for our justification through imputation of his sacrificial death (Rom. 5:18), and for our sanctification, as his resurrection life is made our inherent righteousness (Rom. 6; Gal. 2:20; Tit. 2:5). When we stand before the Lord on the Day of Judgment, by the grace of God alone, we will stand as those whose sins are forgiven and whose lives have been renewed/recreated by the power of the Holy Spirit. All this on the ground of what Christ did for us through his crucifixion and resurrection. Before the fall, Adam stood before God as righteous by grace, as well, but his righteousness was expressed in personal obedience, not Christ's.</div> <bR> <div> 4. Murray and Shepherd certainly do not deny the significant difference between grace to the sinless and grace to sinners deserving of death. That difference, however, should not exclude grace from the Adamic covenant or from the life of Christ (Luke 2:40).</div> <bR> <div> 5. Our understanding of Shepherd's view of justification must bear in mind that he emphasizes that justification is a gift. There is no legalism at all in his view.</div> <bR> <div> 6. Murray's “perfect legal reciprocity” is not the same as Phillips' “obedience produces righteousness”. Phillips rightly observes that Murray safeguards his soteriology. The same must be said for Shepherd.</div> <bR> <div> 7. Shepherd's view of the relationship between faith and works is precisely the one Phillips claims Shepherd denies, namely that faith and works accompany each other. They are not meshed together as one and the same thing.</div> <bR> <div> 8. The assertion that Shepherd has us relying on ourselves and our work rather than Christ and his is clearly a misunderstanding of Shepherd. He no more has us relying on ourselves and our works than Reformed theology, in general, has us relying on ourselves and our faith.</div> <bR> <div> 9. It is wrong to suggest that in Shepherd's view a Christian does not sin very often. To speak of a low view of sin in Shepherd is to attribute to him thoughts that are entirely alien to him.</div> <bR> <div> 10. Claims that Shepherd attributes our justification to anything other than the imputed righteousness of Christ can only be made by ignoring his plain statements on the matter.</div> <bR> <div> Dr. John Carrick of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary agrees with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who considered Shepherd's views to be a subtle form of legalism. Carrick writes, “… `Shepherdism' … is a subtle form of legalism…, subversive of the gospel; … subversive of this great, wonderful, yet vulnerable doctrine of justification by faith alone.” (Carrick, 2005, 142)</div> <bR> <div> Observation:</div> <bR> <div> In fact, Shepherd does not promote legalism. He does not teach that the believer's obedience to law contributes anything to his righteousness, not at any point, neither at the initial moment of being constituted righteous or at any point thereafter as he lives out his life in covenant faithfulness, accepting, receiving and resting in Christ alone for righteousness, sanctification and redemption.</div> <bR> </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_4_e__faith_and_works.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Faith and Works</A></div> <div>      f. <A HREF="2_4_f__fruit_and_evidence.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Fruit and Evidence</A></div> <div>      g. <A HREF="2_4_g__justification_and_sanctification.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Justification and Sanctification</A></div> <div>      h. <A HREF="2_4_h__the_nature_of_righteousness.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">The Nature of Righteousness </A></div> <div>      i. <A HREF="2_4_i__covenant_of_works_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Covenant of Works?</A></div> <div>      j. <A HREF="2_4_j__grace_and_faith_in_the.htm" TARGET="_top" 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_m.htm#appendix" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" 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>