4.k. Law and GospelReformed theology is characterized by an emphasis on God's covenants. There is, however, a debate about how covenant theology is to be interpreted. In the tradition of the Westminster Standards works and grace are contrasted and two basic covenants are identified, one of works and one of grace. In this tradition, many adherents identify two opposing principles of law and promise (or law and Gospel) that are contradictory ways of acceptance with God. The above-mentioned Dutch Reformed theologians argue that law and promise are integral to all God's covenants, and are in harmony. They become opposing principles only when the law is misused by those who seek to merit justification through works of the law. In line with this school of thought, Shepherd says:
In the Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic covenants law and gospel are not set over against one another as mutually exclusive principles of inheritance. They do not embody antithetical principles of faith and works, or grace and merit. What we have instead are gracious covenants with two sides; promise and obligation. All that is promised is the pure gift of grace, the undeserved and unmerited favor of God. Promises are received not by the merit of works, not as an obligation that is due to perfect performance. What is promised is a gift of grace and it is received by a living, active, and obedient faith (Shepherd, Law and Gospel, 2004, 5-6).
It is not the importance of perfect obedience that is being questioned, but that God repays this obedience as a debt he owes to man for merits earned. Schilder explains that, although satisfaction to God's justice can be described as payment, this does not mean that something is earned by it. In relationship to God payments to satisfy his justice are the fulfillment of covenant duties and not of earning merits. Whether as sons or servants, we only perform what is our duty, and this, in faith. God is not an administrator of contracts who pays out to each according to what he has earned:
. . . How often have we already pointed out that, in the strict sense, "earning' is impossible for man? When Adam, in his righteous state, makes payment to God's righteousness, does he then earn thereby? The answer is, no, isn't it? . . .Without a doubt, to pay [fulfill obligations or make satisfaction, RB] is still not the same as to earn [or merit, RB]. As it concerns us, to pay is, among other things, to consciously deny the possibility of having personal merits, to, in faith, acknowledge God's favor and later, that is, after the fall, his grace, as the only source of our will to pay, our ability to pay, and our actual payments. To pay is to live from God's hand. It is in the act of paying (in which we are recognized as a party together with God in a two-sided covenant) that we also continually bring that offering of our lips by which we praise him as the first party and with thankfulness experience and acknowledge God's sovereign acts of lordship in his one-sided disposition of the covenant.
. . . Just as one deposits his goods in a savings account and later the bank administration repays to each his own, so the Jews viewed self-righteous man as laying up treasures for himself and God later promptly repaying to those who had this right. Man pays from what is his and God returns the goods deposited in the heavenly bank with interest and profit. . . . Oh, those Jews! And oh, those Calvinists with their payment terminology! They made their Father's house into an office for administering contracts!. . . Even the thought itself, that God should be something like the Excellent Administrator [who pays out to each one his due for work performed, RB], is in conflict with true payment to his righteousness. If he deserves the name of Father, also in Paradise, then it is also especially faith in him, as the one who gives his revelation about the payment a child owes to his father (one that does not reckon credits, yet is strictly righteous): "So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded," in other words, when you have perfectly paid the requirements of God's righteousness, "say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty' " (Luke 17:10). Perfect payment to God's righteousness (response to the law) is, for mere man, the opposite of merit. . . .
For where God requires of man the offer of the heart in all his activities, there true payment can never be uncoupled from "faith, hope, and love," and what more may be man's duty. Precisely in this unchangeable way, it is again so clearly evident that God did not make a contract with man, but a covenant, and that he did not set aside his covenant (Schilder, II, 1949, 23-26) [Translation mine. RB. Italics original.].
We see in Schilder's presentation how speaking of faith and love in the Adamic covenant does not undermine justice and the duty of perfect fulfillment of law. Also, God's law is not minimized by denying a quid pro quo works/merit principle. Promise and law, faith and works, love and justice are in complete harmony in God's covenants. The law is a perfect law of liberty, not only the ground for condemnation and it is not an instrument for calculating merits that place God in our debt. It is sinful misuse of the law that is condemned by Paul in his stark contrast of faith and works.
Structurally, pre-fall and post-fall covenants are the same, even though their fulfillment is radically impacted by sin. Before the fall, there is only love, no condemnation, and man is perfectly obedient. After the fall, man is hateful by nature and condemned by God in his justice. Satisfaction to God's justice is only through his mercy in Christ, only through Christ's righteousness.
Shepherd develops the theme of all God's covenants being gracious and having two sides in the first part of his book, The Call of Grace. He summarizes how these features are present in the Abrahamic covenant as follows:
The Abrahamic covenant was not unconditional, but neither were its conditions meritorious. This is the light that is shed on the way of salvation by the biblical teaching on covenant.
In the Abrahamic covenant, there are promises and obligations. The blessings of the covenant are the gifts of God's free grace, and they are received by way of a living and active faith. Salvation is by grace through faith. By grace and through faith! Those are the two parts of the covenant (Shepherd, 2000, 22).
All God's covenants are of grace. All consist in promises and obligations. All spell out the mutual loyalty of the two parties, God and his people. The Lord's commitments of love and communion are conveyed in his promises. His people's commitments are stipulated in obligations expressed by God in requirements, precepts and laws. The fulfillment of these obligations does not put the Lord of the covenant in debt to repay his people for their performance or production. Both parties in the covenants are debtors to their own vows. However, the parties are not equal. The only way the people can make vows and keep them is through God working in them both to will and to do. This dependence on God is expressed in faith. God's promised blessings are received by his people, not as earned rewards, but in the way of faith, faith that is expressed in obedience.
Shepherd sees the structural similarity of the covenants in all having the same principle of inheritance, namely, that of children who remain true to their Father in believing obedience. Not only Abraham lived by faith, but also Adam, and so did Jesus.
When Schilder and Shepherd call attention to faith as the way of life with God, they are thinking of man's response to God's revelation and man's total dependence on him as the source of everything. For repentant sinners this faith includes resting in Christ as God's provision of substitutionary atonement for sin, but that is only part of the general concept of faith in God. When Shepherd calls attention to Jesus' faith, he does not think of faith for the pardon of sin. Rather, he wants us to see that the man Jesus also trusted his Father and, therefore, rejoiced to do his will. As man, Jesus, too, was dependent on his heavenly Father and lived by believing and obeying every word from the mouth of God. So Shepherd writes:
All of this is made possible through the covenantal righteousness of Jesus Christ. His was a living, active, and obedient faith that took him all the way to the cross. This faith was credited to him as righteousness.
Galatians 3:16: says, "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed." That seed was Jesus Christ. Because Jesus was obedient unto death, even death on the cross, the promises are now being fulfilled. Galatians 3:14 says that the blessing given to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus.
Nothing demonstrates the conditional character of the Abrahamic covenant more clearly than the way in which the promises of that covenant are ultimately fulfilled. They are fulfilled through the covenantal loyalty and obedience of Jesus Christ.
But just as Jesus was faithful in order to guarantee the blessing, so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the blessing (Shepherd, 2000, 19).
The Abrahamic covenant, then, was not a one-sided unconditional covenant of promise only. Ultimately, its conditions were fulfilled through obedience, the obedience of Christ, the only obedience that could guarantee the covenant blessings. But what kind of obedience was this? Was it unbelieving obedience or obedience apart from faith? No, it was the obedience of the one true and righteous Son who knew his Father's will, was committed to it, and entrusted Himself to the Father when he did not do his own will, but the will of the One who sent him (John 6:38-39). It was an obedience of faith that was approved in Christ's probation in the wilderness, when he believingly answered to Satan, “It is written.” True faith is obedience, always manifested in works and, therefore, Jesus' faith was counted to him for righteousness. Now, if we affirm this about Jesus, may we conclude from it that, in the case of the believer, it is his own faith and works that are counted to him for righteousness? Of course not, neither our faith nor our obedience contributes anything to our justification. Our only justifying righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:7-9).
Shepherd's presentation of the structural similarity of all the covenants has met with much disagreement. Cornelis Venema comments:
This flattening out or virtual identifying of the pre- and post-fall covenants has unavoidable and mischievous implications for our understanding of the way of salvation. For example, one implication of Shepherd's argument is that the way of salvation, whether for Adam or Christ or any believer, is always one and the same - the way of covenant-keeping faithfulness. Thus, one of the ironies of his formulation of the covenant at this point is that, though Shepherd introduces grace into the covenant relationship before the fall into sin in a way that parallels the priority of grace in the post-fall covenant, he also treats the stipulation of obedience for believers in the covenant of grace as though it were merely a reiteration of the pre-fall obligation of obedience. Salvation is by grace through faith(fulness), before as well as after the fall. God's promise secures or guarantees the believer's covenant inheritance. However, that inheritance can only be received by way of the believer's covenant keeping (p. 19) (Venema, 2002, 242).
Part 1 of The Call of Grace has specific purposes and does not broadly address all questions that may come to the reader's mind. It is a publication of a series of lectures and, of course, lectures have time constraints that limit what can be said. Shepherd's emphasis is on the structural similarity of the covenants and he assumes the basic tenets of the Reformed faith, as is clear from the preface of the book. The differences between pre and post-fall covenants as to sin and justification are not ignored. As we have seen above, it is Christ's obedience that accomplishes the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Only his faithfulness guarantees the covenant blessings. Shepherd does not expand on justification in this covenant because the text of Genesis does not do so, but in his argument about the Mosaic covenant, he writes:
Why was the law added to the Abrahamic covenant? It was not added to propose an alternative way of salvation that was bound to fail. Paul says it was added because of transgressions (v. 19). The law was designed to counter the devastating effect of sin in the world. The law makes clear the kind of behavior that is pleasing and honoring to the Lord and is in the best interests of humanity. It warns about the consequences of unbelief and disobedience. In the sacrificial system, it also shows -Israel how to lay hold of the forgiveness graciously offered by the Lord.
. . . In Deuteronomy 9:4-6, Moses reminds the Israelites that they must never say that they have taken possession of their inheritance because of their own righteousness. Rather, it is because of the Lord's righteousness in remembering his covenant that the Israelites possess the land.
…The fulfillment of this promise is ultimately possible only because of the redemptive work of the Messiah. . . . The whole sacrificial system as outlined in the Mosaic covenant is one glorious promise concerning the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
…The Mosaic covenant shows that God forgives sin out of pure grace. . . . [Besides moral laws,] there are the laws that show how to deal with the guilt of sin. These are the ceremonial laws that describe in great detail a system of sacrifices by means of which the Israelites experienced forgiveness.
The sacrificial system does not outline a series of chores to be done in order to gain pardon and acceptance with God. Rather, the sacrificial system reveals that our God is a gracious God. He actually wants to forgive those who sin against him, even though they do not deserve to be forgiven!
The point of the sacrificial system is not how much we have to do to be forgiven, but how much God will do. Forgiveness comes by the shedding of blood, when the penalty for sin, which is death, is paid. It comes by way of substitution: the innocent victim takes the place of the guilty sinner. In a word, the sacrificial system promises salvation through the death of Christ. Through the ceremonial laws, the benefits of Christ's atoning sacrifice were made available to believers before his advent and death on the cross.
…The sacrificial system is a leading feature of the Mosaic covenant. It does not exhibit a works/merit principle whereby we obtain forgiveness on the basis of something we have done. It leads us to Christ and to salvation by grace through faith in him (Shepherd, 2000, 29-34).
Shepherd shows structural similarities in all God's covenants. He argues that neither the Adamic nor the Mosaic covenant was one of works meriting an inheritance. However, he does not flatten out the differences sin brought into the world. He plainly embraces the teaching of redemption through the blood of Christ for every covenant after the fall. This is also evident in what he writes concerning the new covenant:
As we have already seen, the benefits and blessings of the new covenant are pure grace. Eternal life is promised as an undeserved gift from the Lord. He forgives our sins and receives us as righteous because of Jesus Christ and his redemptive accomplishment on our behalf (Shepherd, 2000, 50).
The advent of Christ himself made this Mosaic covenant obsolete. First, the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin, but the blood of Jesus can and does take away sin. Second, the commandments cannot impart life, but the resurrection of Jesus from the dead can and does impart life. . . . The death and resurrection of Jesus accomplished what the Mosaic system could never in itself accomplish. "Through [Jesus] everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39) (Shepherd, 2000, 55).
Paul says in Romans 8:3-4 that the law was powerless because it was weakened by sinful human nature. But what the law could not do, God has done in the fullness of time by sending his Son. His Son deals definitively with the problem of sin, with both the guilt and the pollution of sin, "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit" (Shepherd, 2000, 56).
We now return to Venema and note more criticisms:
Shepherd treats Christ as though he were little more than a model believer whose obedient faith constituted the ground for his acceptance with God in the same way that Abraham's (and any believer's) obedient faith constituted the basis for his acceptance with God. In his zeal to identify the covenant relationship between God and man in its pre- and post-fall administrations, Shepherd leaves little room to describe Christ's work as Mediator of the covenant in a way that honors the uniqueness, perfection and sufficiency of Christ's accomplishment for the salvation of his people (Venema, 2002, 243-244).
Here Venema misses the mark altogether. In drawing attention to the fact that Christ's obedience was the obedience of trusting God and entrusting himself to God's will as he fulfilled all righteousness, Shepherd only strengthens Christ's mediatorial work. One goes far wrong if he thinks Shepherd does not confess the classic Reformed doctrines about the uniqueness of Christ's work and the importance of his atonement for sin. The above citations from the book already show how the criticism is altogether untenable. There is little profit in criticizing a brother for not fleshing out a topic he is not dealing with. A critic can express the wish that an author would have said something more about a certain matter that he thinks would have been helpful, but it is always wrong to draw unfounded conclusions. Again, the reader can be assured that there is no sense in which Shepherd minimizes the uniqueness of the redemptive work of the God-man, the only-begotten Son of God. Venema's criticism continues:
Fourth, these features of Shepherd's reformulation of the doctrine of the covenant raise questions regarding his understanding of the doctrine of justification…. Shepherd does not make it clear, for example, that the believer can only obtain eternal life upon the basis of the perfect obedience, satisfaction and righteousness of Christ alone received by faith alone (compare the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Days 23 & 24)….
Fifth, the ambiguity in Shepherd's formulations (the reader will look in vain in this book for a clear, express statement of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone) is undoubtedly related to his antipathy for the idea of merit….(Venema, 2002, 244-245).
We have here more of the same problem. It is not helpful to complain that one finds little in a book about a topic that goes beyond the limitations of the book. Anyone who is seeking a clear statement on justification need only read Shepherd's The Grace of Justification. This and various other writings show that Shepherd heartily confesses that the believer can only obtain eternal life upon the basis of the perfect obedience, satisfaction and righteousness of Christ alone received by faith alone. We do well to do justice to Shepherd's statement in the Preface of The Call of Grace, that the five points of the Canons of Dort “…are certainly characteristic of, and indispensable to, full-orbed Calvinism….” (vi).
Richard Phillips is another (among not a few) that objects to the denial that the first covenant should be characterized as one of works and to Shepherd's development of this theme in the other covenants:
This aligns with the teaching of Norman Shepherd in The Call of Grace, which sees our justification taking place in a manner parallel to Christ's own. Shepherd writes, "Just as Jesus was faithful in order to guarantee the blessing, so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the blessing." It is difficult to avoid the inference that we are justified by being like Jesus, by our faithfulness which is just as Jesus' faithfulness, instead of, as Paul puts it in Romans 5:19, being made righteous by the one man's obedience, namely, Christ, who lived and died not merely as our example but first as our federal head and our substitute. Both Wright's and Shepherd's views of justification require a mono-covenantal view of redemptive history and permit no place for the biblical covenant of works (Phillips, 2005, 107).
Phillips' inference is wrong. Shepherd is only saying that both Christ and the believer are called to faithfulness. Christ guarantees the blessing and his followers inherit it. In this passage, he does not expand on how Christ guarantees it , but in other parts of the book and in other writings he teaches that the guarantee is through the shedding of his blood, through his righteousness, through his resurrection. He does not suggest that justification is in any other way than through faith in Christ by whose mediatorial work we are reconciled to God.
We have seen that Shepherd joins other honorable Reformed theologians in objecting to the idea that acceptance by God is earned by worth produced through labor. He does not object to every sense of merit. The citations above, concerning God's forgiveness through the shedding of blood, are ample evidence that he does not deny the satisfaction to Justice accomplished by the Mediator's atoning sacrifice and justifying resurrection. Shepherd's subscription to the confessional statements about the merits of Christ's death to redeem from sin and captivity cannot be doubted. Committed to the Reformed confessions, he rejects the error of those who teach that “…by His satisfaction Christ did not really merit for anyone either salvation itself or faith by which this satisfaction of Christ to salvation is effectually made one's own” ( Dort, II, Errors 3).
Since merit is not used in the Bible as a term for Christ's atonement, it would not be wrong to believingly reflect on whether our forefathers chose a term that is free from possible misunderstanding. We do not, for example, say that a person pays the penalty of the law by the merits of the prison term he serves. Whatever one may think about the felicity of the term merit to describe Christ's death, it is clearly wrong to deny the truth that Christ made full satisfaction to God's justice which required eternal death for our sins.
4.l. Two Covenants or One?Venema and Phillips object to mono-covenantalism and to flattening out the differences between the pre and post-fall covenants, but are they correctly identifying the differences between Shepherd's view and theirs? In reality, it is not that one view holds to two covenants and the other to only one. Both defend the basic unity among all covenants. Those who start with a covenant of works, see the presence of the works principle in all of the covenants. In the pre-fall covenant Adam accomplished the works and in the other covenants they are accomplished by Christ. The theologians Shepherd follows see the unity in the principle of grace. Adam obeyed by grace through faith and in the post-fall covenants the righteous live by grace through faith in Christ, the Just One, who lived by faith and offered himself to God as a propitiatory sacrifice for his sheep.
Both parties also defend that there is a radical difference between the pre and post-fall covenants. For both, Adam was originally perfectly obedient and an heir to eternal life without need of a Redeemer. Both agree that after the fall no one can inherit eternal life without faith in Christ, the only Redeemer.
The real difference concerns the significance of works in the covenants. The critics hold that justification and eternal life are earned through works. In the first covenant, Adam was to earn justification by the righteousness he produced. In the second, Christ earned life and believers receive it by grace through faith. Men like De Graaf and Murray, on the other hand, defend that righteousness is always received as a gift. Adam received the gift of righteousness and lived by faith. When he fell, he lost righteousness and came under death. In the post-fall covenants, righteousness was possessed by Christ when he began his mediatorial work and he lived righteously as he lived by grace or favor. In righteous obedience, Christ accomplished his mediatorial atoning work through which he removed the guilt of the sins of God's people.
The rejection of the covenant of works is not the rejection of the distinctiveness of the pre-fall covenant, nor of the absolute necessity of the mediatorial work of Christ for post-fall salvation. It is rather, the rejection of the concept that this distinctiveness is to be found in the earning of justification by performance of perfect works. It is not the necessity of perfect works and perfect obedience that are rejected, but the idea that, for justification, they produce credits worthy of compensation in the form of eternal life.
To reduce confusion, it would be good to follow the lead of those who choose names for the pre and post-fall covenants that more clearly point out the differences. Rather than covenant of works and covenant of grace, it would be better to use distinctions such as covenant of unspoiled favor and covenants of redemptive grace.
4.m. The Perspective of the Covenant in History and the Eternal DecreesIn Part 2 of The Call of Grace Shepherd seeks to shed covenant light on evangelism:
The second part deals with a perennial issue faced by Calvinists who take seriously the call to evangelize the lost with a view to their conversion to Christ and salvation in him. If God is sovereign in the planning, accomplishment, and application of redemption, how can we honestly and sincerely call sinners to faith and tell them to repent, without compromising the five points (Shepherd, 2000, vii)?
With regard to this part of the book, Venema finds Shepherd's treatment of the relation between election and covenant to be troubling:
Remarkably, because Shepherd is unwilling to distinguish between those with whom God covenants in a broader sense (covenant in its administration) and those with whom God covenants in a narrower sense (covenant in its fruition), he ends up with what sounds suspiciously like a conditional election doctrine. Covenant members are elect in Christ so long as they persevere in faithfulness. However, should they become unfaithful, they may become subject to covenant discipline and lose their election. But this is not the end of the mischief that his approach creates for our understanding of the doctrine of election. For example, Shepherd maintains that the Reformed preacher is authorized by the doctrine of the covenant to address all with the message that Christ died for them, even though some so addressed may choose not to believe and obey the gospel (p. 85). Does this mean that persons for whom Christ died, because they fail to persevere in the way of obedient faith, do not receive the covenant's blessings? In Shepherd's formulation of the covenant's significance for our understanding of election, notes such as these are sounded that can hardly be harmonized with those found in the Canons of Dort… (Venema, 2002, 247).
Venema is by no means alone in this concern. Not a few Calvinists read Shepherd as undermining the doctrine of election. Robertson writes:
…if the only election and justification that the sinner who trusts in Christ can know may be lost, then all enduring assurance is lost. It was this point in particular that served ultimately to clarify the implications of Mr. Shepherd's various formulations, and to evoke a steady resistance to his teachings. For he clearly had introduced a new element into the classic formulations of the Reformers when he declared that justification and election by God could be lost (Robertson, 2003, 23-24).
In considering these concerns, we need to pay attention to the nature of the material presented. It, too, is a publication of speeches which imposes limitations of time and specific purposes of the occasion. For those who complain that Shepherd is confronting unnamed persons, it is good to bear in mind that he is not having a theological debate with specific people. He is only developing a point that compares methods of evangelizing. In this he contrasts the language and logic of one method with that of another. He makes reference to problems that can and do arise if one seeks to be consistent in evangelizing from the perspective of eternal election, but is not addressing what specific people are defending, nor is he challenging confessional statements. The reader is not expected to agree with all the comparisons. He is only asked to consider how evangelism from the perspective of the covenant in history can improve our way of discipling the nations.
It is also important to note that Shepherd embraces the biblical truths of the Canons of Dort. When he asks us to approach gospel proclamation from the perspective of the covenant, he is not suggesting that this perspective should replace that of eternal election or of God's sovereign regeneration. Just as architectural drawings from different perspectives are really in harmony and complement each other, so the different perspectives discussed by Shepherd do not cancel each other or compete. Now, let us look at what Shepherd writes:
Because the Calvinist has an accomplished redemption that is particular in scope though always effective for the elect, he cannot apply it to particular persons. The application has to be more general and abstract because he cannot distinguish between the elect and the reprobate in real life. That is why Reformed sermons on "the doctrines of sovereign grace" are often in the third person, expressed in terms of what Christ has done "for his own," or for those who "truly believe." The exception is the exploration of human sin, which can be, and often is, very specific and in the second person, because of the universality of sin and depravity.
. . . Unlike Arminians, [Calvinists] have grace that is really and truly grace. Salvation from beginning to end, from conception in eternity to consummation in glory, is all of God and is summed up in the name of Jesus Christ. But they are hampered in getting that glorious gospel across to particular persons in the pew or on the street as grace.
. . . The answer to this theological dilemma, therefore, is not compromise with Arminianism, but the Reformed doctrine of the covenant. The Bible itself, and the New Testament in particular, provide the data that give rise to the dilemma, and yet there is no consciousness of it in the Bible itself.
. . . The reason why the Bible is not conscious of this dilemma is not that the prophets and apostles who wrote it were not as intellectually or theologically sharp as we are. Rather, the reason is that the prophets and apostles viewed election from the perspective of the covenant, whereas we have tended to view the covenant from the perspective of election.
From the perspective of the covenant, there is mystery because we are creatures and God is the Creator. We cannot know God exhaustively. God remains incomprehensible. We can never know God's decree as he knows it, and for that reason we cannot begin to reflect on his salvation from the perspective of the decree, even though our salvation originates in the predestinating love and purpose of God. To look at covenant from the perspective of election is ultimately to yield to the primal temptation to be as God. The proper stance for Adam and for all of us after him is a covenantal stance of faithful obedience. Only from that perspective can election be understood as grace. Therefore, although from the perspective of covenant there is mystery, there is no dilemma and no paradox or contradiction (Shepherd, 2000, 81-83).
The problem of how to relate covenant and election is not new, of course. Shepherd's proposed solution is not new, either. In the Dutch Reformed churches the problem has been discussed extensively, for more than a century, in relation to presumptive regeneration and self-examination. Viewing the covenant from the perspective of election, a common view is that the new covenant is really only with the elect and, therefore, covenant children should be presumed to be born again. If later they show themselves to be rebellious, it can be concluded that they were in the covenant only externally. This view is often challenged with the argument that no one is to be presumed to be regenerate without there being evidence of it. Parents and the church must call covenant children to examine themselves as to whether they are in Christ and they can have assurance only upon seeing evidence of regeneration. This second view also holds that the Lord makes his covenant effectively only with the elect.
Many ministers, including men like S. Greijdanus and K. Schilder, provided a different solution to this problematic. It was to give heed to Deuteronomy 29:29 and not define the covenant according to the secret things of God. The covenant is to be understood in terms of God's revelation. He has revealed to us that he has a covenant with believers and all their children, not just the elect. The covenant is not unconditional. In it God gives his promises and also his people have their obligations and must make their commitments. The promises are addressed to all and all are called to repentance and faith, lest they be cut off. It is this solution that Shepherd has adopted and which he brings to expression when he says that we should look at God's decrees from the perspective of the covenant.
This covenantal approach is deeply rooted in classic Reformed theology. The famous ecumenical Synod of Dort (1618-1619) which spoke so clearly on God's election and man's total inability, also spoke clearly about the status of covenant children in 1.17:
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (ed., Book of Praise, 1984).
The Synod reasons that while someone is legitimately in the historical covenant, this person must be regarded as elect. This does not mean that all covenant people are eternally elect, only that at a given point in history those who are legitimately in covenant with God must be counted as elect because of their status in the covenant. Covenant children dying in infancy are received into eternal communion with God, on the basis of the covenant promise that the Lord is their God and they are his people. That such infants die before they begin to fulfill their covenant obligations (or to reject them) is, of course, an act of God. At the same time, the Lord confirms that they are among his eternally elect by taking them at this early age. What is definitive for the Synod are God's own covenant promises.
The Synod's “covenant in history” approach can also be seen in Chapter 5 of the Canons in statements about sins committed by believers:
By such gross sins, however, they greatly offend God, incur the guilt of death, grieve the Holy Spirit, suspend the exercise of faith, severely wound their consciences, and sometimes for a while lose the sense of God's favour - until they return to the right way through sincere repentance and God's fatherly face again shines upon them (Article 5. ed., Book of Praise, 1984).
The guilt of death is incurred by sins committed by those who are in the state of justification and this guilt is removed upon confession of sin, at the same time as it is also true that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. We have here a case, similar to so many in the Bible, in which two matters that might seem to be a contradiction are plainly both true for God and the Synod sought to express this faithfully.
At an earlier date, the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) reflected the same approach. The covenant was surely the warrant for teaching all children of believers, from the youngest age that Christ had died for them. They were taught to say, “…I… am not my own, but belong…to my faithful Saviour, Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood…” (L.D. 1, ed., Book of Praise, 1984). Children did not start out by saying, “If I am elect,”or “If I am regenerated.” Of course, they were also taught the necessity of new birth and repentance, but the Catechism did not teach presumptive non-regeneration, nor limit the covenant to the eternally elect.
It is this covenant perspective that Shepherd also works out, not only in discipling covenant children and the elect who fall into grievous sin, but the nations, as well. They are to be discipled, not with a view to searching out the elect, but by addressing God's authoritative will to the whole world. All covenant -breakers, without exception, are to be called to repent and believe and are to hear the proclamation that is Good News to all people. Shepherd explains:
In utter sincerity and without equivocation, Reformed evangelism calls every person to life in the way of faith, repentance, and obedience, with the assurance that Jesus will not refuse anyone who cries out to him for mercy. The evangelist labors in the confidence that God really stands behind the message that he has authorized him to preach to all people. God has wrought a finished and complete redemption, and so salvation (and not merely the possibility of salvation) is offered sincerely and without equivocation to all. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).
. . . Both the Arminian and the Calvinist look at John 3:16 in terms of the doctrine of election, the one denying it and the other upholding it. From the perspective of the covenant, however, all of the words of John 3:16 mean exactly what they say.
The Reformed evangelist can and must preach to everyone on the basis of John 3:16, "Christ died to save you." The death of Christ is inherently efficacious; otherwise, it would not be gracious. The world is the world of human beings blinded and crippled by Satan, the prince of this world. Christ did not die for inanimate objects or preternatural beings, nor did he die for abstractions. He died for people, for sinners, for you and for me (Shepherd, 2000, 84-85).
The Heidelberg Catechism and Synod of Dort teach us to take seriously God's word in history. When God declares that he has a covenant with our children, we must take him at his word and not redefine covenant as being true only for some with whom it is made. Shepherd applies this approach of giving full weight to God's declarations also to the Gospel proclamation. It is a genuine offer of grace to the whole world, not just to the elect. God's grace is good news for everyone. Whoever believes will have eternal life. Salvation is genuinely proclaimed as available to all. There is mystery here. God loves the world even as he hates Esau before he was born.
One may be unsure whether Shepherd is right when he says that the evangelist should say to the world, “Christ died for you and for me.” He may also think that Shepherd does not make himself clear at this point. What is the sense in which Christ died for all people in the evangelist's audience? One may disagree with Shepherd. However, one should not think of him as if he is denying the doctrines of God's sovereign decrees and eternal election. That would be a misreading:
If we look at this message, "Christ died to save you," from the perspective of election, it is only possibly true, and may well be false. From this perspective, Christ died only for the elect and not for the reprobate. But John 3:16 is embedded in the covenant documents of the New Testament. As such, it is not an elaboration of the doctrine of election or a commentary on the extent of the atonement. Rather, John 3:16 is covenant truth. Its specific application-and this is what the proclamation of the gospel must be-in the declaration, "Christ died for you," is a demonstration of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ opening the way to fellowship with God (Shepherd, 2000, 85).
Christ did not die for the reprobate. The atonement extends to definite people and not to all. Shepherd holds these truths. What he says is that John 3:16 is not addressing questions about who will be saved. It is, rather, about presenting the covenant to all without restriction. The call to repentance and to be a follower of Christ is a call to covenant union and communion with the Lord. It is real communion that is really offered to all hearers and that communion is guaranteed by Christ's death. Covenant promises are not simple predictions about outcomes. They are expressions of commitments made at the moment of speaking. Thus, the specific application of John 3:16 “is a demonstration of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ opening the way to fellowship with God.” Christ died to open the way of fellowship and this message is proclaimed as good news for all people, not just for some among them.
Shepherd illustrates the use of covenant language with two other passages:
The first passage is Ephesians 1:1-14. These verses are suffused with covenantal language. The Ephesians are a congregation of the Lord Jesus Christ, enjoying the spiritual blessings of sanctity of life, adoption to sonship, forgiveness of sins, and the seal of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, all of these blessings are traced back to the predestinating love of God. This accent comes through so strongly and so repeatedly at the very beginning of the letter, that Paul may even appear to be writing from the perspective of election. We would then have to understand his letter from that perspective. We would have to look at the covenant in the light of election.
Careful attention to the language of these verses makes clear, however, that precisely the reverse is the case. Paul looks at election from the perspective of covenant. For that reason, predestination is not a theological puzzle, but a cause for gratitude. When Paul says, "He chose us" [v. 4), we must ask who "we" are.
. . . are we to think that Paul was addressing only some of those on the roll of the Ephesian church and had nothing to say to the rest? How would these people know who they were…?
Any attempt to understand Paul's statement, "He chose us," as though Paul had direct insight into the eternal decree of God, is bound to be both artificial and impractical. No pastor or evangelist could use that language today because we don't know who the elect are.
In Ephesians 1, Paul writes from the perspective of observable covenant reality and concludes from the visible faith and sanctity of the Ephesians that they are the elect of God. He addresses them as such and encourages them to think of themselves as elect. A Reformed pastor can and must do the same today. . . .
It is true that some in the congregation may fall away and leave the church. Paul issues a warning in view of that possibility. Were some to fall away, he would no longer speak of them as the elect of God. However, he would not confess that "unfortunately" his initial judgment had been wrong. . . . Paul is right to address the saints and faithful in Ephesus as elect, and at the same time he is right to warn them against apostasy. He has the freedom to do this and senses no dilemma in doing so, because he has evangelized the Ephesians using a covenant methodology in accordance with the Great Commission. Only by following the same methodology can the Reformed pastor today enjoy the Pauline freedom to speak grace and encouragement to the flesh-and-blood people seated before him in his congregation (Shepherd, 2000, 86-88).
It is not that all in the covenant community are elect and that election can be lost, only that it is biblical to regard the faithful as elect, to treat them as such and to address Christ's church as elect. Based on the pattern of Scripture's language, it is not uncommon for Reformed pastors to instinctively do this, even when their theology tells them that God makes his covenant only with the elect. When Shepherd urges us to view election from the perspective of the covenant and not vice versa, he is asking us to do what is not so strange. When someone confesses faith in Christ, we call him a brother and speak of his salvation. If we were to consistently view the covenant from the perspective of election, we would need to regard each professor of the name of Christ with reservation. Not having God's revelation about the confession of a person's heart, we would have to always think and say, “If you are truly in Christ, then all your sins are forgiven, etc.” The biblical example, however, is to speak to all who confess the Name as having eternal life in Jesus and, at the same time, to warn them against falling away. This is also the way Jesus speaks in John 15, for example:
A second passage that is illustrative of the covenant perspective on election is John 15:1-8. Jesus is clearly and unambiguously saying in this passage that he is the vine and that his hearers are branches abiding in him. He exhorts them all to continue abiding in him by bearing fruit, and that means by persevering in faith and obedience. If they do, the Father will see to it that they bear even more fruit. They are at no point cast upon their own resources, because as branches they get their vitality at every point from the vine. On the other hand, if certain branches do not abide in Christ, but deny him and become disobedient, the Father will cut them off and destroy them. The passage is a grand exhortation to covenant faithfulness, enveloped in the overflowing grace of Christ.
. . . If [a distinction between being in Christ outwardly or inwardly] is in the text [as is often proposed], it is difficult to see what the point of the warning is. The outward branches cannot profit from it, because they cannot in any case bear genuine fruit. They are not related to Christ inwardly and draw no life from him. The inward branches do not need the warning, because they are vitalized by Christ and therefore cannot help but bear good fruit. Cultivation by the Father, with its attendant blessing, is guaranteed.
. . . Ephesians 1:1-14, John 15:1-8, and similar passages can be understood properly only within the context of the covenant. In Deuteronomy, the great covenant document of the Old Testament, Moses writes, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law" [Deut. 29:29). This verse means more than that we do not know who the elect are. It means that we cannot conduct our affairs as though we were God. We have to live as creatures made by God to live by the light of his word (Shepherd, 2000, 88-90).
Covenants deal with God's revealed will and man's commitments. They speak according to expectations and not secret decrees. In terms of what a covenant disciple knows about God's will for him, he is both encouraged to continue in faithful communion with Christ and warned about what will happen if he does not abide in the Vine. Of course, the actual outcomes will be strictly according to what God has decreed from eternity, but that's a different, and no less true, perspective.
Those who misinterpret Shepherd as teaching that final justification is based on believing works and that he attributes justifying power to faith plus works, will be inclined to give an Arminian interpretation to what Shepherd teaches concerning the need to view election from the perspective of the covenant. This is decidedly not Shepherd's view. He is not speaking of a justifying process through inward sanctification that can be interrupted. It is not the case that pardon of sin can be had at one point and then later lost for lack of perseverance in the faith. We cannot know the secret things of God, but we know that the only faith that justifies is one that is alive, works through love and perseveres to the end. The covenant simply calls Christ's disciples to exercise that kind of faith. By it we receive the promises, embrace Christ, and know that in Christ we inherit the blessings of the covenant.
4.n. Baptism, the Mark of ConversionGod directs our path according to his revealed will and not his secret election. This also means that, although a disciple needs to know that he must be born again from above, the evangelist should not orient his message by trying to determine whether someone is regenerate, but by the visible profession of faith and God's baptism as the mark of conversion. It is not God's secret work of regeneration that guides the Gospel preacher, but the revealed covenant with its promises, stipulations, and signs. Shepherd tells us:
. . . [I]nstead of looking at covenant from the perspective of regeneration, we ought to look at regeneration from the perspective of covenant. When that happens, baptism, the sign and seal of the covenant, marks the point of conversion. Baptism is the moment when we see the transition from death to life and a person is saved.
This is not to say that baptism accomplishes the transition from death to life, or that baptism causes a person to be born again. That is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which is rightly rejected by Reformed churches. The Holy Spirit works where, when, and how he pleases, not necessarily at the precise moment of baptism.
From the perspective of election, regeneration is the point of conversion. Regeneration, however, is a secret work of the Holy Spirit, and so we do not know when it takes place. We do not have access to the moment of regeneration. What we hear from the converted sinner is a profession of faith, and what we see is his baptism into Christ. This covenant sign and seal marks his conversion and his entrance into the church as the body of Christ. From the perspective of the covenant, he is united to Christ when he is baptized (Shepherd, 2000, 94).
Regeneration is the point of conversion, but it is not revealed to us. We are called to labor in accordance with the revealed terms of the covenant. This means that the preacher calls the unconverted to repentance, profession of faith, and baptism. To make disciples is to baptize and teach to observe all Christ's commandments. The Good News is that God establishes a covenant of union and communion with as many as the Lord our God calls. Entrance into the covenant is signified and sealed by baptism, a mark that receives due attention in New Testament evangelism. It is not reported how many were regenerated, but how many were baptized. Shepherd is not speaking of baptismal regeneration, nor of illegitimate baptisms where the biblical conditions are not present. His concern is to evangelize according to the covenant methodology of the Bible.
The covenantal focus on baptism does not mean that regeneration is discounted. Rather, the new birth is put in proper perspective. The connection between baptism and regeneration comes to vivid expression when Paul says that we are saved "through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). He also says that we are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:11). A comparison of the forms of the Great Commission in Matthew and Luke (Matt. 28:19 and Luke 24:47) shows the correlation of baptism, repentance, and remission of sins. Baptism is therefore to be understood as of a piece with the total transformation that is salvation. It is the sacramental side of the total renewal (regeneration in the broad sense) of both the inner and the outer man (Shepherd, 2000, 102).
4.o. Time, Eternity and the CovenantsIt is not uncommon for Reformed people to express the relationship of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in an equation of 100% + 100% = 100%. God is 100% sovereign, man is 100% responsible for his own actions, and the two come together not in a contradiction or as one limiting the other, but as a perfectly overlapping unity. This same type of relationship is present when considering time and eternity. We must be watchful to not so emphasize the eternal decrees that we conceive of God's working in time as somewhat of a figure of speech. God is so great that he works 100% in eternity and 100% in time. He truly and fully interacts with man on a moment by moment basis. Thus the gospel offer is well-meant even to the eternally reprobate. At any specific moment in history God is truly kind and patient to them because he truly wants them to repent. He is not just going through some motions. His interaction with man moment by moment in history is not a sham or “only external” with a view to accomplish the “real”, the bringing to fulfillment of his eternal election.
Exodus 32 and 33 provide a good illustration of God's relation to his people in historical time, such that he declared it to be his wish to destroy -Israel and later forgave them. His desire to destroy -Israel and make a people for himself from Moses was just as real as his later desire to forgive. The whole concept of redemptive history is dependent on the truth of God expressing himself in the moment-by-moment processes of history. Of course, the changes God goes through in history were already predetermined in his eternal decrees. Nevertheless, in history God does make real changes in his attitudes and desires with regard to specific people.
God's covenants are made with man in history, that is, in time. They must be allowed to function in our minds as 100% real. The covenants function in historical progression of time, even as they take nothing away from God's working out his plan from all eternity.
We see this type of interaction very clearly in prayer. It is not the case that we actually don't have to pray since, after all, God already knows what we need and he knows what he is going to give us. Nor is prayer only for man's sake, that is, that we pray to God only to remind ourselves of our needs and relationship with our Father. In prayer, God really listens to us as we speak to him in a progression of time. His interaction with us is fully within the limitations of time in a way similar to how people converse with each other.
Consider Hezekiah (2 Kings 20). When God told him to set his house in order because he would not recover, it would have been wrong for Hezekiah to think that he could not pray to the Lord about this and plead with him to change his intention to cause him to die. To say that God was testing Hezekiah and that he really meant that Hezekiah would die unless he would plead with him is true, but an insufficient explanation. He said that Hezekiah would not recover and he meant it. In his eternal decrees he had already determined to grant fifteen more years, but at that historical moment, he was genuinely telling the king that he would not regain his health.
This perspective needs to be kept in mind in our understanding of covenants, as well. When God is our God in the covenant and we are his people, this is real on the basis of God's speaking to us. There are real promises and laws expressed in his speaking. Their validity does not depend on regeneration and eternal election. It is not the case that God's promises are only true for the elect and not for all who are being addressed.
When God says that our children are his people, then they are his people at that moment in time. If they later turn against the Lord, they are at that time cut off from his people, not just “recognized as never having been truly God's people”. Yet this progression in historical time does not call into question the fact that only the regenerate, those who are eternally in Christ, only the eternally justified will be saved. God's historical blessings and speaking of promises to us are no less real than his eternal counsel.
We must address both adult professors of faith in Christ and their children as real participants in God's covenant grace. This does not give grounds for anyone to presume upon God's grace, however. The Lord truly declares to his people that they are his redeemed people, but they are also called to self-examination. From an “in-time” perspective, both adults and children can be comforted by the promise of God's forgiveness while at the same time they are warned about the need to persevere in faith. They can at one point be sanctified by the blood of Christ and at a later point tread underfoot the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified (Heb. 10:29). Yet this in-time perspective never changes God's eternal counsel. Those who go out from us never were of us (1 John 2:19). Nevertheless, until they depart from God's people they are full members of the covenant.
The marriage covenant illustrates the point. A couple is truly married at the point of exchanging vows. The covenant can be broken in the case of adultery and divorce, but until then, the covenant is real and there is not just some kind of external covenant. It is correct to apply these concepts to God's covenant with his people as well.
Covenant promises are not valid, however, for hypocrites or for those who distort the truth. Hypocrites, who knowingly present themselves as believers when they are not, cannot be comforted by promises of forgiveness. False churches that distort God's teaching about the covenant cannot be regarded as covenant-keepers. The covenant principles apply only when the covenant is established in sincerity and truth, but then they apply fully to all who are in the covenant. They are not dependent for their validity on future events. It is not so that the covenant has real meaning only for those who persevere to the end. On the other hand, it is necessary to persevere to the end, lest one be cut off from the covenant.
It is God's speaking and acting in historical time that Shepherd has in mind when he pleads for a covenantal approach to evangelism and discipleship. In this context he also speaks about election. God's covenant people are an elect nation. Historically, there are some who are among the chosen who later are cut off. While they are among the faithful and themselves confess faith in the Savior, they are to be regarded and addressed as saved people. This does not, however, remove the call to repentance and faith. At the same time as the Lord vows his love and promises his blessings, he also calls his people to repentance, faith and obedience.
Speaking covenantally and historically, just as a marriage covenant is in full effect when the vows are exchanged and not only when a spouse fully realizes the implications experientially, the covenant with the Lord goes into full effect when one is baptized. This does not mean that the outward rite of baptism regenerates a person, nor that regeneration is irrelevant for salvation. What it does mean is that baptism marks a separation from the world and, at that moment in history, we should speak of being chosen by God.
In hindsight we can conclude that a certain person was only historically chosen to be among God's people and not eternally elect. However, in our preaching and counseling we cannot speak to some as eternally elect and to all as historically elect, at least not in the sense of defining for all what blessings come to them and for the elect, what additional blessings are theirs. In the Bible God addresses the whole covenant people with promises that are no more limited than those of eternal blessings. At the same time, he addresses all (and not just the eternally non-elect) with warnings about unbelief and rebellion. We must follow the same approach. We do not know who are only historically elect and are called to address all as elect and also call all to perseverance. It is not that Shepherd does not distinguish between historical and eternal election, only that we must speak as God does, addressing the hope of eternal election to all and the warnings of historical election to all, as well.
One might ask, if the whole church is to be addressed as elect, is this not the same as presumptive regeneration? All those who profess faith in Christ, faith that is penitent and obedient, can be assured that they are born again. If the term is applied to such fruit-bearing covenant-keepers, one might speak of presumptive regeneration. The expression is, however, normally used in a different way. It is used for covenant infants and proceeds from the thesis that God's new covenant is really only with the elect. This construction has its problems, and the idea of presuming regeneration proceeds from a wrong understanding of the principle by which covenant children are holy and not unclean (1 Cor. 7:14). God does not include children in the covenant by virtue of actual or potential regeneration, but by his declaration that he makes his covenant with believers and their seed.
Covenant children will not see the Kingdom except they be born again, but when or if they will be regenerated is known only to God and is not a prerequisite to covenant membership. Their inclusion among God's people is on the principle of representative headship, not by virtue of regeneration. God establishes his lordship over believers and all who come under their headship. When used in reference to covenant infants, the idea of presumptive regeneration should be rejected. Rather than presume that our children are born again, they should be taught about the need for regeneration, repentance, and faith even as they are assured of God's love for them and also taught that if they turn against the Lord they will be cut off from God's people.
God works out his calling and election through a historical process. In that process some are among the chosen for a time and later reprobate. This does not mean that anyone can be first predestined for eternal salvation and later for eternal damnation. God's predestination does not change. However, in the historical process God joins some to his people for a time who are later condemned. While they are legitimately among God's people (we're not speaking of hypocrites), the covenant promises are fully applied to them. We are not called to look into a person's heart or communicate God's promises on the basis of future events that have not been revealed to us. Instead, we speak in terms of what is true at a particular moment in time without predicting the future. Reasoning in a linear way from the perspective of predestination, the idea that someone can be first chosen and later rejected is confusing. However, the matter is similar to embracing both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, something Reformed theology has agreed on for centuries.
[This study is continued in Part 4]