Easy Obeyism
September 9th, 2009 by Darryl G. HartOver the last several decades discussions of justification among Presbyterians have too often included a remark or two about how salvation is more than justification. When asked to explain the partial nature of justification, interlocutors will talk about the need for sanctification and good works, and sometimes mention the impossibility of entering into glory with any trace or residue of sin. The idea seems to be that some kind of moral renovation is necessary so that believers can be transformed, and once changed, enter into God’s presence in glory.
Whether they know it or not, the ones who make such remarks are sounding a lot like Norman Shepherd, the godfather of purging any whiff of antinomianism from Reformed circles’ (and letting Lutherans bear the odor alone). Those too young to have experienced the controversy of justification at Westminster may not be familiar with many of Shepherd’s writings. But in his infamous Thirty Four Theses he wrote about the necessity of obedient faith, good works, and repentance in relation to faith in ways that tried to guard Reformed doctrines of grace from an easy-believism. To counter implications that follow from the idea that our works do not contribute to our salvation Shepherd wrote statements like the following (Thesis 23):
Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9).
The wonder of such an effort to commend good works in such proximity to justification is that it way overestimates the goodness of the believer’s good works. Missing from this conception of good works is any recognition of their filthy rags caliber. The Confession of Faith says that the disproportion between our good works and the glory to come is so great that we “can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins.” In fact, it adds that when we have performed good works we “have but done our duty, and are unprofitable servants.” As much as our good works proceed from the Spirit’s transforming power, they are truly good. But because we do them, our good works “are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment” [16.5]. Good works that should be condemned – what does that conception of good works do to efforts to tack them or repentance on to justification in order to give us the personal righteousness some say we need to enter into glory?
Clearly Shepherd didn’t have this conception of good works in view when he wrote the next thesis (24) and denied that good works done according to the law or by righteousness derived from the law or from the flesh were truly good. Only works wrought by the Holy Spirit, or that sprang from true faith according to the law and for God’s glory qualified as good works in the biblical sense.
But how do filthy rags qualify as clean? Maybe the answer to that question explains why Calvin taught in his catechism that rather than tacking sanctification on to justification, justification needed to precede and follow sanctification.
Master. – But after we have once been embraced by God, are not the works which we do under the direction of his Holy Spirit accepted by him?
Scholar. – They please him, not however in virtue of their own worthiness, but as he liberally honours them with his favour.
Master. – But seeing they proceed from the Holy Spirit, do they not merit favour?
Scholar. – They are always mixed up with some defilement from the weakness of the flesh, and thereby vitiated.
Master. – Whence then or how can it be that they please God?
Scholar. – It is faith alone which procures favour for them, as we rest with assured confidence on this-that God wills not to try them by his strict rule, but covering their defects and impurities as buried in the purity of Christ, he regards them in the same light as if they were absolutely perfect.
So instead of being on the lookout for antinomianism, maybe the real error is semi-antinomianism – that is, evaluating good works and Christian living apart from the demands of the law. For semi-antinomianism is clearly the perspective needed if someone is going to posit obedience or good works can escape condemnation without the overlay of Christ’s imputed righteousness.
Tags: Calvin, good works, justification, Shepherd, Westminster
Gary – I’m surprised you even used my name. But don’t get your shorts in a bunch. I realize you have a blind side, we all do, but there is a very definite reason that whenever these guys try and draw a distinction between faith and belief and thereby deride justification by *belief* alone that they always have to mention Clark, Clarkians, or even John Robbins. FWIW James Jordon gets it which is why he described the FV fight as the “Clark Controversy with feet on it.”. They’re trying to capitalize precisely on the biases and prejudices of people just like you. IMO they’ve been very successful in this regard with any number of TRs. Beyond that, I’m thrilled that Mr. Batzig has picked up on Wilson’s slight of hand concerning the nature of faith when so many others have been seemingly and utterly fooled.
Sean aka SR
Blind spot huh? What about the one that both you and Robbins suffer from- Van Til is the source of all evil? According to Robbins CVT wasn’t even a Christian-something the late Gordon Clark would have dismissed out of hand.I know because he told me.
One more thing- so you take Jordon’s assessment as having merit? Wilson declared this was simply a renewal of the old debate about theonomy -and CVT is on record dismissing the theonomic crowd as being representative of his views. Of course facts like that have never stopped you from slandering CVT.
According to Robbins CVT wasn’t even a Christian
You love to endlessly rehash things don’t you Gary? Could it be because you forget things we have already discussed? As you might recall, I asked Dr. Robbins directly about this and he emphatically denied your charge. Besides, after all the many things Dr. Robbins has written on Van Til and his followers over the years you’d think this claim would be somewhere published? But, sadly, the only thing we have to go on is another one of your rusted memories, like the one where you claimed Gordon Clark personally told you that Ned Stonehouse, and not C. Van Til, “was the guy in the black hat” in the whole controversy. When I pointed out the many citations throughout Clark’s many books and articles that identify Van Til was the man in black, with nary a mention of Ned, your response was to personally attack me. And, as I’m sure you will recall, even as late as Clark’s final book – a book Clark arranged to be published posthumously so he could answer his critics one last time from the grave – Clark wrote:
“Cornelius Van Til . . . furnished the basic content of A Complaint.”
Your response to me was just more name calling that would make a New York cab driver blush.
As Dr. Robbins said in an email to me:
“Johnson makes his unreliability clear by fabricating a quote about VT and attributing it to me. That should make the status of his “quotation” of Clark very clear too.”
As for Jordon, yes, his assessment not only has significant merit but for the very reasons Mr. Batzig observed. You might recall that in that same post Jordon also claimed this fight was over the supposed “fudicial” or third element that is supposed to make belief saving. You might even recall his self-righteous bloviating about “not bowing the knee” along with his usual anti-intellectual tirade against Christians who would “dare” oppose the FV heresy. This is why Mr. Batzig is spot on. Whereas most holding to the tautological and self-referencing tri-fold definition do not end up denying the Gospel, FVist like Wilson, Shepherd, and others have been able to avoid the tautology charge by successfully adding trust in the sense of obedience as central element that makes their understanding of faith the sole instrument of justification. Salvation by faith and works through redefinition.
Finally, the only defense against slander is the truth, and you’re simply calling me a slanderer is not good enough. I’ve demonstrated my claims, why can’t you? I suppose we’re to ignore your repeated slander against Dr. Robbins?
Robbins made that remark about CVT at his book table at the regional ETS meetin which was being held at PCB back around 1990-91. Fowler White and Steve Nichols were present.
Darryl:
What aren’t you reassured about? Do you think that Shepherd’s teaching undermines assurance? That hasn’t been my experience. In fact, I’ve been enormously encouraged by the thought that true faith is in the world, that it is not reducible to the merely natural phenomena of belief. True faith exists.
It may well have been the case that the early Reformers identified faith with assurance. Yet, the two are distinct. One may exercise saving faith, be justified, and have little or no assurance. The WCoF recognizes this in Chapter XVIII. The Confession also does not identify assurance as the essence of faith as you seem to do.
As Shepherd writes in his new book, The Way of Righteousness:
“Faith can waver; it can be stronger or weaker at some times than it is at other times. Because obedience is the fruit of faith, my assurance will rise as I walk closer to the Lord in my love for him and surrender to his will. And because disobedience is the fruit of unbelief, my assurance will diminish as I wander away from the Lord in disobedience. We must cultivate assurance of grace and salvation in the same way that we cultivate faith, namely, by attention to the word of God, by the use of the sacraments that sign and seal the truth of that word, and by faithfulness to that word” (p. 89).
Darryl, your problem is with Scripture and universal Christian experience, not Norman Shepherd or even Roman Catholicism.
There is no syllogism that can guarantee absolute assurance every moment of our lives. The Christian faith is not for disembodied minds that cogitate their way to beatitude by perpetually thinking, “I believe, therefore I am elect.” We are human beings.
Mr. Batzig,
As for faith, it is passive in the sense that it receives Christ. But faith is active as well. For instance, faith knows and diligently seeks God (cf. Heb. 11:6). Faith works through love (Gal. 5:6). Read the entirety of Hebrews 11 to see what faith can do.
You may not want to talk about what faith does beyond “receiving” and “resting.” I encourage you, then, to put the Bible away and preach directly from the Confession since you seem to think it contains everything–since the tripartite definition plumbs the whole depth of what faith is.
Shepherd is very clear. There is no justification apart from an obedient faith, yet neither faith nor works merit anything. Christ alone is the ground of justification.
If you are preaching faith without the attached biblical warnings you are putting souls at grave peril by encouraging presumption. I meet nominal Christians on an almost daily basis who think they are okay just because they prayed the sinner’s prayer once. We are not living in Luther’s day; we are living in a time when most people think God accepts them without respect to how they live their lives.
As for justification, Norman Shepherd has not added to the biblical doctrine. The eschatological element is there in Scripture. Do you deny that believers will be justified at the Final Judgment?
A comprehensive doctrinal treatment of justification will include what I call the final cause(s) of justification: the sanctification and glorification of the elect. God justifies for a purpose.
I must bow out of this discussion, so you’ll have the last word.
Darryl, thanks for providing the forum for this discussion.
[...] sanctity, justification or saving faith. They are “not significative only, but active.” Although pointing this out might cause some to reach for the benadryl and scotch (btw, I would recommend Glenfiddich), Clark’s colleague at WSC, Michael Horton, better captures [...]