Over 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.
Old Life 
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I have and think it should be required reading for anyone associated with WTS.
LikeLike
DGH
SOmehow your email address got deleted and I want tpo pass along to you a couple of things on this very subject.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I sure hope you’re not identifying justification with salvation.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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)?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Interesting quote. I think Horton sums up what many here are concerned to maintain. Thanks for reposting.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Can man go to heaven without a renewed spirit?
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
So you think that we earn forgiveness with repentance? Or that if we repent we are more fit for forgiveness?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Nick, why would ask this? What have I written that would suggest my answer is no?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
So are you really saying that Horton undermines justification by faith alone? I find that hard to believe myself.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.â€
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.
LikeLike
Classic sophistry.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
the first title is by J.V. Fesko.
LikeLike
It’s called casuistry. It’s a commonplace of scholasticism of whatever variety, and quite necessary.
LikeLike
Calvin called the kind of stuff you posted about endless qualifictions about justification sophistry.Read his anaylsis of Trent.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Bob, why is faith missing from all of your statements? Maybe you’d mention it if we were in the same room.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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).â€
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.â€
“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.
LikeLike
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)”
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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)….â€
“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)â€
“…faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25)â€
“….By way of repentance men become doers of the law who will be justified and enter into eternal life (Rom. 2:7).â€
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Gary – I’m surprised you even used my name. But don’t get your shorts in a bunch. I realize you have a blind side, we all do, but there is a very definite reason that whenever these guys try and draw a distinction between faith and belief and thereby deride justification by *belief* alone that they always have to mention Clark, Clarkians, or even John Robbins. FWIW James Jordon gets it which is why he described the FV fight as the “Clark Controversy with feet on it.”. They’re trying to capitalize precisely on the biases and prejudices of people just like you. IMO they’ve been very successful in this regard with any number of TRs. Beyond that, I’m thrilled that Mr. Batzig has picked up on Wilson’s slight of hand concerning the nature of faith when so many others have been seemingly and utterly fooled.
LikeLike
Sean aka SR
Blind spot huh? What about the one that both you and Robbins suffer from- Van Til is the source of all evil? According to Robbins CVT wasn’t even a Christian-something the late Gordon Clark would have dismissed out of hand.I know because he told me.
LikeLike
One more thing- so you take Jordon’s assessment as having merit? Wilson declared this was simply a renewal of the old debate about theonomy -and CVT is on record dismissing the theonomic crowd as being representative of his views. Of course facts like that have never stopped you from slandering CVT.
LikeLike
According to Robbins CVT wasn’t even a Christian
You love to endlessly rehash things don’t you Gary? Could it be because you forget things we have already discussed? As you might recall, I asked Dr. Robbins directly about this and he emphatically denied your charge. Besides, after all the many things Dr. Robbins has written on Van Til and his followers over the years you’d think this claim would be somewhere published? But, sadly, the only thing we have to go on is another one of your rusted memories, like the one where you claimed Gordon Clark personally told you that Ned Stonehouse, and not C. Van Til, “was the guy in the black hat†in the whole controversy. When I pointed out the many citations throughout Clark’s many books and articles that identify Van Til was the man in black, with nary a mention of Ned, your response was to personally attack me. And, as I’m sure you will recall, even as late as Clark’s final book – a book Clark arranged to be published posthumously so he could answer his critics one last time from the grave – Clark wrote:
“Cornelius Van Til . . . furnished the basic content of A Complaint.â€
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.â€
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?
LikeLike
Robbins made that remark about CVT at his book table at the regional ETS meetin which was being held at PCB back around 1990-91. Fowler White and Steve Nichols were present.
LikeLike
Darryl:
What aren’t you reassured about? Do you think that Shepherd’s teaching undermines assurance? That hasn’t been my experience. In fact, I’ve been enormously encouraged by the thought that true faith is in the world, that it is not reducible to the merely natural phenomena of belief. True faith exists.
It may well have been the case that the early Reformers identified faith with assurance. Yet, the two are distinct. One may exercise saving faith, be justified, and have little or no assurance. The WCoF recognizes this in Chapter XVIII. The Confession also does not identify assurance as the essence of faith as you seem to do.
As Shepherd writes in his new book, The Way of Righteousness:
“Faith can waver; it can be stronger or weaker at some times than it is at other times. Because obedience is the fruit of faith, my assurance will rise as I walk closer to the Lord in my love for him and surrender to his will. And because disobedience is the fruit of unbelief, my assurance will diminish as I wander away from the Lord in disobedience. We must cultivate assurance of grace and salvation in the same way that we cultivate faith, namely, by attention to the word of God, by the use of the sacraments that sign and seal the truth of that word, and by faithfulness to that word” (p. 89).
Darryl, your problem is with Scripture and universal Christian experience, not Norman Shepherd or even Roman Catholicism.
There is no syllogism that can guarantee absolute assurance every moment of our lives. The Christian faith is not for disembodied minds that cogitate their way to beatitude by perpetually thinking, “I believe, therefore I am elect.” We are human beings.
LikeLike
Mr. Batzig,
As for faith, it is passive in the sense that it receives Christ. But faith is active as well. For instance, faith knows and diligently seeks God (cf. Heb. 11:6). Faith works through love (Gal. 5:6). Read the entirety of Hebrews 11 to see what faith can do.
You may not want to talk about what faith does beyond “receiving” and “resting.” I encourage you, then, to put the Bible away and preach directly from the Confession since you seem to think it contains everything–since the tripartite definition plumbs the whole depth of what faith is.
Shepherd is very clear. There is no justification apart from an obedient faith, yet neither faith nor works merit anything. Christ alone is the ground of justification.
If you are preaching faith without the attached biblical warnings you are putting souls at grave peril by encouraging presumption. I meet nominal Christians on an almost daily basis who think they are okay just because they prayed the sinner’s prayer once. We are not living in Luther’s day; we are living in a time when most people think God accepts them without respect to how they live their lives.
As for justification, Norman Shepherd has not added to the biblical doctrine. The eschatological element is there in Scripture. Do you deny that believers will be justified at the Final Judgment?
A comprehensive doctrinal treatment of justification will include what I call the final cause(s) of justification: the sanctification and glorification of the elect. God justifies for a purpose.
I must bow out of this discussion, so you’ll have the last word.
Darryl, thanks for providing the forum for this discussion.
LikeLike
Scott Clark—As the medieval church accepted the premise that God can only declare one righteous if that one is actually, intrinsically, inherently, righteous (God says what he says because you are what you are) they also developed a corollary: a distinction between initial and final justification.
In the medieval and modern Roman system, one is said to be initially justified in baptism. If one survived infancy (infant mortality rates in the middle ages and through the 16th century were very high) then one was said to have an “unformed faith” until after the grace of confirmation. Following that one is now obligated to final justification based upon inherent, intrinsic, personal sanctity. This holiness was (and is) said to be the fruit of grace, it is Spirit-wrought (condign merit) and cooperation with grace. Faith is now said to be “formed by love” (i.e., grace and cooperation with grace). At the final judgment after one has achieved perfection (following purgatory in most cases; unless one had a plenary indulgence!)
The motive of this system is obvious: To get Christians to behave themselves. It was a complete failure. It didn’t work. …. An early 16th-century council complained that the Roman church was corrupt in head and members! When Luther traveled to Rome, his one trip away from “Germany” (there wasn’t any such thing really in the 16th century), he found corruption on a scale that he could not imagine. He expected to find the holy city, the city of God, a city shining on a hill (7 of them!) but instead he found indulgences for sale to a degree that dwarfed Tetzel’s operation in Germany. The city was rife with prostitution (the scene in the recent Luther film captures this nicely). The principal customers were pilgrims and priests.
The theory is that, if we want Christians to behave, we must suspend their final standing before God upon good behavior or else they have no incentive to be good. The theory is that the best incentive to behave is fear of damnation…. The system was a total failure. The pre-Reformation popes were mostly corrupt. Some of them were outright murderers and adulterers
http://heidelblog.net/2013/08/justification-and-vindication/
LikeLike