The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Marks of Heresy

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are his disciples, who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God, are in a state of justification and will be justified on the day of judgment; whereas unbelieving, ungodly, unrighteous, and impenitent sinners who are covenant breakers or strangers to the covenant of grace, etc.

ANS: An unbeliever cannot break a covenant that has not been established. This is where Shepherd and his followers begin their journey from the path of truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron answered: I know what you’re saying, but I would take the term “covenant breaker” as one who participated in the outward administration of the covenant, but did not possess what the covenant contemplates.

---

Sorry Ron, but that simply doesn't relate to what Shepherd wrote. See the highlighted portion where he explicitly states that those who are deemed "covenant breakers" are unbelieving, ungodly, etc.... individuals. This is hardly how one would describe someone who is a member of a church. It would seem far more likely that these terms describe a heathen and/or pagan individual who has no relationship to a church body. Of course, this doesn't even consider what Shepherd believes about "covenant relationships" and their conditionality. The "Auburn Statement", of which I have already commented on in a reply to Jason states clearly that they hold that one who is baptized is actually and really ingrafted into Christ, is a recipient of all the blessings which flow from Christ's atoning work, etc... And it is THOSE who fail to continue in their "faithful obedience" who are considered "covenant breakers". But the problem is as I have stated above.... there IS NO covenant established with those who are described in Shepherd's statement. God ONLY establishes His covenant first with Christ and then with those who belong to HIM.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, "the doers of the Law will be justified," is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25)

ANS: Justification is a judicial/forensic declaration, pronouncement of a sinner's acquittal due to the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is a right standing before God, not a "class".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron answered: I think by class, what he means is the set of people who are justified. In this sense, I don’t see that he denies the forensic nature of justification.

---

The problem here is Shepherd's interpretation of Rom 2:13. He believes that the "doers of the law" is referring to persevering believers, which is totally contrary to what Paul is saying in that section of Romans. Paul is speaking to those who are of the opinion that God will justify those who keep His law. Knowing that no man can keep the law of God perfectly, Paul nonetheless humors these individuals and affirms that it isn't the hearers (those who can recite the law) but those who actually keep the law who will be justified. But then he goes on to show the impossibility of any man keeping the law of God. It is true.. only the "doers of the law will be justified". And all believers are DEEMED "doers of the law" on the basis of Christ's substitutionary atonement. It was Christ Who was the "doer of the law" and Who merited justification in behalf of all those who are united to Him by a living faith. This passage has NOTHING to do with individual persons "keeping the law" or "keeping covenant" and who are then justified. This is a total distortion of the text which only serves to seemingly support Shepherd's fabricated "covenantalism" once again. The fact that he offers Luke 8:21 and James 1:22-25 as prooftexts shows that my understanding of his statement is true and that his understanding of Romans 2:13 is erroneous. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

In His Grace,