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
Perhaps I might be so vain as to think this post is [at least in part] about me. As much as it peeves you to be called a “Lutheran” you might consider the similarity of these Shepherd comments. Those in the so-called “union school,” who consider sanctification an important matter haven’t messed with justification as Shepherd did. In my estimation, a healthy duplex gratia formulation protects the doctrine of justification from a extra-forensic formulation. Christ’s righteousness always remains the sole ground of justification.
I struggle to understand how a student of reformed theology could think they would enter into glory with remnant sin. I’ve provided biblical evidence for this case in previous comments. According to my read of the standards and any number of reformers, “That’s the Way I’ve Always Heard It Should Be.” Saying that the Holy Spirit will sanctify his people in entirety upon their death is a far cry from making some “obedient faith” a pseudo ground of justification. “[T]he dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” (WCF 13.1)
I agree with your sentiment regarding good works. They are filthy rags and do not merit salvation. But we also need to remember that the WCF has separate chapters for good works (16) and sanctification (13). Doing good works is not identical to sanctification.
Frankly, I live in “Anticipation” of my sanctification. Not that I look to earn my salvation, but knowing that I have been justified, the Lord has promised to sanctify me – to apply the resurrection of Christ to me as the WCF would phrase it. And upon death (or the parousia) I shall be sanctified entirely as I enter into my Lord’s presence. Should I not be sanctified, I would die in the presence of his holiness.
Camden, if there is a resemblance to Shepherd it may be in a measure of discomfort with the sufficiency of justification, as if other righteousness, a personal kind, is necessary to see the Lord. So even if you are clearer than Shepherd about justification by faith alone, which I think you are, I’m less comfortable with the place that the way you seem to regard the righteousness necessary to enter glory. If our works are filthy rags, and if our sanctification in this life is incomplete, and if we still need a perfect righteousness to enter heaven, I am not sure where we find this other than in Christ’s righteousness which is imputed to us by faith in our justification.
So again, if there are resemblances, it has to do with diminishing the importance of justification.
DGH
Have you read A. Donald MacLeod’s ” W.Stanford Reid: A Evangelical Calvinist In The Academy’(McGill-Queen’s Univ Press 2004)? He has a very helpful account of the Shepherd controversy and Reid’s dogged opposition to Shepherd’s view.
I have and think it should be required reading for anyone associated with WTS.
DGH
SOmehow your email address got deleted and I want tpo pass along to you a couple of things on this very subject.
Golly Batman! Can’t believe that statement from Shepherd; and that from a Reformed teacher teaching in Machen’s back yard. It’s like a priest in the Vatican railing against Mariolatry or Purgatory, or a professor at SBTS condemning craedo-baptism.
[...] Easy Obeyism Posted on September 12, 2009 by R. Scott Clark Darryl makes a very good point at the OLTS. [...]
I wonder if Michael Horton sounds like Norman Shepherd when he writes: “The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor…[Holiness] is the indispensable condition of our glorification.” God of Promise, 182.
I sure hope you’re not identifying justification with salvation.
No because I believe that salvation is more than justification. But why, according to the first two sentences of the post, are people who believe that salvation is more than justification asked to explain the partial nature of justification? Underlying that question appears to be an identification of salvation with justification.
Right back at you Patrick. The quote you gave from Horton was about salvation and yet you’re using it to imply that Mike thinks justification requires the stuff that salvation requires. So you’re really proving my point. Thanks.
But while I have you, if salvation is more than justification, do we get more righteousness in the other parts of salvation than the righteousness we receive in justification? Is justification’s rightneous partial? Does it need help?
Apparently, you are misreading the reason I used the quote. It was not to imply that Horton believes that holiness is necessary for justification. The quote doesn’t say that. It does say that holiness is necessary for glorification. He believes that new obedience, however imperfect, is an indispensable condition for entering into glory. You appear to disagree with that and think that it sounds like Shepherd. But please correct me if I am wrong.
Did I miss the answer to my question? If salvation is not identical to justification why then are people who believe that salvation is more than justification (as does Horton, see God of Promise, 183), asked to explain partial justification?
Patrick, so you don’t think we are holy when Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us? Isn’t the reason that Calvin says that God regards our good works as good is because God looks at them through the lens of Christ’s righteousness.
The reason why some might be asked to explain about justification is when they write unclear theses ABOUT JUSTIFICATION.
dgh:
What do you think that “be ye holy as I am holy” refers to: 1) imputed holiness at justification; or 2) experiential holiness wrought by the Spirit in believers lives (as in WCF16:4,5)?
Eliza, what do you think the Heidelberg Catechism means?
Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
Not to sound like a broken record, but Christ’s righteousness sure does sound like my righteousness not that I trust in him.
DGH,
Besides failing to appreciate that the typical representatives of Reformed theology have all insisted on personal holiness as a condition of the covenant of grace, you also seem to have an uncanny ability to evade clear, direct questions. Good works are necessary for salvation. That’s Reformed orthodoxy.
What concerns me is your first paragraph, which implies you disagree with those who argue that salvation is more than justification. Hebrews 12:14 seems pretty clear to me. Romans 8:13 also seems pretty clear to me. Turretin seems clear to me. What isn’t clear to me is why you give such a priority to justification that sanctification appears to be a mere appendix in your theology.
My suggestion: brush up on your seventeenth-century British history, both political and ecclesiastical. Then you can worry about curbing the pseudo-Shepherdism among certain Presbyterians.
Bob
Bob, since you’re all about clarity and the Reformed tradtion, maybe you can answer a clear direct question. Is Christ’s righteousness my holiness, as the 16th century Heidelberg Catechism teaches? While you’re at it, do you have any thoughts about why Shepherdites or psedo-Shepherdites feel that justification needs to be new and improved?
Who said justification needs to be improved? Not me or Patrick.
I do not deny that in justification we receive the imputed righteousness of Christ. If your contention was simply “let’s leave works out of justification” I would not have commented. But your first paragraph makes statements that imply you make justification co-extensive with salvation. Salvation (i.e. the gospel) has always included inner renovation besides the imputed righteousness, at least for the majority of the Reformed tradition.
Also, I think you would be surprised at Vermigli’s insistence on speaking of the twofold nature of justification which includes both the forensic and the habitus … but that’s a historical-theological issue that I’d rather leave for now.
Your short essay is confusing because, while your main objective is to uphold the “apart from works” aspect of justification, you make statements that appear to deny the necessity of moral renovation.
Instead of quoting catechisms, why don’t you explain what you think of texts like Heb. 12:14 and Romans 8:13? If I don’t mortify, by the Spirit, the misdeeds of my sinful nature I will not go to heaven. Sounds to me like moral renovation is indeed necessary to attain life!
Bob
Bob, the Reformed catechisms are clear that moral renovation comes as part of salvation. What is not clear is their making this a condition for attaining life. Are you really suggesting that your efforts of mortification are holy all the way down? I believe the point of the essay was that they are filthy rags — another biblical truth. So if judgment day requires holiness, and my holy works aren’t holy, what gives? Isn’t it conceivable that Christ’s holiness, received by faith, makes up for my holiness’ deficiency? In which case, justification looks like a pretty big part of salvation.
Since 1 Peter 1 :15, 16 is addressed to already-justified believers, the exhortation to be holy refers to experimental holiness as part of our sanctification. Bob’s reply on 9/16 at 2:16 pm is right on target. It is clear that the personal holiness I will end up with at the end of my life or at the second coming will be woefully deficient, so that without Christ’s imputed righteousness, I’d be lost forever. At the same time, the exhortation to be holy is in the Bible! The already-justified ones will certainly be holy (to some extent) before they meet the Lord. It takes nothing from Christ’s work for us. It simply accounts for a plethora of Bible teaching. To answer your question about Heidelberg Catechism 60, clearly it refers to the imputed righteousness of Christ. It states as much.
Bob
“personal holiness as a condition of the COG”…please show where THAT view is representative of the Reformers and their heirs. And while you’re at it please explain just exactly what constitues an adequate degree of ‘personal holiness’ that will pass mustard.
Eliza, so does your experimental holiness add to Christ’s holiness? I’m having trouble understanding why you talk about the necessity of holiness in the language of conditionality. So if I’m not holy, I should expect condemnation.
I’m also having trouble with how your view squares what has been traditional Protestant piety on the matter of justification and the atonement. For instance, the hymn Rock of Ages says, “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” So would you rather sing, “Something, not perfect, mind you, but something in my hand I bring, only because you required it, and yes of course, the cross, that’s very important, indeed.”
Or how about, “My hope is built on nothing less thant Jesus’ blood and righteousness,” which goes on, “His oath, his covenant, his blood Support me in the whelming flood; when all around my soul gives way, He then is all my hope and stay.” So do you sing that thinking, “yes all true for when my experimental holiness fails, but when it’s in full gear I’m less needful of his oath, his covenant, his blood”?
I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse. But I wonder if you guys who defend Shepherd-like views ever consider how you sound?
DGH,
Instead of quoting catechisms you are now quoting hymns. Since you will not engage me on a exegetical level I might as well turn back to historical theology.
Maybe you can explain a few things?:
1. Luca Baschera has shown that Vermigli has a twofold aspect to his doctrine of justification, the forensic and the habitus. Is Vermigli a Shepherdite?
If you don’t read German or Latin then let me give you an English example:
2. Sinclair Ferguson accuses Owen – you’ll have to read his Aberdeen PhD diss. and not the Banner version – of compromising the gracious nature of the covenant of grace because he makes obedience a condition of the covenant of grace. Read Owen or Ferguson – your pick – and then let me know what you think of Owen.
3. Reformed orthodoxy has always, albeit with qualifications, insisted that good works are necessary for salvation. Read Francis Turretin on this. I’m sure you can find his discussion of this topic in the Giger translation.
4. And, returning to the Bible, why do you speak as though my holiness is just that – my holiness? Yes, it is my holiness, but the holiness I possess is the work of Christ who, by his Spirit, renovates us into his image. We are predestined to be holy (Eph. 1; Rom. 8:29); Christ died to make us holy (1 Peter 2:24); and Paul seems to suggest that if I don’t mortify the misdeeds of the flesh then I will not live (Rom. 8:13). You might want to check out Owen on that passage.
Let me put it another way, you can’t say that my experimental holiness adds to Christ’s holiness because my experimental holiness is Christ’s holiness. Why else would the Holy Spirit take on the name of Christ (Rom. 8:9; 1 Peter 1)?
What’s amazing to me is that you think I sound like Shepherd when I speak this way and yet I can give literally hundreds of examples from the 16thC onwards of Reformed theologians who spoke this way. I know this isn’t your area of expertise, so maybe that explains why you quote hymns?
Bob
Darryl writes: “Reformed catechisms are clear that moral renovation comes as part of salvation. What is not clear is their making this a condition for attaining life.”
Westminster is clear. Article XV, entitled “Of Repentance unto Life,” section 1 states:
“Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.”
And section 3 says:
“Although repentance is not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.”
Section 6 says:
“As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof; upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy;”…etc.
Finally, Dordt (5th heading, article 7) says:
“[God] by his Word and Spirit… certainly and effectively renews [the saints] to repentance so that they have a heartfelt and godly sorrow for the sins they have committed; seek and obtain, through faith and with a contrite heart, forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator…”
Westminster and Dordt are clear, as Shepherd has been, that repentance is an indispensible condition for the remission, or, judicial pardon, of sins. Repentance and the turning away from sin do not constitute the meritorious ground of justification but they are necessary conditions for it.
On this point Shepherd is confessional as his false accusers are not. Shepherd’s accusers are the unconfessional ones here because they fail to appreciate or even recognize the vital difference between necessary condition and meritorious ground.
DGH,
Assuming you don’t have time to do the necessary “background checks” on my first three points above, maybe you could let me know what you think of the language below?
“That no man can be saved unlesse he be born again of the holy Spirit, Repent, Believe, and walk in holy conversation and godliness.
That whosoever do not prize and love Iesus Christ above himself, and all other things, cannot be saved.
Whosoever allows himself to live in any known sin, upon any pretence or principle whatsoever, is in a state of damnation.”
Are you in agreement? That might be a good (re)starting point for us!
Bob, I clearly can’t match your learning or your exegesis — man, the Greek and Hebrew flying around here is amazing. But if Reformed orthodoxy always insists that good works are necessary for salvation, then why does the Shorter Catechism say that to escape the wrath and curse of God we need faith, repentance and attending the ordinary means of grace. I don’t see good works in that equation. Do you think that escaping the wrath and curse of God is different from salvation?
Also, do you think that Luca Brachera sleeps with the fishes?
BAndrew, believe it or not, repentance is not the same as good works. Repentence involves a recognition of my sin, apprehending the mercy of God in Christ, hating my sin, and endeavoring after new obedience. But neo-nomians tend to see good works everywhere.
Bob, where is faith in Jesus Christ, as in receiving and resting upon him alone for salvation? Wouldn’t that affect the way you formulate these assertions, and also the way you would relate the various propositions about faith, repentence, good works, etc.? I don’t see how any Protestant could consider your statements without also seeing how they relation to justification by faith alone.
Come to think of it, you do a very good impersonation of Shepherd.
DGH, I am still interested in what you think of the quote I gave of Michael Horton. Here it is again: “The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor, are part of that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14)…[Holiness] is the indispensable condition of our glorification: no one will be seated at the heavenly banquet who has not begun, however imperfectly, in new obedience.” God of Promise, 182-3.
Should we embrace Horton’s teaching on the necessity of personal holiness for final salvation? Or does Horton undermine the doctrine of justification?
DGH,
Those statements came from men like Owen, Manton, Goodwin, and other orthodox men (“A New Confession”, 1654). As you know, they speak of justification sola fide, but they also include statements like that in their doctrine of salvation. But you seem to think I am sounding like Shepherd. I guess that makes a whole lot of us. Or, maybe, just maybe, you sound like the 17thC antinomians who were the biggest theological (and political) threat according to the Westminster divines?
I’m impressed at your ability to evade questions with punchy rhetoric. But, let me ask you as pointedly as I can:
1. Are good works necessary for salvation? Do you affirm with, say, Turretin?
My problem is not that you affirm justification apart from works. I rejoice in that doctrine and hold firmly to its Confessional place in history.
My problem is that you seem to make justification co-extensive with salvation and you also seem to deny that good works are necessary for salvation. You may be right, but you certainly do not reflect Reformed orthodoxy.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure you’ve answered any of the questions I’ve put to you regarding historical and exegetical theology. But if you really want me to start using Hebrew and Greek I’d be happy to do so. Do you have any specialized training in exegetical theology, by the way?
Bob
First, I would never use (or believe) a Shepherd-like statement such as “continuing in a state of justification”. Justification is a once-for-all legal thing. If we are justified then the rest will follow certainly–the justified will persevere because the God who justified will bring us to glory. He will do so by causing us by His Spirit)to do good works for which we were created. Show me a person whose general course of life is not what we normally think of as “holy” and I’ll show you someone who was never justified. Second, I don’t sing uninspired hymns, nor would I make apology for their (sometimes) erroneous teaching. First, I am justified, “Do thou with hyssop sprinkle me, I shall be cleansed so, Ye, wash thou me and then I shall be whiter than the snow.” (Psalm 51:7) Then, God works in me by His Spirit experimentally, “By what means shall a young man learn his way to purify? If he according to thy word thereto attentive be.” (Psalm 119:9). The justified will never, can never fall away, or fail to be holy. But the Word of God still exhorts the once-justified to holiness.
Interesting quote. I think Horton sums up what many here are concerned to maintain. Thanks for reposting.
Perhaps a better way to get around the impasse here is to find out DGH’s doctrine of sanctification. It sounds to me like he doesn’t have one. But I’m sure I am wrong about that, so I stand ready to be corrected.
While Darryl and I do not agree on the precise order of justification and sanctification to union with Christ, I do tend to agree with his assessment of the sufficiency of justification. There is a very fine line here. On the one hand justification is all we need to stand on the day of judgment, because we are accepted as PERFECTLY RIGHTEOUS because of the righteousness of Christ, but on the other hand, good works are the necessary evidence that we are justified. I also need to defend Darryl on the fact that he is quoting the Catechism and Confessions (not simply hymns–as wonderful as they are). He is right in one sense. You cannot sing “My hope is built on nothing less” if you are trusting in the Spirit wrought works that God is working in us. Must we be sanctified to go to heaven? Absolutely! But our sanctification is not the grounds or instrument of our salvation. Jesus is the grounds, and faith is the instrument. So, I suppose I am defending DGH here. I for one am thankful that I am clothed in the righteousness of Christ. That is my only hope on the day of judgment. If some of you differ with that, then you are saying it is Christ plus your holiness that will enable you to stand on the day of judgment. If that is the case, you might as well become Roman Catholic.
Bob, I fear that your tone is far to sharp. DGH is a dear brother, and while I disagree with him on a number of points, he is a man who has contributed some very wonderful volumes to the building up of the church. I sometimes fear he neglects the significance of sanctification, but I am not sure I agree with your suggesting that the Reformed have always made it a condition of salvation in the proper sense of the word. Is it a condition of salvation? Well, the Reformers and Puritans, as you know, often spoke in philosophical terms that included conditionality in a broad, as well as, more specific sense. You mentioned Turretin as supporting the view you have espoused. But, if I understand Turretin (Institutio XII.iii.15) correctly, he is simply asserting that justification is not the only benefit that must be present in the sense of causality in the ordo salutis. If you were to ask whether it is a condition, in the way that conditionality has been employed by men like Perry Miller (i.e. the Calvin vs. the Calvinist folks), he would deny that good works are in any sense a condition of instrumental causality. This is the same conclusion that Mark Beach comes to in his dissertation on Turretin. Beach writes:
“Turretin’s point is simple: If the word condition is used in the broad sense, to include all of the above (i.e. deliverance from guilt and corruption–imputation and impartation)–which also means it is used in an improper sense–then repentance and all the other duties in the Covenant of Grace may be called conditions. However, if one is to use words properly, and to conceive of conditionality in the strict and proper sense, NOT MERELY IN THE SENSE OF WHAT MUST ANTECEDENTLY BE PRESENT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT TO COME ABOUT, but especially in the sense of some causality being present–even if it is only an instrumental causality–then repentance and evangelical obedience are altogether and wholly excluded from functioning as conditions in the Covenant of Grace, or being such called. (p. 188)”1
1. J. Mark Beach Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Covenant of Grace (Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2007)
For crying out loud, Horton is NOT saying that our personal advancement in holiness is in anyway, shape ,form or fashion a determing factor in our justification on the last day- BUT THAT IS EXACTLY what NT Wright and Norman Shepherd end up advocating in their respective schemes in which the ‘totally of the life one lead’ does in fact determine one’s final justification-and in Shepherd’s case a person can start out ‘justified’ and end up domed if they do not produce enough personal holiness, i.e. good works.
Darryl,
Can man go to heaven without a renewed spirit?
Darryl, I’m confused. If repentance isn’t a work (perhaps even a combination of works), is it reducible to faith then? Are you saying that faith is inclusive of repentance?
Whatever your answer, Westminster XV.3 & 6 teach that pardon and mercy are received by way of repentance. This repentance includes a forsaking of sin. Dordt V.7 teaches that by repentance sinners “seek and obtain… forgiveness.” Forgiveness, the forensic remission of sins, is part and parcel of justification. Therefore, the Reformed confessions teach that repentance is a necessary condition for justification so that “none may expect pardon without it.”
I’m rather uncomfortable about using the language of conditionality with respect to moral renovation. I maintain that one must be sanctified (in addition to all the other salvific benefits) in order to enter into eschatological fellowship with the Lord, but speaking about “conditionality” opens an ambiguous door to making that work of sanctification the ground of salvation. It thereby destroys the monergism the Reformed are zealous to maintain.
Since faith is also not the ground of our justification, are you just as uncomfortable in using the word “condition” with respect to faith? See Larger Catechism 32.
Nick, Camden,
I used conditions in the context of Reformed orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism. Why else did I point DGH to the relevant primary and secondary literature? I’m fully aware that “conditions” can be used in a number of ways, but I have always spoken of “conditions” in the context of how the Reformed used the word. And if you don’t believe they used the language of conditionality then we might as well not even have this discussion.
Moreover, I asked a simple question: does DGH affirm that good works are necessary for salvation? Does he affirm with Turretin? Again, note the context: Turretin, not Bellarmine.
Read for yourself the 17th topic, third question.
As I have said a few times now, my problem is NOT his view of justification. My problem is that he makes justification co-extensive with salvation. This is not the view of Reformed orthodoxy.
You accuse me of being “sharp”, but I’m personally a little frustrated that DGH refuses to answer what I believe to be straightforward questions.
So, maybe you can answer some: why does Sinclair Ferguson accuse John Owen of compromising the gracious nature of the covenant because Owen speaks of new (evangelical) obedience as a condition of the covenant?
Or, what about Vermigli’s doctrine of JUSTIFICATION, which has a forensic element and a subsidiary “habitus” element? Frank James tried to vindicate (pardon the pun) Vermigli, but Lucas’ work has demonstrated that Vermigli’s doctrine of justification (and predestination) was different than Calvin’s. Was Vermigli a Shepherdite?
I don’t think we’ll get very far if you insist that my language sounds like Roman Catholicism or Norman Shepherd.
Bob
Nicholas, if I’m reading you correctly you are saying Turretin “would deny that good works are in any sense a condition of instrumental causality,” in the sense that faith and works would be alike instrumental causes of justification. This is the Roman Catholic view while Protestantism assigns the instrumental–or formal–cause of justification to faith alone.
There are at least four categories of causality: efficient, material, formal and final. (Perhaps there is also something like a historical-existential cause. The Greeks weren’t very big on history but we are.) Both Roman Catholics and Protestants understand Christ to be the material cause of our justification. Both agree that Christ’s work occupies a whole completely different category than other kinds of causation.
I am interested in learning how you think gospel preaching, sacraments, repentance, charity, and works (which are real conditions/ antecedents of justification in various senses) relate to justification. For instance, do sacraments fit in the instrumental category or some other?
Let me be clear. I trust in Christ and his merits alone as the meritorious ground of my acceptance before God. Yet, there are other causes of justification that while not being meritorious are nonetheless valuable and necessary. Our justification has been accomplished in history, is applied in time, and finalized at the end. Justification cannot be abstracted from either history or the other graces of salvation. Therefore, justification is intrinsically linked to the righteousness and vindication of Jesus in the past; to the intercession of Jesus, the ministry of the Holy Ghost, and the personal experience of the believer in the present; and to the final judgment of the future.
Denial, obfuscation, and neglect of these real relations serve not to exalt the free grace of God in justification but to degrade it.
Mr. Johnson,
Your term, “determining factor” is too vague. Faith is a “determining factor.” You need to learn to distinguish between meritorious and other kinds of causation, between merit and value.
Furthermore, you write: “in Shepherd’s case a person can start out ‘justified’ and end up domed if they do not produce enough personal holiness, i.e. good works.”
You are bearing false witness against the faithful servant of God, Norman Shepherd. Your misrepresentation of Mr. Shepherd is inexcusable for the following reasons:
First, Mr. Shepherd is a five-point Calvinist who explicitly denies that the elect can fall from a state of justification. He has explicitly stated this on numerous occasions. The problem is with your inability to conceive of non-meritorious causation. If there is no such thing as a non-meritorious cause, then faith being a cause combines with Christ’s work to merit justification. You, then, are guilty of mingling Christ’s merit and human merit. And this is exactly what happens when you trust in your own pure understanding of justification to save you.
Second, since Mr. Shepherd denies the very concept of merit, he does not and cannot quantify a number of works necessary for justification. Again, the problem is with your inability to conceive of non-meritorious causation.
If you are incapable of understanding Shepherd in terms of his own system you are incompetent to render judgment on the man’s theology and scholarship.
Andrew
You are wrong. Shepherd most certainly did teach that justification can be lost.Please see Donald MacLeod’s bio of W.Stanford Reid that I earlier referenced-DGH can confirm this it is in the archives at WTS.
Mr. Johnson,
A biography is a secondary source with perhaps some primary sources quoted. You need to produce a direct quotation from Shepherd to this effect. Either that or a logical demonstration from Shepherd’s direct statements needs to be made.
I have read Shepherd’s two recent books (The Call of Grace and The Way of Righteousness), and several of his articles written over the last 30 years as well as the Thirty-four Theses. Two days ago, I finished listening to about 20 hours of debate conducted by the OPC Philadelphia Presbytery examining the Theses. The recordings are available for free downloading at http://www.trinity-pres.net/audio/norman_shepherd.php.
I recall hearing Shepherd say explicitly in the recordings that he does not believe the elect can fall from the state of justification and, that his views do not imply such a possiblity. If I must, I will produce the quotation.
Shepherd’s teachings do not at all imply that a justified man can lose his justification. This is because Shepherd believes in the Perserverance of the Saints which teaches that the elect will eventually repent or else prove themselves false. Just as it is necessary for the justified man to exercise faith in order to remain in the state of justification (which he always will–by God’s grace), so, the justified man must also continually exercise repentance to receive forgiveness of sins and so remain in that state. The same is true of the use of the means of grace. For instance, the elect will never finally refuse to be baptized.
These statements must not be construed to imply that Shepherd believes repentance or any other good work shares the unique “instrumental” function that faith alone occupies.
You should desist from publicly claiming Shepherd teaches that the elect can fall from their justification. What Shepherd actually does is employ the biblical warnings against those who presumptuously believe they are justified apart from a living, active, penitent, and obedient faith, that is, from saving faith.
A final word, lest you misconstrue these statements. Though it is true that Shepherd talks about faith and good works together as faithfulness, Shepherd does not include good works in the definition of faith itself. I have understood Shepherd to teach that saving faith is faith that immediately begins to produce works of charity, penitence, and obedience. As the fruits are distinct from the tree itself, so works are distinct from faith itself. On this analogy, a good tree corresponds to saving faith.
Andrew
Reid’s biography is citing faculty minutes. This is on the record and available in the WTS archives. By the way I noticed you alluded to the Federal Vision twist ( that they picked up from Shepherd) that the elect cannot fall from their justification- BUTare there people ,i.e. the so-called ‘covenantal elect ‘as opposed to the ‘decretal elect ‘, who can start out ‘justified’ etc. but lose that justification? The record states that Shepherd said justification can be lost-so how can that be if Shepherd actually does affirm what you say?
Andrew,
You say “Just as it is necessary for the justified man to exercise faith in order to remain in the state of justification (which he always will–by God’s grace), so, the justified man must also continually exercise repentance to receive forgiveness of sins and so remain in that state.”
But then you say “These statements must not be construed to imply that Shepherd believes repentance or any other good work shares the unique “instrumental” function that faith alone occupies.”
How are those two sentences not contradictory? Thanks.
Mr. Johnson,
I dispute the accuracy of your citation. You need to back up your scholarship by providing at least a page number and quotation, There is no telling how the record got garbled between your recollection, Reid’s research, and the actual recorded context of Shepherd’s statements. In fact, I’ve heard false charges repeated to me before like, “Shepherd has never been able to come out and explicitly affirm that justification is by faith alone.”
I’m going to try to do my part by producing a quotation from the recordings that you can verify for yourself online. I have no inclination to visit Westminster to try and find your inadequately cited claim in either the biography or the minutes. Perhaps one of the readers following this exchange has the information at hand.
You are right about “decretal” vs, “covenantal” election. You need to find a statement from Shepherd where he says the elect (meaning the decretally elect, of course) can fall from justification. It should be easy to do if your charge has merit.
In fact, what has been happening, I believe, is that Norman Shepherd’s false accusers are aware of the distinction–or, something like it–yet capitalize on ignorance among the faithful about this distinction in order to tar Shepard with teaching that the decretally elect (the only election that the rank-and-file know of) can lose their justification.
Those who are confused about this distinction are either those who cannot (out of ignorance) or those who will not (out of antipathy to the communion that exists between the visible and invisible spheres of the Church) accept it.
In order to understand Shepherd rightly, one must be capable (intellectually or morally) to differentiate the election of corporate Israel from the election of particular Israelites.
This is how God works. He creates a category of people he will save (the Church), and fills it with those individuals he predestines to ultimately save. Israel will be saved, but not all Israel is Israel (Rom. 9:6). The Church is more than the aggregate of the elect and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Individual decretal election does not exhaust the mystery because the full mystery–the True Israel–is Christ himself in union with his bride.
David,
My words can only be understood in light of the distinction between conditions and instrumental causes. An instrumental cause is a condition, but not all conditions are instrumental causes.
Btw, it should be pointed out that Norman Shepherd doesn’t like to refer to either faith or works as “causes” of justification. I think his main reason for this is that people are too apt to confuse every kind of causation with meritorious causation. Again, all causes are valuable, but not every cause is meritorious.
Andrew
Are you aware that Martin Lloyd -Jones called Shepherd’s doctrine of justification ‘another gospel’? What about the OPC study report that was produced with Richard Gaffin?
Darryl, just to make sure my question didn’t get lost in the shuffle, in my comment posted September 18, 2009 at 7:37 am, I asked a question.
For your convenience, I’ve reproduced it here:
“Darryl, I’m confused. If repentance isn’t a work (perhaps even a combination of works), is it reducible to faith then? Are you saying that faith is inclusive of repentance?”
Thanks, I know that it’s the weekend already so I’m content to wait for your response.