Part 1

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="03f085a3.jpg"> <div> <B><IMG SRC="0bb34410.jpg" border=0 width="52" height="65" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="4" VSPACE="0"></B><B>Norman Shepherd and His Critics</B><B>  - </B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Part 1</B></FONT></div> <div>   <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" WIDTH="14">  <A HREF="2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2"><IMG SRC="0450e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></A> <B>Part 1</B>   |   <A HREF="2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Part 2</A>   |   <A HREF="3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Part 3</A>   |   <A HREF="4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Part 4</A>   |   <A HREF="app.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Appendix">Appendix</A>   |   <A HREF="bibliography.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bibliography">Bibliography</A>   |   <A HREF="dwnlds.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Download Files">Downloads</A>   |   <A HREF="about.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="About">About</A></div> <div>        </div> <bR> <bR> <div>      </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=310 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" background="04107073.jpg"> <div> <A HREF="http://pro-rege.net/" target="_Blank" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://pro-rege.net/" target="_Blank">S</A><A HREF="http://pro-rege.net/" target="_Blank" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://pro-rege.net/" target="_Blank">upport Biblical Higher Education Worldwide</A> |   <script type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ // Fill in email address here var address = 'r'+'a'+'l'+'p'+'h'+'.'+'b'+'o'+'e'+'r'+'s'+'e'+'m'+'a'+'@'+'c'+'a'+'n'+'r'+'c'+'.'+'o'+'r'+'g'; // Either fill in a non-email address here to serve as the text displayed in the link var title = 'Contact'; // or leave the 'title' variable empty (change to: var title = '';) // and the text of the link will default to displaying the email address if (title == '') { title = address; } document.write('<a href="mailto:'+address+'">'+title+'</a>'); //]]> </script>  | <A HREF="http://pro-rege.net/rfb/theology/justification" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://pro-rege.net/rfb/theology/justifi">Links</A></div> <bR> <div> [This essay has been completely rewritten and the present version is very different from one posted here until July 31, 2007.]</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Norman Shepherd and His Critics</B></div> <bR> <div> By Ralph Boersema</div> <bR> <div> (Version 2.77)</div> <bR> <bR> <div> NOTES (Since this study deals with a controversy.)</div> <bR> <div> This is an unfinished project. This study is an unpublished work in the sense that it is not a final version. It is presented here with the purpose of receiving correction where needed. </div> <div> The reader may not cite or make reference to this work in any public medium (including blogs, forums, and discussion lists) without written permission from the author. If the work is to be cited positively, both author and reader will be built up through email or other fellowship. If the desire is to correct the author, let's first speak to each other in private in order to “gain our brother”. To contact me, please <A HREF="mailto:ralph.boersema@canrc.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ralph.boersema@canrc.org">send an email</A>: . </div> <div> This study has already matured much as a result of readers' comments. You are invited to also contribute to this process. </div> <div> This study argues that many of Mr. Shepherd's critics misread what he is saying. It is conceded that in individual writings Mr. Shepherd does not always provide qualifying and clarifying statements that could be helpful.</div> <div> Although this study agrees with Mr. Shepherd on a number of points, it's purpose is to promote Reformed theological reflection and to argue for the correct understanding of Mr. Shepherd's positions, more than to promote his views.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>1. </B><B> <A NAME="1__introduction"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B>Introduction</B></div> <bR> <div> The Rev. Mr. Norman Shepherd, Reformed pastor, teacher, author, and former professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary is being severely criticized by some Reformed colleagues. An evaluation of his writings in the light of the criticisms reveals that the critics have misread Mr. Shepherd. It appears that they read into his writings ideas that are alien to him. </div> <bR> <div> The subject of the controversy is the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The critics are concerned that Mr. Shepherd undermines this doctrine, while, in fact, he champions it:</div> <bR> <div> Paul says in Romans 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." We are justified - our sins are forgiven and they are no longer held against us. We are justified by faith - not by anything we can do to save ourselves. We look to Christ alone for pardon of sin and for the holiness without which no man will see the Lord (Heb. 13:14). We are justified apart from observing the law. We do not cling to the old Mosaic covenant now that Jesus has established the new covenant in his blood. We do not seek to perform works to ingratiate ourselves with the Lord God.</div> <bR> <div> We are justified by grace through faith. The Lord leads us into possession of all that he has promised including eternal life by way of a living, penitent, and obedient faith just as he led -Israel into possession of the Promised Land by way of a living, penitent, and obedient faith. This is the Biblical and Pauline doctrine of justification (Shepherd, <I>Backbone</I>, 2004, 103).</div> <bR> <div> There is nothing that any man can do to save himself from condemnation or to contribute to his salvation in any sense or at any point, so that any attempt on the part of man to save himself not only fails but even serves to compound his guilt (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 2).</div> <div>  </div> <div> Justification is an act of God, by which He forgives sinners acquitting them of their guilt, accounts and accepts them as righteous, and bestows upon them the title of eternal life (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 3).</div> <bR> <div> The ground of justification or the reason or cause why sinners are justified is in no sense to be found in themselves or in what they do, but is to be found wholly and exclusively in Jesus Christ and in his mediatorial accomplishment on their behalf (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 5).</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="2__understanding_james"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>2. Understanding James</B></div> <bR> <div> In the early 1970's, Mr. Shepherd noted that John Murray had not dealt with James 2 in his teaching on justification and saw the need for such a study. In pursuing this, he found that the exegetical considerations in favor of understanding James' use of justification as forensic and soteric were decisively stronger than for a demonstrative use. This led him to follow J. Gresham Machen in not seeing the distinction between Paul and James to be in a different use of justification, but in referring to different kinds of works and different kinds of faith.</div> <bR> <div> James speaks of the works of a believer which are an expression of faith and he agrees with Paul's condemnation of works that seek to contribute to justification and desire to be its ground. With this understanding, Shepherd rejected all thoughts that the Christian's works make a  contribution to his justification. He followed the Westminster Confession in affirming that faith is never alone in the person justified (WCF 11.2). Bearing this in mind was helpful for addressing what Shepherd called “easy-believism”, receiving Jesus Christ as personal Savior, without obeying him as Lord. In answer to this error, he taught his students that living faith is always penitent, obedient faith. Faith cannot exist without works (James 2:26). Works of repentance and love accompany true faith, not only subsequent to justification, but also for justification itself. Nevertheless, we are not justified by our working, but by faith in Christ and his redemptive work.</div> <bR> <div> In his lectures, Shepherd spoke of works being in parallel with faith. The word, “parallel”, indicated that works and faith always exist together. Works should not be described as only coming after faith. Further, just as faith is only an instrument in receiving justification, and we are not justified on account of the worthiness of our faith, so also the worthiness of our works has nothing to do with justification. We are justified by “faith working through love”(Gal. 5:6). “…A person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). </div> <bR> <div> In the light of James 2:24 and similar passages, Shepherd at one time spoke of works and faith together being the instrument of justification. He meant that the faith that is the instrument of justification is faith that exists together with works. Later, he agreed that this terminology was causing misunderstandings. He had not intended to deny the uniqueness of faith's role in justification. We are not justified by faith and works. Shepherd agrees with the Westminster Confession that faith is the alone instrument of justification. In his published works he avoids the earlier formulations. Besides, he never intended to say that we are justified by the working of faith. He only sought to emphasize that living faith cannot exist alone.</div> <bR> <div> As a student of Mr. Shepherd, this writer heard of no one in his class thinking that Mr. Shepherd was suggesting that works make a contribution to the Christian's justification. At a later point, however, misunderstandings arose. Mr. Shepherd was perceived to be teaching that the performance of the regenerate believer contributes to his righteousness, even though he always clearly said that the only ground of our justification is the imputed righteousness of Christ. In the ensuing years of discussion, some took exception to other teachings of Mr. Shepherd, as well. This included differences about how to view God's covenant (a discussion that had already involved John Murray and Meredith Kline at an earlier date) and how to regard the historical covenants in relation to God's eternal election. More recently, with appeals to Calvin, Zacharias Ursinus and some of the members of the Westminster Assembly, Shepherd has also raised questions about the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="3_the_point"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>3.The Point</B></div> <bR> <div> The main point of this essay is not to convince the reader that Mr. Shepherd is correct. It is, rather, to promote theological reflection on the Bible's teaching. Such reflection is not helped when opponents misunderstand each other. Therefore, this study wants to convince the reader that there are ways in which the critics misread Shepherd. In some cases clear statements are not taken into account and sometimes incorrect conclusions are drawn from what he says, and even from what he does not say. </div> <bR> <div> We are called to read each other's writings with great care. Especially in a discussion of righteousness, it is incumbent on us to deal righteously with our brothers in the Lord and spare Christ's church much grief and division by speaking the truth in love, with gentleness, patience and humility (Eph. 4).</div> <bR> <div> “Heavenly Father, we beseech you to graciously make all of us humble, gentle and patient towards one another and to express our love for you by loving our brothers as ourselves.”</div> <bR> <div> To read Norman Shepherd correctly, we need to bear in mind that he is working from within the Reformed context. He is only seeking to refine and develop Reformed thought, just as we are all called to do. In none of the points he is raising does Shepherd opt for legalistic, Romanistic or Arminian views. We may question whether he expresses himself clearly, whether he is right in his appeal to certain Reformed fathers or whether his exegesis is sound. We ought to interact with him to mutually build each other up. However, we do not do well to interpret his teachings in the light of legalistic, Romanistic or Arminian schemes of thought. Careful attention to Shepherd's writings soon reveals that this just does not work.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. Shepherd did not intend that his teachings about justification be seen as stepping out in a new direction for Reformed theology. It has been the misreading of his position that has resulted in the perception that he was doing something other than continuing to teach his students in the way set out by his predecessors at Westminster Theological Seminary. From the beginning of the controversy, many judged that Shepherd's critics were attributing a wrong understanding to his statements. The majority of the Westminster faculty consistently understood that he was not teaching error and that misunderstanding of his position was part of the problem. </div> <bR> <div> The writer of this study may be mistaken, of course, but he has the impression that Shepherd's critics have so frequently repeated their perceptions of him that the majority of those who have heard about Shepherd now believe that his critics present his views accurately. This has also had the sad consequence that stalwart Reformed theologians, ministers, and elders (such as members of the faculty and board of trustees of WTS at the time of the controversy), who read him correctly and do not condemn his views, are now being regarded by many as not quite trustworthy. This tragic situation needs to urgently be corrected. Even now, if more people are persuaded that Shepherd does not hold much of what he is said to teach, it will take years to remedy the damage.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="4__the_criticisms"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4. The Criticisms</B></div> <bR> <div> Let us proceed to consider what some of the critics are saying. If their interpretations that Shepherd teaches such things as justification by faith plus works and that faith and works are one and the same thing would be true, then we should all join the chorus in questioning his views. If his teaching would be that the believer is justified by the grace of God and the believer's works, he would, indeed, be legalistic and Romanistic. We will seek to show, however, that virtually all of the objections involve misconceptions. There are, in fact, differences between Shepherd and his critics, but these are being given such interpretations and evaluations that the critics end up objecting to teachings that are quite different from those Shepherd holds. In addition to the discussion that follows, in which the critics' comments are treated topically, an appendix  provides a more extensive selection of critical remarks made by five of Norman Shepherd's opponents.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_a__justification"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.a. Justification</B></div> <bR> <div> With regard to the meaning of justification, Shepherd provides clear, orthodox statements:</div> <bR> <div> Justification is an act of God, by which He forgives sinners acquitting them of their guilt, accounts and accepts them as righteous, and bestows upon them the title of eternal life (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 3).</div> <bR> <div> The Roman Catholic doctrine that justification is a process in which the unjust man is transformed into a just man by the infusion of sacramental grace confuses justification with sanctification, and contradicts the teaching of Scripture that justification is a forensic verdict of God by which the ungodly are received and accepted as righteous on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. </div> <bR> <div> The Roman Catholic doctrine that faith merits (congruent merit) the infusion of justifying grace, and that faith formed by love performing good works merits (condign merit) eternal life contradicts the teaching of Scripture that justification is by grace through faith apart from the works of the law (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 26, 27). </div> <bR> <div> There can be no misunderstanding here. Justification is an act of God. It is forensic. It is God's pardon of sin and accounting a sinner as righteous exclusively on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is to be distinguished from the Romanist view, for it is not a process, nor is it accomplished through the infusion of grace or by the believer's works. </div> <bR> <div> In some circles it is said that Shepherd's views have changed over the years and his earlier writings cannot be used to defend his present position. This is not the case. More recently he has argued that Christ's active obedience has not been imputed to us as meritorious work, necessary to earn eternal life. This point is based on the lack of Scriptural evidence for the imputation of works that receive heaven as wages and it does not change his earlier views in any way. Thus he writes in 2006, commenting on an Orthodox Presbyterian report on justification, “I have repeatedly stressed the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the sole ground of our redemption. (See the Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 67.)” (Shepherd, Comments - 2, 2006). In the first set of comments on this report, he clearly reaffirms that it is faith that alone justifies. Shepherd continues to teach that, while they show our faith, our works are neither the ground nor the instrument of our justification.</div> <bR> <div> His statements in 1978 and 1979 continue to be relevant:</div> <bR> <div> The ground of justification or the reason or cause why sinners are justified is in no sense to be found in themselves or in what they do, but is to be found wholly and exclusively in Jesus Christ and in his mediatorial accomplishment on their behalf (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 5).</div> <bR> <div> The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the sinner the moment he believes. He believes and is justified. . . . </div> <bR> <div> Faith is wholehearted trust in Christ and by this faith the believer receives, accepts, and rests upon the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone for justification. . . .</div> <div>  </div> <div> [T]hose who believe and repent of sin are received and accepted as righteous on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. . . .</div> <div>  </div> <div> The biblical language of exhortation and warning must be allowed to function in the proclamation of the whole counsel of God in a way that does not jeopardize the doctrine of justification by faith on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. . . .</div> <bR> <div> The redemption wrought by Jesus Christ has in view the salvation of his elect people from the penalty of sin, which is everlasting condemnation and death. This redemption is grounded in the sole sufficiency of the work of Christ whose obedience and satisfaction for sin is imputed to those who believe. . . .</div> <bR> <div> There is a radical distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is an act of God's free grace with respect to his people whereby he pardons their sin and accepts them as righteous on the ground of the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone. . . .</div> <bR> <div> In justification the obedience and satisfaction of Christ are imputed to believers so that they are no longer under the wrath and condemnation of God (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> In spite of this clarity, Shepherd is criticized as holding the very teachings from which he distances himself. Michael Horton writes:</div> <bR> <div> While Shepherd and the federal-vision proponents oppose the category of merit in principle, they do insist that faith and obedience (or faith as obedience) are the instruments of final justification, which amounts to the congruent merit advocated by late medieval theology (Horton, 2007, 205).</div> <bR> <div> Similarly, Richard Phillips states:</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd's definition of faith does not direct us to look to and rely upon Christ and his work, but ourselves and our work (Phillips, 2005, 121)</div> <bR> <div> One wonders what was the effect of  the Fall; it must have been very slight if the view of Smith and Shepherd and others in their camp is correct. Perhaps here more than anywhere else, in its low view of the consequences of  the Fall, this new theology of covenant intersects with Roman Catholicism, along with sharing an approach to justification which depends on the grace of God working in us rather than the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to us by grace and through faith alone (Phillips, 2005, 122).</div> <bR> <div> One wonders how these Reformed brothers can make what appear to be such obviously invalid evaluations. The answer is to be found in their misreading of what Shepherd teaches about works in relation to our justification. This will be considered below, but first it will be useful to look at another matter.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_b__when_are_we_justified_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.b. When Are We Justified?</B></div> <bR> <div> Justification refers to a forensic declaration of a verdict of, “Not guilty,” or of being righteous. It can also be the expression of such a judgment outside of a judicial setting, but still as an evaluation of moral or legal righteousness (cf. -Rom. 3:4). In Scripture, it further has the special meaning of forgiveness of sin on the basis of satisfaction for those sins. Of course, the only satisfaction possible for man's sins is the blood of Christ.</div> <bR> <div> When a Bible reader asks, when are we justified, several answers come to mind as these senses of justification are considered. Since there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (-Rom. 8:1), and we are united with Christ through faith, we are justified when we repent and believe in Him. We are forgiven at our conversion and we are forgiven each day as we confess our sins and pray the Lord to forgive our debts. The great Judgment on the last day also comes to mind, for we all will appear before the Judgment-seat of God. </div> <bR> <div> Many Christians puzzle about how we can be fully forgiven when we first believe while we also have daily forgiveness of sins and there remains a future Day of Judgment for all. Yet it is generally recognized that initial justification, daily forgiveness and the Last Judgment all have to do with God's verdict of pardon and right-standing before him. We may have difficulty relating full forgiveness with continuing repeated forgiveness and with the necessity for a Last Judgment, but we usually do not question the revealed facts. Initial justification, daily forgiveness and the Last Judgment all have to do with God's declaration of righteousness and with his forgiveness. They all relate to justification.</div> <bR> <div> In its chapter on justification, the Westminster Confession of Faith describes two of the realities to which justification refers. Sinners are justified when Christ is first applied to them and there continues to be forgiveness of sins for those who are in the state of justification when they confess their sins and God's favor is restored to them:</div> <bR> <div>  IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them. </div> <bR> <div> V. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance (WCF, XI). </div> <bR> <div> The Confession also proclaims the biblical truths about the Last Judgment in which, not only the non-elect will be judged (as only the apostate among the angels are judged), but all will be judged according to their works:</div> <bR> <div> I. God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil (WCF, XXXIII).</div> <bR> <div> In the same way, Shepherd defends that:</div> <bR> <div>  The term "justification" may be used with reference to the acquittal and acceptance of a believer at his effectual calling into union with Christ, or with reference to the state of forgiveness and acceptance with God into which the believer is ushered by his effectual calling, or with reference to God's open acquittal and acceptance of the believer at the final judgment (Matt. 12:36, 37; Rom. 3:22,24; 5:1; 8:1; Gal. 5:5), (Shepherd, 1978, thesis 4).</div> <bR> <div> Although Shepherd holds all the truths confessed in the Westminster Standards in relation to when we are justified, his critics take issue with him on this matter. It would appear that this is largely because, in one way or another, they read him as saying that the Last Judgment is partly on the ground of the Christian's works or the justification on that day depends on the instrumentality of works. This is a skewing of Shepherd's position, which is none other than the received Reformed doctrine. The only difference is that he gives more attention to what the New Testament teaches about works in relation to justification - more than do the majority of Reformed theologians of the present day.</div> <bR> <div> Dr. O. Palmer Robertson, one of Mr. Shepherd's opponents at Westminster Seminary, argues against Shepherd's views concerning when the concept of justification can be applied:</div> <bR> <div> . . . little if any evidence may be found in Scripture that forgiveness of sins shall occur in the judgment of the last day. Essential to "justification" is the forgiveness of sins, yet the unbeliever certainly will not be forgiven at the last day. The believer already stands justified. The cleansing forgiveness associated with sanctification hardly will be needed by the saints who already will have been changed into the glorious likeness of Christ at his appearing. </div> <bR> <div> Indeed, a "vindication" of the status of the believer shall occur at the last judgment. He shall be "openly acknowledged, and acquitted in the Day of Judgment" (Shorter Catechism Q.38). But in that vindication, good works arising from repentance shall function only as fruit and evidence of the unshakable status of justification which had been realized at the moment of believing. (Robertson, 2003, 21-22)</div> <bR> <div> Robertson's arguments do not do justice to the various aspects of justification and are confusing. It is true that the glorified believer will not be forgiven for sins done in his state of glory, but that does not provide an explanation for the biblical teaching that also for those who are in Christ there will be a real judgment on the last day. Justification is not limited to the forgiveness of present sin. It is also the forensic declaration of innocence. Just as God is justified when he is judged (Rom. 3:4), so not every sense of justification need be applied to the Last Judgment. Robertson acknowledges the vindication of believers on that day. Is that not justification - the official declaration of innocence? That judgment will be according to works done in the flesh. With Robertson, Shepherd sees works functioning for this judgment as the evidence of faith and not as the ground of justification. </div> <bR> <div> Another point of possible confusion is suggested by Robertson's words, “…cleansing forgiveness associated with sanctification….” If he means forgiveness that occurs at the same time as we are sanctified, there is no problem. However, if the intention is to suggest that the Christian's daily forgiveness is to be viewed as sanctification, then sanctification and justification are confused. Sanctification is inward transformation, but forgiveness is an act of God outside of us. The daily forgiveness of our sins is just as much justification as is the forgiveness at our effectual call. Among some, there is a tendency to regard all that happens to us between our initial justification and our glorification to be sanctification, where definitions are determined sequentially. This cannot do justice to the Biblical data. At the same time, our daily forgiveness does not call into question the fullness and definitive character of the forgiveness received when we first believe.</div> <bR> <div> The Westminster Confession describes the forgiveness of God's children in the state of justification as the restoration of a father's favor and reminds us that God continues to forgive the justified even though they can never fall from the state of justification. Since we are not sons of God before our union with Christ, this is a good way of relating the difference between our justification when Christ is first applied to us and our forgiveness as we continue in the covenant of grace. Recently Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. has provided a helpful description of the relationship of our present justification to our justification at the Last Judgment by applying the distinction between faith and sight. Believers are already justified - by faith. But they are yet to be justified - by sight (Gaffin, 2006, 88). Such explanations help us to see how we are already justified, continue to receive forgiveness, and will be openly acquitted as justified in the Final Judgment.</div> <bR> <div> Why treat our daily forgiveness and the Final Judgment as justification? Why not limit this concept to when we first believe? One reason is that these realities deal with the forensic declaration of forgiveness and innocence and to describe them as sanctification or glorification would be wrong. Another is that the biblical language presses us to speak in this way. For example, the Holy Spirit demonstrates no tension when He illustrates the doctrine of justification with situations in the lives of those already converted. Genesis 15:6, “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness,” was not given at the time of Abraham's effectual call. From Hebrews 11:8 we know that Abraham already believed when he obeyed the command to go out to Canaan, which was well before Genesis 15. Similarly, Paul's appeal to David in Romans 4:6,7, to show that justification is apart from works, was also an appeal to forgiveness that was not the initial justification in David's life (Psalm 32). </div> <bR> <div> Shepherd speaks scripturally when he points out the three different uses of the concept of justification. In Scripture the declaration that we are righteous is not always a reference to the initial constituting declaration. We can be repeatedly declared to be righteous, since we continue, in fact, to be righteous and continue to have saving faith, such that we continue to accept, receive and rest in Christ for our righteousness. At the same time, Christ continues to be our advocate when we sin (1 John 2:1), and we continue to be forgiven for sins we still commit and will commit until our death. This reality will see its close at the Great Assize when all will be judged according to what they did in the body. Those who trusted in Jesus Christ alone for justification and salvation will go into eternal life, while those who did not feed Christ when he was hungry or clothe him when naked will go into eternal punishment.</div> <bR> <div> Charles Hodge explains:</div> <bR> <div> The believer feels the constant necessity for confession and prayer for pardon, but the ground of pardon is ever present for him to offer and plead. So that it would perhaps be a more correct statement to say that in justification the believer receives the promise that God will not deal with him according to his transgressions, rather than to say that sins are forgiven before they are committed (Hodge, III, 163-164).</div> <bR> <div> Given that Scripture does not abstract justification from God's continued forgiveness of those who are in the state of justification, nor from entrance into life eternal at the Last Judgment, we now ask, what use does Shepherd make of this? Does he suggest that final justification is on a different basis than initial justification? Are we finally justified by faith in Christ and by the works we do by the grace of God in us, as some critics affirm to be his teaching? Not at all. He does not speak of justification by works. Rather, he follows earlier Reformed theologians in speaking of the necessity of works for justification, and he means the same thing they did.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_c__the_necessity_of_works_for"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.c. The Necessity of Works for Justification</B></div> <bR> <div> Among Shepherd's thirty-four theses about justification are the following:</div> <bR> <div> 21. The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14). </div> <bR> <div> 22. The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14). </div> <bR> <div> 23. Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9). . . .</div> <bR> <div> 25. The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone does not mean that faith in isolation or abstraction from good works justifies, but that the way of faith (faith working by love), as opposed to the "works of the law" or any other conceivable method of justification, is the only way of justification. (John Calvin, Institutes, III, 11, 20. "Indeed, we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies 'but faith working through love' [Gal. 5:6]. But it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.") (Shepherd, 1978). </div> <bR> <div> These summary statements leave no doubt about what Shepherd means. Works or the believer's godliness are not the basis or ground for justification, nor are they an instrument of justification. They are necessary for forgiveness in the same sense as repentance is required. Faith without works is dead. A dead faith cannot justify. The Bible says much more about the necessity for works as Mr. Shepherd summarizes in these theses and shows in other writings. Nevertheless, the heart of the matter was expressed by Dr. Cornelius Van Til in his support for Shepherd, when he reportedly emphasized, “Faith without works is dead.” The above theses plainly state that Christ's righteousness is the exclusive ground for justification and, as was mentioned previously, it is received by imputation. Thus he clearly excludes any suggestion that Christ's righteousness for forgiveness becomes ours through the infusion of grace. Calvin expressed it succinctly in the citation in the previous paragraph, and Shepherd nowhere writes anything that might leave us in doubt about whether he means something different from Calvin.</div> <bR> <div> The critics, however, give a different reading to what Shepherd teaches about the necessity for works. John Carrick writes, “… `Shepherdism' … is a subtle form of legalism…, subversive of the gospel; … subversive of this great, wonderful, yet vulnerable doctrine of justification by faith alone” (Carrick, 2005, 142-143). Robertson concludes, “His ambiguous use of the phrase `obedience of faith' then serves as a means of communicating the idea that justification is by the obedient acts done in faith as well as by faith, which inevitably comes to expression in obedience to God” (Robertson, 2003, 95). Shepherd's understanding of the obedience of faith will be considered again below, but it is not what Robertson attributes to him and Shepherd does not say that justification is by works. Given his statements, cited above, that the exclusive ground for justification is the righteousness of Christ and that justification is by faith alone, there appears to be no basis for speaking of legalism in Shepherd and subversion of the Gospel cannot be found in these theses.</div> <bR> <div> Belief in the necessity of works for justification is not something new in Reformed theology. With Calvin, the Reformed faith commonly holds that the faith by which we are justified is faith that rests in Jesus Christ for righteousness and works through love, without deriving its power to justify from that working. Faith without works can impossibly save because it is dead. It is recommended that Shepherd's paper entitled, “The Grace of Justification,” (1979) be read in order to be reminded how this teaching has been commonly held. The following are extracts from this paper which can be said to be Shepherd's mature thoughts on his teachings when they were being contested at Westminster Seminary:</div> <bR> <div> Calvin concludes, “Man is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits.”. . . </div> <bR> <div> We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness: we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God….</div> <bR> <div> Gal. 5:6 makes clear that the doctrine of Paul and the doctrine of James are the same. James does not deny that faith justifies, but he does deny that inactive faith justifies. Faith without works is dead (2:26). Dead faith does not save (vs. 14) and dead faith does not justify (vs. 24). This is what James has in view when he says that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Both James and Paul denounce dead works and dead faith. They both commend a living and active faith. The teaching of James and Paul is nowhere better summarized than by John Murray at the conclusion of his chapter on Justification in <I>Redemption - Accomplished and Applied</I><I> </I>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), p. 161: “Faith alone justifies but a justified person with faith alone would be a monstrosity which never exists in the kingdom of grace. Faith works itself out through love (cf. Gal. 5:6). And faith without works is dead (cf. James 2:17-20). It is living faith that justifies and living faith unites to Christ both in the virtue of his death and in the power of his resurrection.” Noteworthy is the fact that Murray relates both James 2 and Gal. 5:6 to the doctrine of forensic justification. Living faith is not to be defined simply as a faith wrought through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Just because it is wrought by the Spirit it is a faith that works….</div> <bR> <div> . . . A. A. Hodge comments, “Consequently orthodox theologians have always acknowledged that while faith alone justifies, a faith which is alone, or unassociated with other graces and fruitless in good works, will not justify” (<I>A </I><I>Commentary on the Confession of Faith</I> [Phil.: Pres. Bd. Of Pub. 1869], p. 253). Hodge's observation is of value not only for what it says of the Confession but also for its testimony to what is the commonly held view of orthodox theologians (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> With regard to the necessity of works for justification, then, Shepherd expresses the recognized Reformed position that works are required for justification because faith without works is dead and a dead faith cannot lead us into fellowship with Christ and his righteousness.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_d__are_obedience_and_works_always_to"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><B>4.d. Are Obedience and Works Always to be Viewed as Meritorious?</B></div> <bR> <div> Because Paul makes a sharp contrast between works and faith, there is a tendency among not a few to think that he is speaking of works in general and faith in general. Faith is thought to always be contrasted with works. In reality, however, Paul uses these terms as shorthand for two opposing concepts. We all understand that he is referring to faith that embraces Jesus Christ and his righteousness and contrasts it with works that seek to present human worth or merits as the basis for approval by God. Paul is clearly not speaking of every sense of faith or every sense of faith in the true God. He surely agrees that the faith  the devils have is not saving faith and that there are also people who think they believe in God (and, perhaps, do so in some sense), but who do not have saving faith. Similarly, all works are not the same. In both Paul and James the terms faith and works are employed as parts for the whole and to understand what is meant when they are used, it is the whole that needs to be considered.</div> <bR> <div> In the present controversy, however, it appears that a measure of confusion can be attributed to a tendency to view obedience and works as necessarily indicating meritorious activity. Thus, whenever works are associated with justification, it is understood that they are a human contribution to right-standing with God. Some might want to insist that in our theology we need to reserve the term works for meritorious performance. It is difficult to see how this would be profitable, but if it is done, it is surely not sound reasoning to insist that someone who does not share this approach is actually opening the door for legalism when he joins other Reformed theologians in saying that works are necessary for justification.</div> <bR> <div> Understanding obedience and works as inherently meritorious complicates our reading of Scripture. For example, Galatians 5:6 would then tell us that what avails for justification is faith performing merits through love - something Paul clearly does not intend. We do much better if we stick with the basic meanings of these words. Obedience is simply responding positively to a command or to authority and working is simply doing. So, faith itself is obedience to the command to believe (1 John 3:23), but is not counted as meritorious for righteousness, and, even though he uses the word with a different meaning than his interlocutors, Jesus doesn't need to use qualifiers when he says that the work of God is that we believe in him whom he has sent (John 6:29). Believing is something we do, but to join Jesus in regarding it as work does not change faith into something credited for its worth. Faith  is work in the sense of being a human activity. John Murray writes:</div> <bR> <div> Regeneration is the act of God and of God alone. But faith is not the act of God; it is not God who believes in Christ for salvation, it is the sinner. It is by God's grace that a person is able to believe but faith is an activity on the part of the person and of him alone (Murray, 1955, 106).</div> <bR> <div> Faith is obedience, but it is not the imperfect obedience of our faith that justifies. Believing is something we do, but it is not the performance of faith that is the instrumental cause of being accounted as righteous. It is the extraspective entrustment of ourselves to Christ and his cross and resurrection that makes it the alone instrument of justification, for it is only the righteousness of Christ that is accounted to us for right-standing with God..</div> <bR> <div> If we acknowledge that faith is not only a gift of God, but also an activity, a work we perform and yet contributes nothing meritorious to our justification, then it should not be difficult to see that there is no contradiction in Shepherd when he teaches that works are necessary for justification and also that “…there is nothing that any man can do to save himself from condemnation or to contribute to his salvation in any sense or at any point,….” (thesis 2). His understanding is that the works that accompany faith and are the manifestation of faith are not meritorious and are not to be seen as contributing anything to justification. In this analysis, he follows Machen, saying:</div> <bR> <div>  Machen described this chasm when he wrote in developing further his reconciliation of the teaching of James and Paul: </div> <bR> <div> Moreover, as the faith that James condemns is different from the faith, which Paul commends, so also the works, which James commends, are different from the works, which Paul condemns. Paul is speaking about “works of the law” -- that is, works which are intended to earn salvation by fulfilling the law through human effort. James says nothing in chapter 2:14-26 about works of the law. The works of which he is speaking are works that spring from faith and are the expression of faith. Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice only because he believed God. His works were merely an evidence that his faith was real. Such works as that are insisted upon by Paul in every epistle. Without them no man can inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21).-- Only -- and here again James would have been perfectly agreed -- such works as that can spring only from faith. They can be accomplished not by human effort, but only by the reception of the power of God (Op. cit., p. 221) (Shepherd, "The Grace of Justification").</div> <bR> <div> Machen and Shepherd emphasize that, when speaking of the believer's works in connection with justification, they distinguish such works from those that seek to be meritorious so as to contribute to right-standing with God. Believing works are commanded in Scripture and, not infrequently, related to the reception of eternal life (e.g., Matt. 5:7; 6:14,15; 12:36, 37; 16:27; 18:23-35; 25:31-46; John 15:1-14; James 2:13; Rev. 20:12, 13; 22:12, 14, 15). They do not contribute to justification, but are evidence, fruit, expressions and manifestations of faith. Faith cannot exist without works, but believing works do not merit anything. Shepherd says repeatedly that justification is exclusively through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Works are compatible with and demonstrative of total reliance on Him. </div> <bR> <div> Nevertheless, it almost seems like his critics cannot conceptualize works without attributing some form of merit to them. Shepherd wants us to reason in a way that always recognizes that faith without works is dead, but his critics seem to think that the very nature of works implies merit and, therefore, if works are said to be necessary for justification, this can only suggest that they make a contribution to justification - a point Shepherd consistently denies. </div> <bR> <div> As we saw already, Robertson writes that Shepherd's “…ambiguous use of the phrase `obedience of faith' then serves as a means of communicating the idea that justification is by the obedient acts done in faith as well as by faith, which inevitably comes to expression in obedience to God” (Robertson, 2003, 95). This is a distorted summary of what Shepherd believes. He does not teach that obedient acts done in faith constitute any part of justification. They are necessary because only obedient faith saves, that is, only living faith justifies. Of course, it is really only Christ's imputed righteousness by which we are justified, but, I trust, we all agree on that. </div> <bR> <div> When Shepherd speaks of the obedience of faith, he thinks of obedience to God and his law that is a manifestation of faith. He uses this term in a manner similar to the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), when it said, “This election is not based on foreseen faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality of disposition, as a cause or condition in man required for being chosen, but men are chosen to faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, and so on” (Dort, I.9, ed., <I>Book of Praise</I>, 1984). We have been chosen for the obedience of faith, and not of merit, that we may manifest Christ in us. This obedience expresses our faith in the Christ who is our righteousness. It is not the basis for our justification. With Dort, Shepherd rejects the error that God “…chose or selected the act of faith, which in itself is without merit, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation. In His grace He wished to count such faith as complete obedience and worthy of the reward of eternal life” (Dort, I, Error 3, ed., canrc.org ).</div> <bR> <div> Leading up to the above statement, Robertson states:</div> <bR> <div> In a similar manner, when Mr. Shepherd asserted that Paul excluded only works done in an attitude of boasting and pride from the "way" of justification and did not intend to exclude also the "good works" done in faith by the regenerate as the "way" of justification, he had the obligation of establishing this point on clear exegetical grounds. Working in the context of history since the Reformation, he basically had a responsibility to answer the argument of John Calvin and others in their analysis of the scope of the "works of the law" excluded from justification by Paul. Calvin had argued quite convincingly that if Paul were excluding only boastful works from justification, then he would not have cited the Old Testament to show that if a person should do these very "works" he would be blessed with life (see John Calvin's treatment of Galatians 3:10,13 in his <I>Institutes</I> III, ii, 19 [probably II,xi,19 is meant]) (Robertson, 2003, 95).</div> <bR> <div> In this section, Calvin is speaking of works with the power to justify and he rightly excludes all works from justification in that sense. As we have already seen, Shepherd follows Calvin on this point. Here we encounter Robertson's fundamental misreading of Shepherd. He interprets him as saying that works have the power to justify. In reality, Shepherd speaks of the necessity of works only in the sense of faith without works being dead. Boastful works of unbelievers who seek justification on the basis of their works are not those that evidence living faith. Believing works, on the other hand, are the manifestation of faith and faith without such works is dead (James 2:26). Dead faith cannot possibly justify. This is the point that Machen and Shepherd make and no other.</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd writes:</div> <bR> <div> [T]he gospel which comes with the power of the Spirit bears the fruit of the Spirit in faith, repentance, and new obedience. Neither faith nor repentance, nor the works, which flow from and are the manifestation of faith and repentance, become the meritorious ground upon which the sinner is justified and given the title to eternal life. They are descriptive of the way in which God sovereignly and efficaciously brings his children into the possession of all that Jesus has wrought for them. As Calvin describes it, “Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works” (<I>Institutes</I> III, 14, 21) (Shepherd, 1979).</div> <bR> <div> The dynamic that Shepherd describes is one that denies all human merit and this with the purpose of excluding any suggestion that our works can contribute anything to our salvation. They do not work justification but they have a role in the way in which God leads us into possession of eternal life. It is not legitimate to translate his use of the term, “way,” as, the instrumental means by which we are justified, as do Robertson and other critics.</div> <bR> <div> Shepherd calls attention to occasions when Scripture shows that faith itself is obedience and work in order to demonstrate how obedience and works do not necessarily speak of merit. After all, Reformed theology teaches that we are not accounted righteous because of the worthiness of our faith. Therefore, if faith, considered as a work we do, is not meritorious, then works that accompany it should not be regarded as meritorious, either. Some critics, on the other hand, interpret Shepherd's point as teaching the exact opposite. For them, if he counts faith to be an obedient work, then he attributes meritorious worth to faith. This will become evident when we consider what critics say about his teaching concerning the relationship of faith and works.</div> <bR> <div> This basic difference in mindset with regard to works is, probably, the main contributor to the misreading of what Shepherd and Machen say. Again, it should be possible to disagree with Shepherd without assigning to him legalism, Arminianism, and Romanism, which are all based on works as meritorious. One can prefer to understand works in a meritorious sense, but that does not mean that Shepherd teaches that we are justified by faith and works when he only says that works, in a non-meritorious sense, must be present if the faith that justifies is to be genuine. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> [This study is continued in Part 2]</div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=80 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000"> <div> Contents</div> <bR> <div> 1. <A HREF="index_m.htm#1__introduction" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">Introduction</A></div> <div> 2. <A HREF="index_m.htm#2__understanding_james" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">Understanding James</A></div> <div> 3. <A HREF="index_m.htm#3_the_point" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">The Point</A></div> <div> 4. <A HREF="index_m.htm#4__the_criticisms" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">The Criticisms</A></div> <div>      a. <A HREF="index_m.htm#4_a__justification" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">Justification</A></div> <div>      b. <A HREF="index_m.htm#4_b__when_are_we_justified_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">When Are We Justified</A></div> <div>      c. <A HREF="index_m.htm#4_c__the_necessity_of_works_for" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">The Necessity of Works for Justification</A></div> <div>      d. <A HREF="index_m.htm#4_d__are_obedience_and_works_always_to" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Part 1">Are Obedience and Works Always to be Viewed as Meritorious?</A></div> <div>      e. <A HREF="2_4_e__faith_and_works.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Faith and Works</A></div> <div>      f. <A HREF="2_4_f__fruit_and_evidence.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Fruit and Evidence</A></div> <div>      g. <A HREF="2_4_g__justification_and_sanctification.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Justification and Sanctification</A></div> <div>      h. <A HREF="2_4_h__the_nature_of_righteousness.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">The Nature of Righteousness </A></div> <div>      i. <A HREF="2_4_i__covenant_of_works_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Covenant of Works?</A></div> <div>      j. <A HREF="2_4_j__grace_and_faith_in_the.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2">Grace and Faith in the Preredemptive Covenant?</A></div> <div>      k. <A HREF="3_4_k__law_and_gospel.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Law and Gospel</A></div> <div>      l. <A HREF="3_4_l__two_covenants_or_one_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Two Covenants or One?</A></div> <div>      m.<A HREF="3_4_m__the_perspective_of_the_covenant_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3"> </A><A HREF="3_4_m__the_perspective_of_the_covenant_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">The Perspective of the Covenant in History and the Eternal Decrees</A></div> <div>      n. <A HREF="3_4_n__baptism_the_mark_of_conversion.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Baptism, the Mark of Conversion</A></div> <div>      o. <A HREF="3_4_o__time_eternity_and_the_covenants.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 3">Time, Eternity and the Covenants</A></div> <div>      p. <A HREF="4_4_p__imputation_of_christ_s_active.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience?</A></div> <div>      q. <A HREF="4_4_q__entitlement_to_eternal_life.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Entitlement to Eternal Life</A></div> <div> 5. <A HREF="4_5__communication_style.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Communication Style</A></div> <div> 6. <A HREF="4_6__theological_influences.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Theological Influences</A></div> <div> 7. <A HREF="4_7__what_difference_does_it_make_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">What Difference Does It Make?</A></div> <div> 8. <A HREF="4_8__the_impact_of_the_covenant.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">The Impact of the Covenant Perspective</A></div> <div> 9. <A HREF="4_9__why_the_concern_about_merit_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Why the Concern About Merit?</A></div> <div> 10. <A HREF="4_10__two_paradigms.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">Two Paradigms</A></div> <div> 11. <A HREF="4_11__the_point.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 4">The Point</A></div> <div> 12. <A HREF="app_appendix.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Appendix">Appendix: The Critics</A></div> <div> 13. <A HREF="bibliography_bibliography.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bibliography">Bibliography</A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>