4.p. Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience?The last point of difference between Shepherd and his critics to be considered here concerns the imputation of Christ's active obedience. Shepherd defends that the imputation of Christ's obedience for our justification is fully accomplished in the imputation of his passive obedience for the forgiveness of sins. This is a real difference between him and the majority of Reformed teachers. Nevertheless, we need to take care to not complicate the discussion by jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
If Shepherd is incorrectly understood to teach a form of legalism in which the Christian's works cooperate with faith so that faith and works are functionally the ground of justification alongside of Christ's work, then it is an easy step to assume that the reason he denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is to make room for the believer's obedience to contribute to his justification. Christ's atonement would be the ground for the pardon of sin and the Christian's covenant faithfulness would complete his justification as his righteousness is supplied by his obedience worked by God's grace in him. Such an interpretation would, however, be a gross distortion of the point Shepherd makes. At no point does he suggest that imperfect obedience satisfies the justice of God.
Those who are well-grounded in Reformed theology and, like me, had not thought about it that the imputation of the active obedience of Christ might not always have been part of Reformed doctrine, will find that it takes some patience to accept that this topic can legitimately be discussed without subverting the Gospel in any way. The truth is that Calvin and the early reformers generally taught that justification consists solely in the pardon of sin. Righteousness and forgiveness were commonly equated. A specific teaching of imputation of active obedience was lacking. As N. H. Gootjes has pointed out (Gootjes, 2002, 10), when attention was first called to Christ's active obedience in relation to his work for us, this was in response to Osiander's teaching that Christ's righteousness was imparted to us according to his divine nature and not his humanity (cf. Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.8). The point was that Jesus' righteousness was manifested in his human nature, starting with his incarnation, but this was not conceived of as providing merits of works for justification, in addition to the atonement for sin.
Although the Reformed theologian, Piscator, was condemned by French synods (1603-1613) for denying the imputation of Christ's active obedience, delegates to the ecumenical Synod of Dort (1618-1619) who also denied this doctrine were not considered unorthodox. One of them, Johannes Bogerman, served as the moderator of the Synod. These men strongly opposed all Arminian and Socinian doctrine, but, like Calvin, they held that the pardon of sin is the whole of Christ's justification and not just a part (Institutes, 3.11.11). The small minority of Westminster divines who opposed the teaching of imputation of active obedience were also not sidelined as unorthodox. The Standards adopted were so formulated that these men were able to subscribe to them in good conscience. This is evidence of how the denial of the imputation of active obedience is not inconsistent with the Reformed understanding of Scripture.
It is imperative to be accurate about what it is that Shepherd denies. He does not deny the importance of Christ's active obedience for our salvation and the discussion gets skewed if, even for convenience sake, we talk about the denial of Christ's active obedience. It is the imputation of that obedience that is being questioned and, then, a particular sense of imputation. If by imputation we understand that Christ's obedience for us is counted as if we had never sinned and had kept the law perfectly, then there is no question. Also, the matter is not to deny that Christ's active obedience was necessary for the inheritance of eternal life. All Christ's obedient works were done for us and in our place. Shepherd does not deny that where Adam failed, Christ was faithful. Adam did not pass the probation, but Christ did. Christ's obedience, including his obedience to the moral law, resulted in eternal life for his people. At the point of his effectual call the believer is counted as righteous as Christ. This perfect right-standing with God is his exclusively through the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience in his place. For his justification his only righteousness is the righteousness of Christ.
There is an area of overlap between Piscator and Shepherd, but there are also important differences. The two positions should not be confused. Shepherd's concern is the lack of biblical evidence for a works/merit principle of justification. Together with not a few other Reformed theologians, he calls into question the purchase of an inheritance and God's favor in a covenant of works. Consequently, he also fails to see a works/earn principle in Christ's obedience for our justification. He rejects the view of God that Schilder describes as that of an Administrator of work contracts. Righteousness does not consist in presenting worthy works that are recorded in account books such that God accounts a man as just only after perfect works have been presented to him. God does not withhold his love, favor, and approval until these have been earned. Requiring merits produced through active law-keeping on Christ's part to be accounted on our credit ledger before we can be judged to be righteous is based on an incorrect concept of justice. It is this mistaken sense of imputation of “righteousness” that Shepherd asks us to reconsider. In so doing, he does not at all question the importance of Christ's perfect active obedience as our representative head as the last Adam.
Since not every reader may be well-versed in the teaching concerning the imputation of Christ's active obedience, let us review the point before continuing the discussion. In theology, Jesus' suffering for the propitiation of our sins is called his passive obedience, that is, his obedience of suffering. His perfect observance of God's law during his life on earth is referred to as his active obedience.
Commonly it is thought that the death of Jesus does not really save us or does not save us completely. Negatively the death of Christ saves us from the guilt of sin so that we are rendered innocent, but positively it does not make us righteous. The sin that would keep us out of heaven is gone, but there is still no righteousness that would give us the right to enter into eternal life. It is thought that this righteousness is supplied by the lifelong active obedience of Christ and imputed to the sinner the moment he believes.
This construction would seem to be incompatible with the idea that man does not earn merits that God repays in justification. It is also difficult to square with the concept of righteousness outlined earlier in this study . Righteousness does not function in a paradigm of there being a point of moral neutrality from which one can accumulate either debits or credits. Just as one is either alive or dead, he is either innocent or guilty, righteous or unrighteous.
Christ's perfect obedience throughout the whole course of his life was certainly necessary for our salvation. Jesus kept all God's laws perfectly. His sacrifice was that of a lamb without blemish. Only such an offering could pay the penalty for our sins. By this one obedience the many were made righteous. The righteous lamb was just from the beginning. His law-keeping did not achieve a righteousness he did not already have. Jesus resisted Satan's temptations, not in order to gain righteousness for us, but in order to not lose it. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh and baptized by John in order to identify with us in our sinful state and represent us. As our representative, he gave his life on the cross in order to be made our righteousness through his atoning sacrifice.
Adam came from the hand of God not merely innocent but righteous. Since innocence is righteousness, those for whom Christ died are by that death not merely counted as innocent, but as righteous, and as such they are holy. Our justification is through Christ's blood (Rom. 5:9). His death for sin is the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).
Among the various considerations that enter into this discussion, Shepherd calls particular attention to what justification is: “For Paul in Romans 3:28, justification is the forgiveness of sins so that we are accepted by God as righteous and receive the gift of eternal life” (Shepherd, Backbone, 2004, 86). He demonstrates this from both the immediate context of Romans 3:28 and the broader context, starting with Romans 1. Paul sets the righteousness revealed from heaven over against the condemnation of all men because of their sin. This righteousness is Christ's propitiatory sacrifice (Rom. 3:25). In at least four other passages Paul also describes justification or righteousness as the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Jesus: Romans 4:6-8; 4:25; 5:8-9; 5:18-19. Since this last text is often used to promote the imputation of active obedience, let us provide here Shepherd's defense:
Paul writes in 5:18, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." The one trespass is the sin of Adam in eating the fruit God had forbidden him to eat. Corresponding to this is the "one act of righteousness." This one act of righteousness is the righteousness from God that Paul wrote about earlier in chapter 3, verse 22. It is the sacrifice of atonement, the death of Jesus on the Cross. This one act of righteousness obtains our justification. That is to say, it obtains the forgiveness of our sin.
In the next verse, verse 19, Paul writes, "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." The disobedience that makes us sinners is the one trespass of Adam mentioned in the preceding verse. So also the obedience that makes us righteous is the one act of righteousness also mentioned in verse 18. We are constituted righteous by God when he justifies us by forgiving our sin (Shepherd, Backbone, 2004, 88-89).
R. Scott Clark opposes Shepherd and describes the imputation of active obedience position as follows:
It seems clear that the two sides in this discussion hold different views of divine justice, sin, and the nature of Christ's work. According to the proponents of the imputation of active obedience, divine justice requires both obedience and punishment for sin such that Christ had to provide obedience and suffer the penalty for his elect. Proponents of the imputation of active obedience held to a twofold nature of sin and consequently a twofold remedy: the imputation of active obedience and remission of sins (Clark, 2006, 249).
All should agree that God's justice requires full obedience to the whole law. It should also be agreed that sin can be characterized as both sin of omission and of commission. Further, it can be agreed that all Christ's obedience as our Mediator, both active and passive, was for us and in our place. What can be questioned is the dynamic of who is just and how one is justified. Does one only become righteous after performing active obedience? Is righteousness a job to be completed in order to attain right-standing? Or does righteousness precede performance? The latter is more correct. Adam was righteous and had forensic right-standing before performing righteous work. Although he lost his good standing by law-breaking, it was not law-keeping that would have produced right-standing. Works are fruit and evidence of righteousness, not its source. It is sin that left Adam unjustified and it is the atonement for sin that justifies the sinner. Christ paid the penalty for all sin, both sins of commission and of omission (lack of active obedience). The point of discussion then, is whether, for justification, there is a twofold imputation of Christ's obedience, that of his atonement plus the merits of his law-keeping, or only the imputation of his priestly obedience in offering the sacrifice and shedding his blood for the atonement of sin. Is the forgiveness of sins the whole of our justification or only part of it?
Calvin was unambiguous about justification being only the forgiveness of sins:
…you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes, since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus when the publican is said to have gone down to his house "justified," (Luke 18: 14,) it cannot be held that he obtained this justification by any merit of works. All that is said is, that after obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God. Hence Ambrose elegantly terms confession of sins "legal justification," (Ambrose on Psalm 118 Serm. 10) (Institutes, 3.11.3).
Now, then, when Paul says that David "describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," (Rom. 4: 6, 7; Ps. 32: 1,) let Osiander say whether this is a complete or only a partial definition. He certainly does not adduce the Psalmist as a witness that pardon of sins is a part of righteousness, or concurs with something else in justifying, but he includes the whole of righteousness in gratuitous forgiveness, declaring those to be blessed 'whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered," and "to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”(Institutes, 3.11.11).
Let us now consider the truth of what was said in the definition, viz., that justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins (Institutes, 3.11.21).
The French or Gallican Confession (1559) expresses the same:
XVII. We believe that by the perfect sacrifice that the Lord Jesus offered on the cross, we are reconciled to God, and justified before him; for we can not be acceptable to him, nor become partakers of the grace of adoption, except as he pardons [all] our sins, and blots them out. Thus we declare that through Jesus Christ we are cleansed and made perfect; by his death we are fully justified, and through him only can we be delivered from our iniquities and transgressions.
XVIII. We believe that all our justification rests upon the remission of our sins, in which also is our only blessedness, as says the Psalmist (Psa. 32:2). We therefore reject all other means of justification before God, and without claiming any virtue or merit, we rest simply in the obedience of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us as much to blot out all our sins as to make us find grace and favor in the sight of God (ed., Schaff).
This confession, with Calvin as its principal author, reacts to the Romanist doctrine that we need the forgiveness of sins and the performance of good works to obtain grace and favor. It declares that we receive God's grace and favor when all our sins are blotted out by Christ's death, rather than by forgiveness plus works. The Belgic Confession (1561) continues Calvin's teaching, as well:
we do not mean that faith as such justifies us, for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ our righteousness; He imputes to us all His merits and as many holy works as He has done for us…*. Therefore Jesus Christ is our righteousness, and faith is the instrument that keeps us with Him in the communion of all His benefits. When those benefits have become ours, they are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins. [*The Synod of Dort later inserted here the phrase, “and in our place”.]
We believe that our blessedness lies in the forgiveness of our sins for Jesus Christ's sake and that therein our righteousness before God consists (Articles 22-23, ed. Book of Praise, 1984).
In 1561 the theory of a covenant of works with its idea of earning acceptance with God was not yet generally espoused among the Reformed. Given this confession's affinity with the Gallican and with Calvin, as well as the clear emphasis here on forgiveness, it is unlikely that the author, Guido de Bres, was thinking of twofold imputation. When speaking of the imputation of Christ's merits and holy works, Article 22 is referring to all Christ did as the perfect priest and lamb without blemish to make full satisfaction for our sins and so his benefits are more than sufficient to acquit us of all sin. Note that, at this time, the reformers applied the term “merits" to Christ's passive obedience as is seen in Article 24 of this Confession when it says, “…our poor consciences would be constantly tormented, if they did not rely on the merit of the death and passion of our Saviour.”
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) also confesses that the only ground for justification is the sacrificial suffering of our Lord:
Q. Are both the Word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?
A. Yes, indeed. The Holy Spirit teaches us in the gospel and assures us by the sacraments that our entire salvation rests on Christ's one sacrifice for us on the cross (L.D. 25, ed., Book of Praise, 1984).
It is noteworthy that in 1619, when the idea of a covenant of works was already well-known and the imputation of Christ's active obedience was a subject of considerable debate, the Synod of Dort did not incorporate this teaching in the Canons. It applied the term “merits” only to Christ's satisfaction for the expiation of sins (Dort, II). Evidently, there was no consensus concerning the teaching of a twofold imputation. This synod did add the phrase, “and in our place,” to Article 22 of the Belgic Confession in order to emphasize that Christ's holy works were imputed to us because he performed them in his human nature, as our substitute. However, the context of the article was not altered. This imputation could continue to be seen to be for the acquittal of sin and not for the earning of righteousness in addition to making satisfaction for sins.
In chapter 6 of Backbone of the Bible and in a later article (see bibliography), Shepherd explains in detail how the Heidelberg Catechism teaches that justification and righteousness imputed to us both refer only to the pardon of sin through Christ's satisfaction for them. It is plain that he is not in bad company when he asks us to reconsider what we mean when we teach the imputation of Christ's active obedience:
We do not find a belief in the imputation of active obedience in Calvin, Ursinus, or the Heidelberg Catechism for the reason that their understanding of justification as the remission of sins did not require it and they did not find it in the Bible. The very few Bible texts quoted by later theologians in support of this doctrine are understood by earlier theologians to refer to the imputation of the righteousness Christ wrought out in his suffering and death for his people in obedience to the will of his heavenly Father. Even the Westminster Confession as late as 1647 was written as a compromise document to accommodate the views of three prominent members of the Westminster Assembly (William Twisse [Prolocutor of the Assembly], Thomas Gataker, and Richard Vines) who did not subscribe to the imputation of active obedience.
However we do find confessional language that has been interpreted as affirming the imputation of active obedience. For example, in Lord's Day 23 of the Heidelberg Catechism we have, as already noted, references to the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of our Lord being imputed to sinners for their justification. But interpreting these as a reference to the imputation of active obedience is a reading back into earlier Reformed theology of views that developed only at a later time. Early Reformed theology had no doctrine of the imputation of active obedience because it defined soteric justification as the forgiveness of sins. Justification meant that God forgives our sins and on that basis accepts us as righteous and gives us the title to eternal life. There is no imputation of active obedience because the faith/grace paradigm within which they understood justification did not require it and no Bible texts taught it (Shepherd, Backbone, 2004, 115).
We are not justified ultimately by works, as R.C. Sproul affirms, but we are justified ultimately by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul says, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (Galatians timeHour14Minute212:21). Paul does not say, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ lived a life of perfect obedience for nothing." We do not gain righteousness through the law and Christ did not die in vain. We gain righteousness and are justified through the death of Christ. "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" (Rom. 4:25) (Shepherd, Backbone, 2004, 119-120).
There are a number of crucial problems that the proponents of the imputation of Christ's active obedience (in the works/merit sense) have not adequately addressed:
First, the texts that have been offered to prove their point only show that all of Christ's obedience was important for our salvation. They have never been shown to teach a relationship between his active obedience and the blessings received as one of value received for work rendered. The dynamic of this relationship is adequately understood as fulfillment of God's covenant vows without introducing a concept comparable to the earning of wages.
Second, distinguishing between innocence and righteousness as judicial status has no biblical basis. Adam was righteous when created and Christ was righteous from birth. The logic of this distinction requires that Christ was only innocent when born and became righteous by producing obedient works - a strange thought, to say the least.
Third, law-keeping is fruit and evidence of righteousness. Judicial approval by God is maintained by obedience, not produced or earned by it. Righteousness precedes works and not vice versa. When, as proof for the theory of imputation of active obedience, it is argued that the job must be completed before one can be justified, the order is reversed, and this introduces confusion into the discussion.
Fourth, justification is about being just. God chooses to bless the righteous, but justification does not establish rights to rewards such as eternal life. Producing works that are worthy of wages is an economic concept, not a judicial one. If, in condescension, God had contracted to give eternal life as a right earned through works, this would describe an economic relationship, but would not describe justification. Man would have had to be just to merit the reward, but being justified would not yet establish a right to such a reward.
Fifth, there is no parallel in Scripture or common justice that requires active obedience before one is counted as righteous. When a driver is fined for going through a stop light and the fine has been paid, he is no longer a law-breaker. He does not have to first stop at three red lights before he can be counted as just before the law. Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, based his teaching about justification on the premise that for legal righteousness one must either obey the law or pay the penalty, but not both.
Sixth, the new covenant is signified and sealed to us by two sacraments that point to forgiveness and cleansing through Christ's death and resurrection. There is no symbolism for a twofold ground for justification. Nothing in the sacraments points to the imputation of law-keeping credits.
4.q. Entitlement to Eternal LifeThose who believe in Christ receive eternal life (John 3:16), but does justification give entitlement to indefectibility and eternal life? Does a declaration of righteousness include God's provision that we will no longer be able to sin and will inherit the grace of glorification? Justification gives title to life, but does it give title to life eternal in God's Sabbath rest? Murray rightly tells us that
All that Adam could have claimed on the basis of equity was justification and life as long as he perfectly obeyed, but not confirmation so as to insure indefectibility (Murray. 1977, 56).
The discussion concerning the imputation of Christ's active obedience usually involves the assumption that in justification there is an element that provides the basis for entitlement to the inheritance of eternal life. When we are justified through Christ's obedience, we are not just restored to the status Adam had in the Garden. The basis for moving the post-fall believer beyond Eden is often thought to be the imputation of Christ's active obedience. The assumption that this is accomplished in justification can be questioned, however. If we follow Murray's thought, we can regard the gifts of indefectibility and inheritance as conjoined with justification without being received by virtue of it. In this way, the concept of justification is reserved for what it really is, a verdict that one is just according to God's law.
By faith in Christ we receive much more than justification: adoption, membership in the Church, spiritual gifts, sanctification, to name only a few. All God's gifts to the redeemed accompany justification, but many are not effected by it. They are gifts of grace that are to be distinguished from justification, but not disassociated from faith in Christ. Do we not have more clarity when we do the same for confirmation in righteousness and for the inheritance of eternal life?
In the Garden of Eden, the Lord initiated a historical program for mankind that was governed by a covenant-defined relationship of love and communion. He blessed Adam and Eve, empowering them to fulfill his covenant law that spelled out a program of filling the earth and subduing it. In the Sabbath ordinance and the Tree of Life, he also promised greater blessings of entering God's rest and living forever. At the same time, the covenant contained a warning of the curse of death for disobedience to the commands. This was signified in the Tree of Knowledge and the prohibition to eat of it.
It has been argued throughout this study that this Adamic covenant defined a relationship of favor or grace. The fulfillment of the promises were to be the expression of God's love and commitment to his vows of loyalty, not wages to be paid out for works performed. Similarly, man's obedience to God's law was an expression of love and thankfulness for undeserved favor, the affirmation of his covenant loyalty to his Lord and Father, not a presentation of worth or merit that would put God in debt to repay works with higher honors as a matter of justice. Murray writes:
Adam could claim the fulfillment of the promise if he stood the probation, but only on the basis of God's faithfulness, not on the basis of justice. God is debtor to his own faithfulness. But justice requires no more than the approbation and life correspondent with the righteousness of perfect conformity with the will of God (Murray, 1977, 56).
Adam's obedience and that of his descendants was to be the righteous expression of love and trust. In the way of this faith and obedience, the Lord was to lead them into confirmation in integrity and possession of the inheritance of the Sabbath rest to live forever in communion with God in glory. This was not the way of meritorious earning of glory, but that of believing expression of faithfulness in which man would persevere in the perfect righteousness he had received as a gift from his Creator. It required no Day of justification. Adam was justified from the outset and would receive the inheritance by fulfilling the cultural mandate, while continuing to be just. As a son rejoices to labor on the family properties, so man was to work diligently in the Lord's estate and, in due time, would come into possession of full participation in God's rest and glory.
In the covenant of redemptive grace, the terms of the Adamic covenant were not abolished but fulfilled by and in Jesus Christ. First, he accomplished redemption from slavery to sin and death. He provided for justification through his priestly obedience and propitiatory sacrifice. In him we have full redemption from both the guilt of sin and its dominion and influence. He is setting us free in every way. In addition to his redemption, he also restores and fulfills the original covenant program for the earth and the sons of man.
Besides justification, God grants us the privilege of adoption, so that we receive the promised inheritance as sons of God. Through his serving obedience in our place, Christ faithfully followed God's leading and was honored with glory. His active obedience was not a means of earning the inheritance for us. An inheritance is a gift not a purchase! His active obedience was not imputed to us for righteousness. It was, rather, the faithful persevering in righteousness, by which, in his priestly office, he offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and in his kingly office, he provided for our heavenly citizenship and leads us into possession of it (Phil. 3:20-21). God led him into possession of the promised blessings in the way of believing obedience.
God's promises are received as gifts by faith, and that is also how Christ took possession of them and was crowned with glory and honor. Entitlement to the heavenly inheritance is not through justification, but a blessing that accompanies it, one that comes to us through Christ's faithful covenant obedience in Adam's place. Title to life eternal is not established through justice, nor through merit, but as a gift received by faith. The principle that applies is not that of earning or purchase, but of inheritance.
5. Communication StyleSome of Shepherd's readers wish he would include more qualifying statements and clarifications. He does, indeed, use a style of presentation that develops an argument without seeking to address all possible misunderstandings and objections. He focuses on developing the point he is making without necessarily balancing it out with other realities God teaches. Some readers have drawn wrong conclusions, reading thoughts into what Shepherd writes that contradict his views.
Hindsight shows that more explanation might have improved the reception of Shepherd's views. However, just because an author does not expand on what he does not mean, does not give liberty to a reader to draw conclusions that are not stated. It is the reader's responsibility to read precisely what is written. For example, given that Shepherd clearly states that the believer's justification is only through the imputed righteousness of Christ, the reader does not do well to draw conclusions that undermine this statement, just because Shepherd does not keep qualifying his remarks whenever a reader might interpret them wrongly.
I cannot speak for Mr. Shepherd in his style, but there are some observations one can make on his behalf. One is that his style is not so unusual. Readers in sympathy with a particular author, often do not realize how “unclear” and “careless” he appears to be to someone who comes to the material from a different perspective.
Shepherd's mentor, John Murray, used a style that was rather similar. His arguments were focused and compact, not necessarily guarded against all kinds of misinterpretations. For example, Murray wrote an article that argued that the visible/invisible church distinction is invalid (Murray, 1976, 231-236). In it he hardly interacts with those who make extensive use of this distinction and he makes no mention of the use the Westminster Standards make of it. Few of us would question his subscription to the Standards and I do not suppose any would suggest that Murray calls into question the teachings that the Standards present in the context of this distinction. I urge us to treat Shepherd with the same kindness.
It is also true that the Bible often makes statements that can be misunderstood, but makes no effort to insert all kinds of qualifying remarks. Consider Genesis 26:4-5, “And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Also, Deuteronomy 5:33, “You shall walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live….” Do such statements undermine the doctrine of justification by faith alone?
6. Theological InfluencesIt has become common to associate Shepherd with a theological movement referred to as that of New Perspective on Paul, as well as discussions between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics that produced a document entitled, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” and with a movement referred to as Federal Vision Theology. It should be pointed out that he has only recently started to inform himself about the New Perspective on Paul, and has nothing at all to do with the NPP or with Evangelicals and Catholics Together. His connection with the Federal Vision is that those who associate with this movement appeal to him for some of their views. Shepherd's theological influences are not to be found in these movements, only in traditional Reformed theology. John Murray is his main teacher and the development of his theology comes from interaction with the same Reformed theologians that all of us conservative, traditional Reformed folks study, including continental Reformed theology.
Shepherd subscribes to the same Confessions we all love, and his readers do him and themselves a disservice if they permit themselves to read confessional divergences into him except in the points he himself raises. He does nothing different from other Reformed theologians, namely to continue to do exegetical studies and seek to continue to reform our biblical understanding.
He does not question the Confessions in matters of justification, faith and works. He has no divergences with regard to the five points of Calvinism. What he does question is the correctness of describing the difference between the pre-fall and post-fall covenants as one of a contrast between works and grace, where righteousness is viewed as achieved by works before the fall into sin and received by grace after the fall. According to him, the points he raises should be discussed within the framework of Reformed theology.
7. What Difference Does It Make?If Shepherd's teachings express traditional Reformed orthodoxy, one might ask whether the points raised by him and the other theologians we have mentioned, really make a difference. Do they have a pastoral impact on Christian living? In the perception of these theologians, they do.
Ridding ourselves of the notion that good works necessarily imply trusting in self and attempting to earn eternal life helps to alleviate a number of tensions. Many Reformed sermons warn against the constant danger of resting in our own works and it is not uncommon for a Christian to be concerned that in his good works he may be competing with Christ. He is afraid to rejoice in his works, lest he be boasting in himself. Although our theology teaches us that we all must work out our salvation and that good works are necessary as the evidence of faith, our sermons frequently focus on justification with the result that the beauty of the good works in which we were created to walk is dimmed by the emphasis on self-examination that constantly looks for possible resting in self, rather than Christ. If we completely rid ourselves of the leaven of works righteousness and understand it was sinful pride that introduced the idea of earning God's favor, and that good works were never intended to be contrasted with faith and grace, then this tension dissipates.
We must not adopt the Pharisees' concept of the meritorious nature of good works and only remove it from justification. Transferring good works (as meritorious) to sanctification does not really remove the tension. Only the understanding that the very nature of true obedience to God is to express trust in God, fellowship with him, and joy in his gifts sets the heart free to do good works - works in which we walk on the way of liberty.
Of course, our indwelling sin puts us in the danger of trusting in ourselves, and there is always the need for self-examination. Putting off this evil work of self-righteousness, however, involves more than resting in Christ for righteousness. We joyfully put on Christ when we understand that we simply express faith in him by doing good works. Just as true faith is not confidence in faith, but in Christ, so true Christian works do not express confidence in works, but in Christ.
With this understanding of good works and obedience to law, tension between law and gospel falls away. Contrasts between the old covenant and the new as between law and grace also are removed. All the emphasis in law-keeping that is strongly expressed in both Testaments becomes an emphasis on faith and grace, because to obey the law is to walk in works prepared by God. The difference between the old and new covenants is seen to be that the new is the fulfillment of the old covenant of shadows and types, rather than a substitution of grace for law. Promise and law and law and grace are seen to be in full harmony, rather than in tension.
When we stress that works are not only subsequent to initial faith and that faith is always manifested in works, the possibility of receiving Christ as Savior without receiving him as Lord is dispelled. The importance of this should not be minimized. Also, rather than seeing God's law mainly as the convictor of sin, its use as the rule for thankfulness and faith is brought to better expression when obedience is joined with faith. The various uses of God's law must all receive due attention. Those who set their minds on the things that are above can joyfully commit themselves to good works.
Our sermons should not, as a rule, follow a pattern of giving the bulk of the time to conviction of sin, less time to pointing to the glory of Christ as our Savior, and even less to the joy of putting on Christ in obedient good works. This will be a good approach for texts that have conviction as their main purpose, but too frequently, Reformed congregations leave worship services with dampened spirits because a text that calls them to obedience is expounded mainly in terms of man's inadequacies and guilt. The preacher seeks to drive his congregation to Christ, but often the emphasis on man's weakness has the greater impact. God's people should remember that, in addition to being freed from guilt, the Christian is also set free from the dominion of sin. He not only ought to put on the new man, but he actually does walk in good works. What joy it is to be a new creation in Christ Jesus!
Just as the body is dead without the spirit, so faith is dead without works and cannot exist without them (James 2:26). This truth impacts our evangelistic message. Although no one can ever earn fellowship with God, we do not tell sinners to only believe to be saved. Inactive faith does not express fellowship with Christ and his righteousness. As did Christ and John the Baptist, we call all to repentance, faith, love, devotion, confession, adoration, obedience, and so much more. A man can be justified only by working faith, faith that is accompanied by actions as we turn from dead idols to the living God. We follow Christ, keep his commandments, and have no other gods before the only God, all by grace, but not by inactive grace.
What we need to make clear in the Gospel proclamation is not that we cannot work out our salvation, but that we cannot do it in our own strength or earn it. Justification is not received in the way of meritorious obedience, but it is received in the way of obedience worked in us by God's Spirit. Therefore, all men everywhere are commanded not only to believe, but to believe, repent, and bring forth works worthy of repentance. It is only in this way that, with believing Abraham, we obey the Lord's command and say the Lord himself provides the sacrifice for sin. Now, when we say that justification is received in the way of obedience, we do not mean that the obedience instrumentally effects justification. Rather, obedience is the way in which God graciously applies Christ to us and our justification is received in the fellowship with him that is manifested in obedience.
Some will think that the differences mentioned above are not all real and not the result of theological differences. They may suggest that where weaknesses might be present, these are only due to pastoral deficiencies. Of course, our churches have a variety of weaknesses and it is also often the case that the problems just mentioned are not present in a significant way. What is being affirmed here is only that this writer views the theological position of his teachers as making such differences. He does not deny that often Reformed preachers and pastors do well in these areas, even when they hold views that he questions. He only wants to say that a different theological perspective provides a better basis for balanced pastoral ministry and evangelistic outreach. The same applies to the points raised in what follows.
8. The Impact of the Covenant PerspectiveWhat difference does it make when we live from the perspective of the covenant in history, rather than of predestination? In general, we conduct our lives on the basis of what has been revealed to us and not what is known only to God. This keeps God's promises and man's commitments in Scriptural balance. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility operate together, without one undermining the other. If we define the covenant from the perspective of election , we cannot do justice to God's call to repentance directed to his children, nor to his warnings against falling away. If the covenant is really only with the elect, there can be no possibility of falling away and the many Scriptural warnings are not meaningful for members of God's covenant people.
From the perspective of the covenant, God's people (both adults and children) are assured of God's love at the same time as they are called to repentance, faith and perseverance in well-doing. This covenant love is that of a Father for his children and is bestowed on all members of the covenant people. It is not addressed only to the elect, nor does it merely bring a people into the pale of the Gospel. Baptism symbolizes union with God in Christ, not just the offer of union. God's love is not conditioned on man's, just as a husband's love is not conditioned on his wife's. At the same time, the covenant has two parts. God's people must also commit themselves to him with unconditional love. From covenant perspective, his vow of blessing is yea and amen to all and his warnings of curses are also for all. The covenant both comforts and exhorts, and this for all the people.
Covenant people are encouraged and thankful when they see fruit of grace in their lives, but self-examination should not focus mainly on looking for evidences of grace, even though they are not unimportant. Knowing that the solemn covenant oaths we have sworn to God require unconditional loyalty, the examination of our souls should principally focus on fulfilling vows and doing the will of the Lord. Rather than asking whether we have produced enough fruit to be assured of our election, we should focus on doing today what the covenant requires. We have vowed to rest in Christ for justification, for example, so we confess our sin daily and plead his blood for the pardon of our debts. Simultaneously, we forgive our debtors and seek reconciliation with brothers we have offended. To fulfill our vows we love Christ and keep his commandments. It is not our role to determine who the elect are. We are called to simply do what needs doing, in accordance with what is observable and what has been revealed.
This focus on serving God through faith in Christ does not only apply to the elect. All must obey. All must selflessly present living sacrifices to him, not in order to earn heaven, but to express unconditional love, covenant loyalty and faith. Thanks be to God, that he has mercy on whom he wills and enables us to repent and follow Christ! Living from the perspective of the Lord's covenant in history does not mute the perspective of God's eternal decrees. The child of God who is joyfully assured by God's love expressed in covenant promises, also rejoices in the Lord's revelation that he has loved his elect in Christ from before he founded the world. God's will revealed in history should not mute his revelation about eternal election, but his revelation about election should also not be allowed to mute the fact that the Lord has established a legally binding bond with his people in the form of a covenant in which he really swears an oath to be a God and Father to his people. This oath can never be reduced to something merely formal or outward.
Salvation through Christ is sincerely offered to all people. If we look at history only from the perspective of predestination, it is illogical to think that God truly calls the reprobate to partake of Christ's love or that his love is revealed to them in Christ. However, God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. This is true love for all persons. The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, one by which he would bless all the families of the earth. The Good News proclaims the covenant to all nations. This is not just a manner of speaking. God really does desire all men to repent and know Christ. He does not make his covenant with all, but he does lovingly offer it to all. He does not regenerate all members of the covenant, but he does pledge to all of them that he will be their God and they his people.
To understand this, we need to take God at his word; we need to consider that predestination is only one perspective in history. There is also the perspective of God's desires as they are revealed moment by moment. We believe that both are valid, just as we trust that Jesus really died, even though God cannot die. The well-meant Gospel offer is spoken to all men in the same kind of language as the covenant, language that expresses God's sincere commitment and heart's desire, without predicting the outcome. Not that God does not reveal future events, just that covenant vows should not be reduced to predictions. When a couple exchanges vows in a covenant marriage ceremony, they are not forecasting what will happen, only voicing their commitment and love. We believe that, in God's greatness, his revealed covenant will and his secret will of predestination are in perfect harmony and we seek to so trust in God that we do not feel the compulsion to remove the mystery involved.
9. Why the Concern About Merit?Although much has been said in this study about whether justification is earned through law-keeping, it may still be good to summarize how this point really does make a difference to how we view God and our relationship with him. As was said in a variety of ways, we need not deny every sense of merit, only the idea that God is placed in debt to man by man's performance, good works producing worth that God repays in a sense similar to wages. Rejecting this view of justice makes a big difference.
Justice is about right and wrong, not about producing worth. This means that a distinction between innocence and righteousness is invalid. The righteous man does what is right and, therefore, keeps the law out of love for God. Righteous character precedes righteous actions and righteous actions are fruit and evidence of righteousness, not its cause.
Adam was righteous and justified until he sinned, and Christ was righteous at all times. He inherited the Kingdom for us rather than purchasing it. The imputation of active obedience as merits for earning justification does not make judicial sense. There was nothing lacking in early Reformed teaching on justification when our forefathers taught that justification consists solely in the forgiveness of sins.
By rejecting the concept of earning merits in order to present value to God with a view to being accepted by him, we reject all human pride and the covenant relationship is seen to be expressed in love, loyalty and trust on the part of both parties. God loves man and man relates to him in love that only seeks his glory. True love is not quid pro quo goodness given in exchange for goodness. True love is unconditional, with no strings attached. It is not earned by works nor does it seek to earn favor. Righteousness is not a commodity produced through works. This view does not undermine law-keeping. Love is the fulfillment of the law and righteous Adam was called to perfect obedience to God's law, loving him with all his heart, soul, strength and mind. Love and justice belong in perfect harmony. True love is committed to perfect law-keeping.
When we understand that the merit of righteousness does not have a pharisaic sense of placing God in debt with man or of earning justification like a worker earns wages, then justice and Adam's original relationship with God receive a different dynamic. Adam lived by grace and by faith. The just do not only receive life eternal through faith in Christ, but they always live by faith. Even in the Garden of Eden, man walked by faith in total dependence on the Lord for all things. Also in Paradise, he performed good works prepared for him that he should walk in them by faith. God's blessings were not earned, but received as gifts. This perspective serves to strengthen the Bible's emphasis that all glory be to God alone.
When justification is not regarded as conditioned on the completion of a job assignment, but limited to judgment about right and wrong, good and evil, then justification is not withheld until Adam's faithful completion of the probation. He was justified from the beginning, until he sinned. Had he not fallen, the Lord would have led him into the inheritance of eternal life in the way of covenant obedience, not as wages paid to a laborer, but as an inheritance given to a loving, faithful, and responsible son.
What the first Adam failed to accomplish, the Second performed for him. In addition to justifying his own, Christ also sanctifies them and leads them into the glory he has received from the Father. His active and passive obedience accomplished the sacrifice that paid the price for their redemption. Further, he also fulfills the creation mandates that bring all things to completion and leads his people into the inheritance. By faith and with thanksgiving his people put to death the deeds of the flesh, put on the new man and rejoice in the Lord always, as they go and make disciples of all nations, thus gathering in the church, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Christ both fills the earth and subdues it. “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). The Gospel for God's church is not only about conviction of sin and justification. His people are also more than conquerors in Christ Jesus as they follow in his train (Ps. 68:18; Eph. 4:8). The Christian life is not just about deliverance from sin, but also about victorious fulfillment, in Christ, of God's program for his creation.
10. Two ParadigmsWhy has there been so much confusion about what Shepherd teaches? Part of the reason is a clash between paradigms. Shepherd's opponents think of redemption in terms of a paradigm that understands obedience as meritorious working and the reward of eternal life as wages for work accomplished. To be counted as just is conditioned on the merit of the work performed. A number of Dutch Reformed theologians and John Murray with his followers use a paradigm that views obedience as living by God's grace or favor. They are satisfied with 16th century Reformed statements on justification and question the concepts developed in the theory of a covenant of works, which was introduced at the end of that century. The first paradigm contrasts even perfect works with grace. The second contrasts grace not with works, but with works when they are viewed as earning God's acceptance.
Confusion has arisen due to adherents of the works/merit paradigm evaluating Shepherd in terms of their theological construct and drawing conclusions on the basis of their own rather than Shepherd's paradigm. Much clarification will be achieved if Shepherd's critics will resist the temptation to draw unwarranted conclusions and if adherents of both paradigms carefully evaluate to what extent their paradigm is being read into their exegesis of various Scripture passages.
When the misunderstandings are removed, it will be recognized that Shepherd does not teach: that justification on the last day is based on the believer's works contributing anything to his righteousness; that imperfect works can be counted for justification; that Christ's atonement is to be understood differently than taught in the Reformed Confessions; that man's sin is not all that serious; that perfect personal obedience was not necessary for Adam; that faith and works are one and the same thing; that justification is partially through infused righteousness; and so many more misinterpretations. When clarity has been achieved, brothers in the Lord will be able to help each other through edifying discussions about the real differences - differences that do not set either Shepherd or his critics outside the fold of orthodoxy.
11. The PointThe main point of this essay was not to convince the reader that Mr. Shepherd is correct. It was, rather, to promote theological reflection on the Bible's teaching. To achieve this, this author sought to convince the reader that there are ways in which the critics misread Shepherd. Please let him know if he has been successful. His understanding is that although a number of views attributed to Shepherd are, indeed, subversive of the Gospel, the convictions Shepherd really holds are true to Scripture and should be thoughtfully appreciated, even by Reformed brothers who do not share them.