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
Mr. Johnson,
I’m aware that Martin Lloyd-Jones thought so. But he was wrong. Are you aware of Cornelius Van Til’s statement in support of Shepherd? The text of what he said can be found here: http://www.vantil.info/articles/cvt_shepherd.html.
Regarding the OPC report, I have not read it yet. However, I’m not sanguine about the success any deliberative assembly can have in properly evaluating complex theological positions. What is necessary is a list of propositions culled from Shepherd’s writings/ recorded statements that are explicitly condemned.
Plus, there’s the political side. It all depends on votes, which in turn are influenced by various factions and extra-theological interests. Deliberative assemblies and committees are poor substitutes for real government, which is judgment rendered from a competent authority.
Finally, there is the question of what the OPC report actually demands of the OPC constituency.
Regarding Gaffin, it is inconceivable to me that the man would repudiate his entire body of scholarship and abandon the defense of his old comrade. Has Gaffin seen the light? I doubt it. Does Gaffin have differences with Shepherd? Sure. Does Gaffin think Shepherd preaches a false gospel? Not on your life.
Andrew
Your appeal to VanTil is also very misguided. Shepherd has since moved along a trajectory that would have appalled CVT-no Cov. of Works, no imputation of Christ’s active obedience.Shepherd has said he no longer adheres to the Westminster Standards which he declares to be obsolete. Do you really think, given CVT admiration for Machen(who wholeheartedly embraced all of the things Shepherd rejects)that he would support Shepherd today? Richard Gaffin also supported Shepherd back then but no longer does as his role in drafting the OPC study reort mades very clear. Has Gaffin seen the light? Yes, very clearly and so would have CVT.You on the other hand…
So you think that we earn forgiveness with repentance? Or that if we repent we are more fit for forgiveness?
Woo hoo. Your statements come from Reformed worthies. Your evasions still do not establish the relationship among faith, works, repentance, and sanctification. On the surface, a Roman Catholic or Methodist would not object to these statements.
I do not deny that good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith and I and especially my wife are happy for the growth in grace that I manifest.
Mhy problem is your objection to such a big stress on justification. If salvation is about being righteous before God, and if in justification I receive all of Christ’s righteousness, and if in my good works I am still sinning and still need Christ’s righteousness to cover my imperfections and wickedness, why don’t you recognize the centrality of what historically has been known as the material principle of the Reformation. Here’s a hint, that material principle wasn’t sanctification.
And what was the general course of life of that guy that Christ pardoned on the cross? Are you really opposed to death-cross conversions?
Jim, just to keep you from losing sleep, my doctrine of sanctification is the same as that found in the Reformed creeds where justification is prior to sanctification. I understand that some think if you put justification prior to sanctification, you are antinomian. Shepherd would have been one of those people. But when pressed after saying that the Reformed tradition had not dealt adequately with James, he ran back to the Reformed tradition for cover and said he was saying nothing different from a tradition that says good works are the inevitable fruit and evidence of saving faith.
Please do be clear. You go from condition, to ground, to cause. Any chance you want to distinguish these before talking about “causes of justification.” I don’t believe that the Standards use the word “cause” anywhere.
Nick, thanks for your remarks. If I underplay the significance of sanctification it is because for thirty years people have trying to elevate its significance and during that time we have seen various wobble and fall off the wagon of justification. Have people heard of Scott Hahn, Federal Vision, or Evangelicals and Catholics Together? No offense, but the emphasis on union has not exactly pushed back the critics of justification. In fact, some of those who are big fans of union have been among the critics of the Protestant consensus on justification.
Nick, why would ask this? What have I written that would suggest my answer is no?
Bob, I understand it is a good blog debating topic to say that someone avoids answering a direct question. At the same time, it would be good for the person making that assertion to answer all questions. Do you think there is any connection between your self-righteous sitting on the high horse of question answering and your view of good works?
So if the new obedience is imperfect, how is God, who is righteous and demands perfection, going to accept it? Having sacrificed his son, now he decides to look the other way?
Perhaps. The emphasis on union in the Gaffin school is really no different than the Puritans emphasis on union. But, I think I know this “debate” isn’t going anywhere … If you are interested in debating this in a more formal, even academic, setting, let me know.
Bob
Your questions seem to presuppose that Horton is saying that the new obedience is the meritorious ground or basis for entering glory. But I don’t think he is saying that. He is talking about gospel obedience, not legal obedience. He who endures to the end shall be saved.
Right, it hasn’t gone anywhere for 30 years. Shepherd has gone from bad to worse and people still are defending his original theses.
I’d be happy to debate this anytime, any place.
So gospel obedience doesn’t have to be perfect? According to the Confession of Faith, good works are good works and still need to conform to God’s righteous standard. The only way they can is because of Christ’s righteousness, which is why Calvin in his catechism and other Reformed Creeds are explicit in saying that the only way good works are acceptable is because God regards them through the righteousness and holiness of Christ. It is really hard, if you are a Protestant, to get very far from justification by faith alone.
Con
So are you really saying that Horton undermines justification by faith alone? I find that hard to believe myself.
DGH,
For the third time: Are good works necessary for salvation, as Turretin argued? Your first paragraph seems to deny the premise that salvation is more than justification.
This isn’t hard. Just read Turretin and let me know. That’s been my concern from the beginning of this debate and, for some reason, you’ve been able to dodge that question. Of course, if you affirm with Turretin, then I suspect your first paragraph needs to be revised to incorporate the Reformed view that good works are indeed necessary for salvation.
And, if you are feeling generous, do you hold, with Owen, that evangelical obedience is a condition of the covenant of grace? I better not push my luck, though, so please answer the first question.
Bob
Yes, it is an upside down, topsy turvy world we live in when a guy who has a reputation for being Lutherna because of his views about union is really no different from Shepherd. I’ll be reaching for the benadryl with a chser of scotch to get to sleep tonight.
Oh Bob, you are such a good historical theologian and your concern for answers is so encouraging. I know it is hard to understand, but I believe as Heidelgerg says, that I am “right with God only by “true faith in Jesus Christ. Even though my conscience (and Bob) accuses me of having grieviously sinned against all God’s commandments and of never having kept any of them, and even though I am still inclined toward all evil (recently, when I think about Bob), nevertheless, without my deserving it at all, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned (about Bob) nor been a sinner, as if I had been perfectly obedient as Christ (not Bob) was obedient for me.” [HC 60, parenthetical comments mine]
Since you like answers to questions, Bob, do you agree with that answer? If so, how do you square it with Turretin? I know how I do. I’m not sure about you.
So do you think I’m not going to pass muster on judgment day?
Maybe your sardonic tone would not have happened had we been in the same room? If you love Christ then I have no doubt you’ll pass the muster on judgment day; and, of course, we’ll love one another a lot more than we do now, which is good, don’t you think?
Darryl,
I’m not necessarily tied to the language of causation or Aristotle’s scheme of causality. In fact, there’s probably a better way to cash things out, but that task is for a light more brilliant than I.
What we need, however, is a way to relate all these things together, a way to organize the doctrine. Since justification does not exist apart from and is organically related to the other saving graces, it is necessary to arrange the elements that contribute to justification in their right order and proportion.
The formula, “Justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone,” does not a doctrine of justification make. This is because there are many more factors, or, “conditions,” that contribute to the application of justification in the believer’s experience. Some of these conditions are: Gospel preaching, sacraments, faith, and repentance. It is impossible for a confession to elaborate every relation between these factors in detail.
For the purpose of talking about justification in an orderly way, I have classed the various conditions into different groups termed “causes.”
The efficient cause is God. He is the Author and active Agent who assures the elect are brought into and preserved in the state of justification. Make no mistake about it; justification is both a verdict and a state, or status—the state of grace.
Whatever Shepherd thinks about strict merit, he cannot deny that the Father was well pleased to reward Jesus’ rendered obedience. Christ and his work alone is the ground of our justification. Those who are reluctant to speak of merit or causation refer to it simply as the “ground of justification.” Following a long tradition in western theology, I’ve identified the ground with the material (or meritorious) cause of justification.
A problem arises when well-meaning folks confuse the ground with justification’s other causes. Such people lack the tools needed to correctly assess whether someone is “denying the Gospel” or simply accounting for the other means God uses to justify sinners in the real world.
We don’t speak of faith as being the ground of justification. This would be confusing justification’s accomplishment with its application. Faith may not accomplish our justification but it is of great—the greatest—value for its procurement. I follow Protestant theologians who identify faith as justification’s formal (or instrumental) cause.
I’m inclined to think that the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments belong in the instrumental category together with faith. This would seem to be the case since preaching and sacraments are instruments in God’s hand to bring the elect to faith, which is also his instrument. Repentance may also belong to this category.
In this arrangement saving faith would not be displaced as the unique instrument by which God immediately justifies the sinner. This is quite simply because faith is the only means by which the human spirit apprehends divine revelation. Only by faith does the sinner receive and rest in Christ for his justification. And this faith possesses qualities the faith of devils lacks.
By attributing living, penitent, and obedient (I would add loving) qualities to faith, Shepherd is acknowledging that faith stands at the head and is the source of all the evangelical virtues. There is a lot to this and I’m only scratching the surface.
To our time-bound linear thinking it seems strange to talk about an end result causing something. Nevertheless, faith, sanctification, and good works are all end results of justification and conditions of it in a precise sense. God justifies sinners, not to leave them in a state of sin, but to bring them into a state of righteousness. And, righteousness is the path that justified sinners must pursue to be ultimately accepted at the Judgment. The perseverance of the saints is the final (i.e., eschatological) cause of justification.
Laymen may not want to talk about the causes/ conditions of justification, but professional theologians must. These causes/ conditions exist. It is a difficult task because some causes and/ or conditions may be antecedent, coeval, or subsequent to the application of justification in time.
The situation is complicated further by the fact that the justifying verdict of God breaks into the saints’ experience at conversion and many times thereafter culminating at the Judgment. Norman Shepherd may be reluctant to admit it, but positing an initial justification, a state of justification, and a final justification sure seems to me to point to a process. So, is justification a particle or a wave? Neither tells the complete story. Justification is a wavicle.
Norman Shepherd is a theologian who has spent a lot of time wrestling with difficult passages and has made an attempt to reconcile certain paradoxes in Scripture. Anyone who does not go to the Bible, who does not interact with Shepherd’s exegetical arguments, and who does not test his categories, but bangs the table with the Confession, is quite simply not qualified to judge the man or his views.
To deal seriously with Shepherd, his exegeses must be refuted and an alternate scheme should be proposed. What I’ve attempted here is to appreciatively and critically appropriate Shepherd’s insights, leaving aside what I’ve found unhelpful.
I’ve made an attempt to understand Shepherd. I don’t find him nearly as ambiguous or difficult to follow as others allege. In fact, the man speaks and writes very clearly. His outspoken enemies don’t understand him because they neither study nor believe what the Scriptures say.
Not all faith is saving faith. The Scriptures say that a man who does not repent, who performs no good works, and who hates God’s people will be condemned at the Judgment regardless of what he believes intellectually about Jesus Christ. Such a man might even have believed he had been justified by his faith alone.
Classic sophistry.
Mr. Johnson:
1) Why is an appeal to Van Til misguided while an appeal to the current incarnation of Richard Gaffin is legit? I do believe Van Til would be supportive of Shepherd if he were alive (and in full possession of his faculties) today, though he would differ on some significant points for sure. In fact, if Van Til and Bahnsen were alive today, the Reformed landscape would look a lot different than it does now.
2) So, you discern a trajectory of Shepherd’s views. As far as I understand it, Shepherd has been denying the COW as you understand it from early on. A denial of the IAO seems to logically follow.
3) Norman Shepherd declares the Westminster Standards to be obsolete? Do you have a citation for that? I don’t take second-hand information very seriously, especially coming from someone who demonstrates ignorance about the real differences among Reformed theologians on these matters.
4) You may be correct about Gaffin. I’ll check out the OPC report.
5) BTW, I found the citation you failed to provide for MacLeod’s biography on Reid. Excerpts from the book are available at Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=1iJ5bjGJtt4C&dq=Macleod+Reid&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=hnS3SpSyLYb2sQO3gaHRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q=&f=false.
Your “proof” that Shepherd stated a person could fall away from justification (found on p. 267) while addressing the OPC Philadelphia Presbytery, is basically an impression that Reid had of what Shepherd said and channelled through Macleod. No direct quotation or footnote is present to substantiate what was actually said.
I’m going to have more to say on this and other observations concerning MacLeod’s portrayal of Shepherd.
Andrew
Have you read any of the following: ‘Justification: Understanding The Classical Reformed Doctrine.’; Rowland S. Ward, ‘God & Adam: Reformed Theology and The Creation Covenant’ Jeong Koo Jeon, ‘ Covenant Theology and Justification By Faith : The Shepherd Controversy and Its Impact’;O. Palmer Robertson, ‘The Curreent Justification Controversy’? By the way, I was a student during this time at WTS, (1978-181), so I know a little bit more than you think I do about this subject.
the first title is by J.V. Fesko.
It’s called casuistry. It’s a commonplace of scholasticism of whatever variety, and quite necessary.
Calvin called the kind of stuff you posted about endless qualifictions about justification sophistry.Read his anaylsis of Trent.
Mr. Johnson,
I’m not going to bicker with you. If you want to take issue with any of the points I’ve made, have at it.
I’ve made an honest attempt to set out a comprehensive position that accounts for all the main factors.
You’re welcome to propose a superior alternative.
You suffer from illusions of grandiose, Andrew. Which is not a bad as the poor folk who come to you for help in understanding so important a truth as justification by faith alone.
Something I was sadly remiss to mention: the final cause of justification is first and foremost the Glory of God. I follow Edwards (and Piper & WC LC Q#1) here in recognizing that the greatest happiness of man and God’s glory are one and the same thing. I forget which Church father said, “The glory of God is man fully alive!”
The Lord Jesus said, “I have come that they might have life and that they might have it abundantly!” (Jn. 10:10) and, “the bread also which I give for the life of the world is my flesh” (Jn. 6:51).
Okay. But it seems to me that the form of your sentence, “Just as … so …,” implies that you are speaking of the same kind of condition in both cases.
David,
Thanks for the chance to clarify. I apologize if I wasn’t clear.
As you’re aware by now, I was arguing by analogy from faith to further support my contention that repentance is also a condition in the economy of justification.
Yet, faith remains in the first place. Faith, being the faculty that hears the life-giving word of forgiveness and acceptance comes alive through that word.
Faith, then, as spiritual life, becomes the animating principle that renders repentance acceptable to the Lord.
Andrew
You can talk about the Glory of God until the cows come home… but the gospel that you have put forward places you under what the apostle Paul declared to be an anathema.
Bob, why is faith missing from all of your statements? Maybe you’d mention it if we were in the same room.
Along with GLW Johnson, O. Palmer Robertson also must “desist from publicly claiming Shepherd teaches that the elect can fall from their justification” since he makes the exact same point in his book on the Shepherd controversy Johnson mentiones:
“In attempting to make relevant the significance of the movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old Testament, it may be that Mr. Shepherd has allowed the typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too much control over the manner in which the New Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this perspective on election, a corresponding perspective emerged in his development of the idea of “justification” that actually could be lost.”
Mr. Johnson,
Are you a Clarkian when it comes to the definition of faith? Do you believe and preach that justification is by belief alone?
Do you deny that the faith that justifies is a living, active, penitent, and obedient faith? Conversely, do you affirm that saving faith may be dead, inactive, impenitent, and disobedient?
Do you deny that repentance is absolutely necessary to receive and retain the forgiveness of sins? Conversely, do you affirm that forgiveness is offered and guaranteed apart from the condition of repentance?
Do you deny that if we confess others their trespasses against us, then we too will receive forgiveness? Conversely, do you affirm that if we do not forgive others we can expect forgiveness anyway?
Do you deny that forgiveness of sin is essentially judicial pardon and essential to justification? Conversely, do you deny or suppress the truth that forgiveness of sin is essential to justification?
Do you deny that if we confess our sins the Lord is faithful and just to forgive (judicially pardon) our sins throughout our lives?
Do you affirm, preach, or imply that the forgiveness of sins received at conversion is sufficient for all future sins and that there is no salvific necessity to seek pardon for sins committed afterward?
If so, then you deny the explicit teaching of the Lord Jesus, you are not a true shepherd, and your gospel is false.
Gee, all this time I thought justification was by belief (pistis) alone? Clearly if Shepherd and his followers are right, I guess I was wrong all these many years. Maybe the way to justification is through our active, penitent, etc., faithful obedience. Heck, I guess Rome was right all along. For faith to save it must work. Thanks Andrew.
Gerety,
You need to attend to the difference between “obedient faith” and “obedience.” The two terms connote different things. The first signifies that faith possesses a particular quality. The second signifies works.
Andrews, so what’s the point of insisting that faith must be obedient, living, and active? Can you see how some might interpret that as a way of getting our effort and work into our being accepted as righteous? If you’re not trying to do this, please explain. Where exactly is all the antinomian Christianity where justification by faith alone is proclaimed? I get it that there are plent of churches where antinomianism exists. But they are precisely the ones where justification by faith alone is dead.
Here’s the Norman Shepherd quotation as promised.
I don’t always keep my blog promises, but I feel it’s important in this case to provide direct statements by this vilified man so that impartial observers may be able to judge for themselves what he actually says and believes.
Mr. Johnson has cited an opinion—not an actual quotation from Shepherd—made by historian A. Donald MacLeod about what Shepherd said at some point during the OPC Philadelphia Presbytery’s examination of the 34 Theses. MacLeod says Shepherd “affirmed that it was possible for a person to lose their justification” (W. Stanford Reid: An Evangelical Calvinist in the Academy, p. 267). This is pure hearsay until someone produces the statement Shepherd actually made.
The quotation I am providing, which is transcribed from an actual recording of the November 1978 presbytery’s meeting, is a statement Shepherd made during the presbytery’s examination of Thesis #21 from his 34 Theses.
For the reader’s convenience, here’s the text of Thesis 21:
“The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).”
A facsimile of the original 34 theses as submitted to the Philadelphia presbytery may be found here: http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ns13-1978-11-18NSLetterToThePresbyteryOfPhiladelphia34ThesesOnJustification.pdf. The theses begin on page 4.
The audio recording of this transcript can be found here: http://www.trinity-pres.net/audio/ns22-34ThesesOnJustification1978.mp3 at 34:46.
Again, Shepherd’s statement is spoken in the context of the presbytery’s discussion regarding Thesis 21. Here are his words as accurately as I can render them (minus the uhs and occasional stutters):
“But I would like to take up especially his [Arthur Kuschke’s] objection… and Mr. Tyson’s objections and try to deal briefly with them, but before I do that, I want to explain the origin of this language of continuity.
“If we were to take out the word ‘continuing in a.’ If we were just to take these words out of the thesis, what you would end up with is something like this: ‘His obedience (the believer’s obedience), which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness is necessary to a state of justification.”
“And that would suggest that it is necessary—or at least it suggests to me—that it would be necessary prior to entering into a state of justification. It would certainly raise the specter of thinking of obedience as a kind of ground or cause for our justification. And, it was to avoid that error that I inserted the idea of “continuing in a state of justification” to indicate that whatever obedience is forthcoming on the part of the believer is forthcoming after his conversion, and, therefore, is not prior to his conversion and that obedience, then, is simply the expression of his faith. And so, it was in order to guard the purity of the doctrine that the expression appeared. [Shepherd’s emphasis]
“And then, quite to my amazement and surprise, the suggestion came to me by a good friend, ‘Well, that may suggest that maybe these people don’t continue.” And that was the furthest thing from my mind when I wrote the word “continuing,” and, but it’s apparent that’s the way it’s being read. And I deeply regret that and want to distantiate [sic] myself from a conception that a believer could—that is, a true believer who is regenerate—that such a believer could fall from a state of justification. [Emphasis added]
“And, I think that I made that I’ve made that clear… if you’ll turn to Thesis 32… which conveys much the same idea as Thesis 21. [Shepherd reads] ‘The election of God stands firm so that sinners who are united to Christ, justified, and saved, can never come into condemnation… (and, that is my confession and I think on that point we are all agreed. I do want to make perfectly clear that that is foundational in my thinking. And then you get another ‘but’, and it’s a significant ‘but.’) [he continues to read] …within the sphere of covenant life, election does not cancel out the responsibility of the believer to persevere in penitent and obedient faith since only they who endure to the end will be saved. [Emphasis added]
“Now, that’s what those two scripture references [Matt. 24:13 & Mark 13:13] say. Those are the words of our Lord: they that endure to the end will be saved. We are required to persevere—to endure (that’s the hupomone [sp?]—the perseverance and the endurance. What I’m saying here is that we must with all our hearts assert the election of God—the sovereignty of grace—which cannot be undone. [Emphasis added]
“But we must not equate what the Reformed faith says about the sovereignty of grace and the definitiveness of God’s election—we must not equate that—with fatalism! And we must not equate that with Greek determinism! It’s not a Greek idea of determinism that is expressed by the Reformed doctrine of election.
“And therefore, when Scripture comes to us with the doctrine of election, it comes to us, not with a… threat to our existence, but it comes to us with a doctrine on which we can build. It is quite precisely because God’s election stands firm that we are encouraged to persevere in the way of righteousness and truth. And you cannot read a single page of the New Testament without running into that exhortation to perseverance again and again, as Mr. Tyson indicated characterized his preaching from week to week. And he stressed the fact that his preaching was characterized by warnings to the congregation to persevere. But why is that warning so serious? It’s so serious because of the consequences which are attached to not persevering. [Shepherd’s Emphasis]
“Now, if you look at the terminology of the thesis you will see that there is nothing in the thesis (21) to indicate that those who are the elect of God and have been justified that they will not continue. [There’s] nothing there to suggest that they won’t continue. All that is said is, that they must persevere in the way of truth and righteousness and that that perseverance is necessary to continuing in a state of justification. [Shepherd’s Emphasis]
“Now we can say that those who are regenerated, and who are justified, will persevere. God will see to it. And that’s perfectly true. But that’s not a truth that you can take and say, ‘Alright then, it doesn’t make any difference as far as my attitude and my doing is concerned. If I’m in, I’m in; I can’t get out. If I’m out, I can’t get in unless God puts me there. That’s fatalism, but it’s not the Reformed faith.
“And I can show that to you out of the Scriptures from a number of different passages…
(Transcript ends at 41:32.)
This statement is provided to show that (at least at the time of the examination of the 34 Theses), Shepherd did not believe his position entailed that true regenerate believers could fall from their state of justification.
I challenge Norman Shepherd’s accusers here to produce any verifiable statement from Shepherd that says true believers can lose their justification. Even one of Shepherd’s statements that necessarily implies such will do.
The reason why you’ll never find such an admission from Shepherd is because he isn’t forced into it. His position doesn’t logically require it. Why not? Because God has ordained a particular path by which he ultimately saves his people—the path of righteousness. And he is perfectly capable of sustaining his elect along this path. There is no other way by which Heaven can be reached. Read Pilgrim’s Progress.
Easy obeyism? Hardly. The way is most difficult for each and every one of us.
Mr Matthews,
You do know that NO one within the Reformed heritage stands with you on the supposition that faith includes obedience. Obedience is the necessary fruit of faith. Faith is, according to the Westminster Standards, “receive and resting upon Christ alone as He is offered to us in the Gospel.” That doesn’t sound like the definition you, Norman Shepherd or the FV men propose. This is the heart of the issue. The good works that are the necessary evidence of my justification are just that, “necessary evidence.” Calvin was the one who coined the phrase, “Faith is the root, works are the fruit. (see his comments on James 2)”
Darryl,
Surely you agree with these statements:
“Wherefore, in this matter [i.e. justification] we are not speaking of a fictitious, empty, lazy and dead faith, but of a living, quickening faith. It is and is called a living faith because it apprehends Christ who is life and makes alive, and shows that it is alive by living works.” Second Helvetic Confession, ch. 15.
“For there is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved …. Thus it is said of Simon the magician, that he ‘believed,’ Acts viii.13, when he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity” (Owen, Works, Justification, 5:79).
Bob
Darryl,
To address your questions,
First, the universal pastoral need: All believers at all times constantly need to be encouraged to pursue holiness (without which no man will see the Lord) and pay attention to the examples that are included in Scripture as warnings for our instruction (1 Cor. 10:1-13). It is by means of these warnings that God keeps his elect from falling.
Some believers may be given the grace of full assurance at their conversion. These would be extraordinary saints indeed. For most Christians, faith is tested over a lifetime (at least over many years). Is my faith true, or, is my faith mere notional assent? Will I overcome my sin or will I be pulled further and further into the vortex of degradation and depair? It is only over time that a person proves himself true–to be truly of God’s elect.
Second, the contemporary problem: Pastors who tell their people that they are justified (and assurred of salvation) simply because they repeat a doctrinal formula (or have prayed the “sinner’s prayer”, or feel “sorrowful” over their sin) are not doing their people any favors. There is no short cut to get to assurance faster.
I’m sure you’re aware of the differences between Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints. But to sum it up, Eternal Security, which comes out of dispensationalism, is the teaching that if someone prays the sinner’s prayer and “really meant it” at the time, he’s in. It’s all good; he’s going to Heaven and it doesn’t matter what he does with the rest of his life.
The Reformed fathers who formulated the Perseverance of the Saints were wiser than that. The elect will inevitably persevere in sanctification. If they don’t, they prove themselves false. Earlier, Calvin held a category for temporary faith.
Eternal Security tends to inhibit the Christian’s ability to tell if he is true or false by encouraging him to disregard the significance of his fruits. Perseverance of the Saints aids the Christian’s self-understanding by providing him the criteria (i.e., perseverance) by which he can tell whether he is a true believer or not.
Third, the Reformed problem: What is the Reformed demographic in developed countries? My guess is that Reformed are not exceptionally fruitful in multiplying their offspring. They are probably at about the same rate as the general population: less than sufficient to maintain the level they are at now. So, how do Reformed churches grow (or even survive)? By making converts. Where are the converts from? Other Christian “churches.” Which churches? Evangelical or Roman Catholic. At present, I’d say there’s probably many more converts coming in from Evangelicalism.
So, when you have an influx of Evangelicals coming into Reformed churches, what’s one of the theological bridges? To theological unsophisticates, Perseverance of the Saints sure looks like Eternal Security. A lot of people have become Five-Point Calvinists because they thought Eternal Security implies Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, etc. What you have in the Reformed churches today are a whole lot of TULIES instead of TULIPS!–people who think they are eternally elect on the evidence that they once prayed the sinner’s prayer. These people have been migrating into the Reformed churches for decades.
I was one of them, once. And I, too, used predestination as an excuse to live life the way I wanted to, without actively pursuing sanctification.
The TULIES no longer appeal to the sinner’s prayer for their evidence. They have left revivalism and are “Reformed” now. What do they appeal to? The recitation of a precise doctrinal formula. They are justified by a faith in justification by faith alone.
There’s a second factor that exasperates the situation: converts into Reformed Christianity tend to be intellectuals. Intellectuals always have difficulty translating theory into practice and intention into action (contra John Robbins, the Greatest Defender of the “Greatest-Theologian-of-the-Twentieth-Century”), quite simply because they spend so much time theorizing. At some point the theorizing should end and activity take place.
But, the theorizing doesn’t have to end. For one person, Heaven is an endless library in which he will wander for eternity. For others, Heaven is a social gathering where they’ll sit around drinking single malt scotch, smoking fine cigars, and talking about how they can live the Epicurean life because they are covered by the righteousness of Christ. For others still, Heaven is a gigantic lecture hall where the great theologians and great Christian intellectuals from every age of the Church will present papers or hold debates on abstruse theological points.
Perhaps, I should stop writing now and take care of some practical matters before the evening is entirely gone. The irony! The irony!
Mr. Batzig:
I never said faith includes obedience (in the sense of good works), and neither has Shepherd. You need to distinguish between obedience as a quality of faith and obedience as a work of faith. Haven’t you confused the two?
The real heart of the issue is that Shepherd has developed the doctrine of Justification in a biblically rich way that a lot of people haven’t understood.
Shepherd has added an eschatological element to the doctrine. In Shepherd’s hands, the classical formulation now reads:
Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, in the way of righteousness alone.
The world has changed.
Bob, YOU DON’T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
YOU DON’T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
YOU DON’T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
So I’ll asnwer yours about the Second Helvetic if you’ll answer mine about Heidelberg Cat. #60.
Andrew, thanks for your answer. But it is not at all reassuring. When you write, “Will I overcome my sin or will I be pulled further and further into the vortex of degradation and depair? It is only over time that a person proves himself true–to be truly of God’s elect,” this was precisely the sort of doubt that Martin Luther confronted and that the Reformation answered with the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Mr. Matthews,
You are correct that Shepherd has developed the doctrine of justification in a way that those who hold to the Reformed doctrine of justification do not understand. It is preceisely because he has ADDED an eschatological element to the biblical doctrine that we believe he has taken away from it. I think you might have misunderstood the point of my previous comment. Do you think that obedience is a part of fidei? Shepherd and the Federal Vision think so. Doug Wilson says as much in his article “A Pauline Take on the New Perspective. (Credenda/Agenda vol. 15, issue 5)” Expounding the nature of the three-fold definition of faith Wilson says, “It is the essential nature of fiducia to trust gladly in everything that God has spoken in His Word—whether law or gospel, Old or New Testaments, poems or prose, odd-numbered pages or even. This means that fides salvifica is related to ongoing fidelity, trust or obedience in the same way that a body is related to breathing. Without a body, there is nothing to breathe with. Without breathing, there is something that needs to be buried.” Wilson, as is true of Shepherd, lodges obedience or faithfulness in the third part of the essence of faith, namely, fiducia or trust. This is not what the Reformers and Puritans meant by fiducia. They meant what is expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith’s definition of faith–”receiving and resting on Christ alone as He is offered to us in the Gospel.” That is a largely passive act. It is not what we do, it is what Christ has done and our appropriation of it by faith.
Andrew
Not that it will do any good since you are determined to canonize Shepherd’s teachings as being infallible- but O. Palmer Robertson ( who was on the faculty at WTS during the Shepherd controversy0 highlight this aspect of Shepherd’s position at the Downingtown conference which was held in the Fall of 1978. Those present were Ed Clowney,Robert Strimple, Norman Shepherd, Robert Godfrey, Richard Gaffin, Meredith Kline and Palmer Robertson. “After several hours of discussion, a general sense of progres in understanding seemed to prevail. But the discussion then took a sudden turn. In response to a remark from Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Shepherd affirmed that he believed it was possible for a person to lose his justification.” (THE CURRENT JUSTIFICATION CONTROVERSY, p.39). This is the natural conclusion that flows out of Shepherd insistance that walking in the way of obedience was absloutely necessary in order to maintain justification.
Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, in the way of righteousness alone
And how is this not a scheme of justification by faith and works? Or, even remotely Christian, much less Reformed?
To save some time, Brian Schwertley has put together the following string of relevant Shepherd quotes in his article: “Refutation of the Auburn Avenue Theology’s Rejection of Justification by Faith Alone” that might highlight this “way of righteousness alone” Matthews and Shepherd have in mind:
“The personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14)….”
“Good works done from true faith, according to the law of God…are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22: Gal. 6:7-9)”
“…faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25)”
“….By way of repentance men become doers of the law who will be justified and enter into eternal life (Rom. 2:7).”
And, let me just add, Mr. Batzig’s point above about Wilson’s conflation of obedience into his definition of faith is spot on and no small point that seems to be lost on too many otherwise well intentioned opponents of the FV who have tragically given Wilson a pass on the vitals of the faith as they touch on JBFA and imputation. There is simply no such thing as JBFA in the Federal Vision and most certainly not in Shepherd. It’s no accident that Matthews here suggests that there is somehow a qualitative difference between belief and faith when they’re the same thing and, biblically, are simply translations of the same Greek word. To believe in someone is to have faith in what they say. To have faith in someone is to believe what they say. The words mean the same thing…except within the FV. FWIW Wilson too tries to make the same fallacious argument by suggesting that faith and belief are somehow qualitatively different and does the same backhanded slam against G.H. Clark I suppose in the hope that all Vantillians will, with Pavlovian predictability, simply nod their heads in agreement. Admittedly the strategy does seem to work. How can so many be fooled by such a simple, deadly, and patently Romanish deception is simply terrifying to me.
Sean
Good grief- why you insist on ALWAYS dragging CVT into the Shepherd/ FV mess is a source of real consternation. It is guilt by association as I tried to my clear to Andrew.