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.

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.

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?

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.