Here are a few of my own observations and conclusions that came from reading through Shepherd's "34 These Concerning Justification . . .". They are decidedly brief, but I think salient enough to show that he is teaching something other than the historic doctrine of Sola Fide:
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.
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".
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).
ANS: Notice here that he has moved from a "class" to a tentative "state" of justification. It is here that Shepherd & co., clearly deny Sola Fide and have fallen back into synergism.
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).
ANS: Now, here we have the clearest statement and denial of Sola Fide. For he makes personal godliness, aka: "works" necessary to secure justification. The very nature of justification is changed from a forensic declaration to a "state" or "class" which is dependent upon one's works in addition to the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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.
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.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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".
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.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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).
ANS: Notice here that he has moved from a "class" to a tentative "state" of justification. It is here that Shepherd & co., clearly deny Sola Fide and have fallen back into synergism.
I can’t disagree here. His words do seem to suggest that justification is tentative and contingent upon persevering in good works. You are correct, he seems to ignore that justification is legal and objective and not subjective. I would hope that this was a miscommunication and he was trying to convey that the justified must press on to the mark, or become a castaway – though that could never happen.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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).
ANS: Now, here we have the clearest statement and denial of Sola Fide. For he makes personal godliness, aka: "works" necessary to secure justification. The very nature of justification is changed from a forensic declaration to a "state" or "class" which is dependent upon one's works in addition to the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ.
As I said already, the word “necessary” is a very poor choice of words at best. What brings the greatest reproach on these men is that the WCF unambiguously addresses faith and works in the context of salvation. So why do men feel the need to jettison the church’s Confession(s) for novel terms, if indeed they are truly in agreement with the Reformed tradition?
As for defending Sheperd and the like, I really don’t care to spend my time in this way. As Jason alluded to about S.S. and it may apply here as well, a confusing writer seems to intentionally make his own bed, so I will let this one lie in it or speak for himself. I go to great pains to make my writings clear and have a hard enough time defending what I write half the time…. So I really cannot sympathize too much with those who after repeated questioning leave obvious ambiguities in their writings. Fair enough?
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]
As you know, I believe and have defended with great vigor that the covenant is established solely with Christ and in Him the elect. I do allow, however, for people to speak in terms of the covenant administration, which includes conscious hypocrites and non-elect infants. Accordingly, I will allow for the label of "covenant breaker", if by the term what is being referred to are those who have gone out from us, but were not truly of us. Such partake of the covenant signs and seals, but never improve upon their baptism as it were.
As for Romans 2:13, I do trust that you would not say that Sheperd believes that those who are justified will keep the law perfectly. I believe this is key. Obviously, if Sheperd agreed with your rendering of the passage, he would not use it as a proof-text for his position. In other words, I think you are saying that the apostle Paul is speaking of the hypothetical situation that those who keep the law perfectly will be saved. This, I believe you would say, is setting the reader up for the doctrine of an alien righteousness apart from law-works, since nobody can keep the law perfectly. However, when Sheperd says that “those who keep the law will be justified”, I don’t think it is fair to import your interpretation of the passage (even if it were the correct one) back into Sheperd’s argument. In other words, as I see it, Sheperd, having a different interpretation of the passage, is saying that those who keep the law (though imperfectly) are the ones that God justifies (but not because of their law keeping). That’s all I’m saying. Again, unless you think that Sheperd believes that perfect law-keeping is necessary for salvation, I don’t think that your interpretation of Romans 2:13 can be used to hang him with; even if your interpretation is the correct one. I hope that makes sense. It's late and I'm going to bed.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/doze.gif" alt="doze" title="doze[/img]
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)