Faith Alone Is The Instrument Of Justification AND Salvation
sola-fide-flag Controversy can be ugly and painful and the recent controversy over sanctification has been both at times. It can also be helpful by bringing greater clarity and this controversy has been useful in that respect. Some orthodox Reformed pastors are being charged with antinomianism because they allegedly over emphasize grace—how sinners who face eternal condemnation apart from the free favor merited for them by the perfect, whole obedience of Christ can over emphaize grace I am uncertain but that is the charge. Further, it is charged that some of these advocates of free grace downplay the moral, logical necessity of sanctification and good works as a consequence of Christ’s free justification of sinners. Whether that is so is a necessarily subjective judgment. Must one publish something on sanctification every time one publishes something on justification? Who determines how much emphasis on sanctity is enough? To be sure, it probably is the case that, in their enthusiasm for justification sola gratia, sola fide, some proponents of free acceptance with God have perhaps not been as consistently clear about the implications of grace and the normative role of the moral law for those who’ve been free justified (accepted with God) and who live before the face of God (coram Deo) by grace alone through faith alone, in union with Christ.
With those caveats out of the way, one feature of the response by some to the renewed emphasis on grace is the assertion that though we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone we are saved partly through works. This distinction has emerged more clearly in recent discussions in response to some of the recent posts on the HB and in correspondence. So, is it the case that we are justified sola gratia, sola fide but that our works are part of the instrument through which we are finally delivered from the wrath to come?
I’ve addressed this question in earlier posts (that were not written during a heated controversy and so may have been missed). As part of my regular exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism (which is why this is called the Heidelblog) I wrote 10 posts explaining the Heidelberg Catechism’s definition of faith. In part 10 I contrasted the teaching of the Q/A 21 (“what is true faith?”) with that of Norman Shepherd, one of the godfathers of the self-described Federal Vision movement and the intellectual grandfather of some of the criticisms of the advocates of free grace. In this post I want to borrow from that earlier post and weave that material together with a response to some of the critics.
In the course of this discussion it has been argued to me that our sanctification, that conformity to Christ and obedience wrought in us by the Spirit is part of the instrument, the means, not of our justification—although some seem to be distinguishing between an initial justification sola gratia, sola fide and a final justification that includes sanctity, a distinction that is utterly foreign to Reformed theology—but of our salvation, i.e., our final deliverance from the judgment to come.
I reply: Our obedience is either the ground (the basis), the instrument (the means), or the evidence (the fruit) of our salvation. The Reformed doctrine is the latter. It is the case that believers will be progressively sanctified by the work of the Holy Spirit, through the due use of ordinary means, and that progressive sanctity will produce obedience in conformity to God’s holy law. That sanctity and concomitant and consequent obedience, however, is no part of the ground or instrument of our final salvation or acceptance with God.
The difficulty is that some Reformed folk are not satisfied with making Spirit-wrought sanctity, which produces obedience that comes to expression in good works, a logically necessary fruit of justification and the evidence of their regeneration, justification, union with Christ, adoption etc. They want that sanctification and attendant good works to do more. They want that sanctity, obedience, and fruit to be a part of the means or instrument of our salvation (deliverance from the wrath to come), which includes our justification. As historians are wont to say, this has happened before.
Norman Shepherd, who taught at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia from the 1950s until 1981, and who was dismissed from his post there because of his doctrine, and whose doctrine of justification has been denounced by several confessional Reformed denominations, made good works more than the logically necessary fruit and evidence of our free acceptance with God in Christ. In his notorious 1978 “Thirty Four Theses” Shepherd wrote:
11. Justifying faith is obedient faith, that is, “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6), and therefore faith that yields obedience to the commands of Scripture.
Shepherd adopted a Romanist definition of faith formed by love. He turned “working” into “makes faith what it is” or “makes faith justifying.” It was against this very error that the Protestants were so adamant in saying that good works are never the ground (with which Shepherd formally agreed in the 34 Theses) or the instrument of salvation. Shepherd rejected the Protestant doctrine on this point. That rejection led him to teach:
18. Faith, repentance, and new obedience are not the cause or ground of salvation or justification, but are, as covenantal response to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the way (Acts 24:14; II Peter 2:2, 21) in which the Lord of the Covenant brings his people into the full
possession of eternal life.
Notice that he mentions the ground (basis) and cause of justification and salvation but he omits the instrument. This is because he has already folded works into his definition of faith as the instrument not only of justification but also of salvation. According to Shepherd, sanctification and works are our “covenantal response” and “the way” by which we “come into possession of eternal life.” I was reminded of this language in our recent discussions. There are critics of Tullian, who in this discussion, have adopted the very language. He continues:
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 3:21; James 1:22-25).
Contra Calvin and the Reformed, there are Reformed people today who adopt this view of Romans 2:13 and that should be quite concerning. The Reformed view is that, in Romans 2:13, Paul is preaching the law, he is prosecuting the Jews for thinking that they could, finally, present themselves to God on the basis of their works. In effect, Paul says: Go ahead. See how well you do. Paul says in Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Romans 2:13 ESV)
Our Lord Jesus did not merely hear the law. He did it. He performed. He obeyed. He earned his standing before God and he earned, by his condign merit, a right standing before God for all who believe. Paul is not teaching here that believers, in union with Christ, can (if they exert themselves) present themselves to God in part or wholly on the basis of Spirit-wrought sanctity. On this passage Calvin explained:
…they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced, according to this saying, “He who will do these shall live in them.” The import then of this verse is the following, — “That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.” They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.
Calvin read this passage not to teach the nature of the Christian life, as some Reformed folk do today, but he read it in light of the distinction between law and gospel. For Calvin, Romans 2:13 is not good news, that believers can, if they will, obey unto final acceptance with God. It is bad news: God still demands perfect obedience to the law and we cannot do it.
In response, as I’ve seen in this discussion, some who read Romans 2:13 to refer to Christian obedience “in the way of salvation” turn to the doctrine of congruent merit, that God imputes perfection to our best efforts so that those efforts are able to contribute toward our final acceptance with God. This is a version of the Franciscan covenant theology that the entire Reformation rejected. Again, it was against this background that the Belgic spoke of goods works “fruit” and evidence of our acceptance with God and not any part of the instrument.
We can see Shepherd folding works into faith as part of the instrument of justification and salvation here:
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).
Notice that he says “ground” but omits “instrument.” Notice too that he says that obedience is necessary for continuing in s state of justification. As Cornel Venema noted in his review of Shepherd’s Call of Grace Shepherd dispensed with merit altogether. This, of course, led him not only to deny our merits (which all Protestants should deny) but also the imputation of Christ’s merits. Yet, in this discussion, it seems that some of Tullian’s critics think that they are safe in talking about our good works somehow contributing to our final salvation so long as they deny that they are meritorious.
Speaking of “final salvation” do we really want to fall into the trap of two stages of justification or two stages of salvation? Yes, if salvation includes progressive sanctification, then, of course, it has been inaugurated in the application of redemption and will be consummated at the last day but it is not as if salvation is sola gratia, sola fide in this life and partly on the basis of Spirit-wrought sanctity and obedience at the last day. There are not two stages of justification. There is only one. “Having therefore been justified…” God’s Word does not say, “justification therefore having been initiated.”
Salvation is a broader term than justification as it includes the outworking of justification in our lives in sanctification. There are not two stages of salvation. It’s not as if we are initially delivered from the wrath to come by grace alone, through faith alone and then later delivered through faith and works or through faithfulness. No, our deliverance from the wrath to come is by grace alone, through faith alone, in union with Christ. On this Calvin is quite clear in Institutes 3.2.
When, contra the Gaffinite view of existential/mystical union with Christ I assert that there is a logical order of justification and sanctification and between faith and its effects, I’m following Calvin (Institutes 3.3.1):
With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins. Any discussion of faith, therefore, that omitted these two topics would be barren and mutilated and well-nigh useless. Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins — that is, newness of life and free reconciliation — are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith. As a consequence, reason and the order of teaching demand that I begin to discuss both at this point. However, our immediate transition will be from faith to repentance. For when this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness. Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith.
Repentance, the turning away from sin, the learning to hate sin more and more, is born of faith, it follows faith. Was Calvin an antinomian? Did Calvin deny union with Christ? Was Calvin weak on sanctification?
Back to Shepherd. Look what Shepherd does with our obedience. Having assumed a two-stage justification he teaches:
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).
Again, he denies that our obedience is any part of the ground of justification but he teaches that it part of the instrument of our justification on the last two. He’s not only made two stages of justification but he’s included our good works into faith in that justification, which he has now conflated with salvation. So, what began as a distinction between justification and salvation has elided. They are now one.
Please do not ignore what happens when good works become more than fruit, evidence or the way it is. When they become part of the ground (which even Shepherd denies—not to say that he was entirely consistent with his denial) or the instrument (which he affirms) the gospel is lost. The good news is not that we shall be finally accepted by God if we are sufficiently sanctified. The good news is that we have already been accepted by God (!) for Christ’s sake alone and because that it is so the same Holy Spirit who united us to Christ will also gradually, graciously work sanctity in us. Must we struggle to be sanctified? Yes! Amen! Is it hard? Yes! Amen! Must we take up our cross daily, die to self, and actively seek to grow in sanctity, in conformity to Christ? Yes! Amen! Is the judgment a final exam for believers wherein our standing with God is renegotiated on the basis of how well we did in this life? μὴ γένοιτο. May it never be! The standing with God of all believers has already been adjudicated at the cross and our Savior said: It is finished! That is the Word of God. That is the gospel. If an angel tries to tell you differently little one, you tell him “Get behind me Satan.”
Shepherd continues:
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; I John 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).
When Shepherd says “continuing in a state of justification” he not only implied that we can lose our justification, a denial of the biblical and Reformed doctrine of perseverance (see the 5th head of doctrine of the Canons of Dort) but he also teaches that the “good works…done from true faith” i.e., “the new obedience” are necessary to retain what has been given. They are “necessary for salvation” which he rightly defined as deliverance from eternal condemnation. This was the doctrine of George Major in the 1550s, that good works are necessary for “retaining salvation.” This is the Marjorist error that all the Protestants rejected in the 1550s.
Shepherd juxtaposed “works of the law” with “good works:”
24. The “works” (Eph. 2:9), or “works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16), or “righteousness of my own derived from the Law” (Phil. 3:9), or “deeds which we have done in righteousness”(Titus 3:5) which are excluded from justification and salvation, are not “good works” in the Biblical sense of works for which the believer is created in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10), or works wrought by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:22-26), or works done from true faith (I Thess. 1:3), according to the law of God, and for his glory, but are the works of the flesh (Gal. 3:3) done in unbelief (Gal. 3:12) for the purpose of meriting God’s justifying verdict.
He thinks that by juxtaposing the two and by making good works Spirit-wrought sanctity, that he can fold them into the instrument of justification and salvation without harm. He even says “done from true faith,” which some critics of Tullian seem reluctant to say. Shepherd explains:
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 that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.”)
Shepherd’s language of “the way of faith,” is how he teaches the Roman doctrine of faith formed by love. He quotes Calvin, as if Calvin taught Shepherd’s doctrine of justification and salvation through faith and works. He did not:
When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle.
That’s from Calvin’s 1548 Commentary on Galatians 5:6. The reason that Calvin wrote those words is the Roman doctrine of justification and salvation through faithfulness or through faith formed by love. The remarkable thing is that in two theses Shepherd actually mentions the very error that he teaches:
26. 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.
More than once in this discussion over the years it has been said to me that as long as we make justification forensic we may, in effect, say what we will about salvation (including sanctification). Well, Shepherd taught that justification is forensic (a legal declaration) but that doesn’t help if we omit sola fide from justification and salvation.
27.The Roman Catholic doctrine that faith merits (congruent merit) the infusion of justifying grace, and that faith formed by love and performing good works merits (condign grace) eternal life contradicts the teaching of Scripture that justification is by grace through faith apart from works of the law.
Shepherd is aware of the Roman doctrine of faith formed by love (fides formata caritate) he just doesn’t understand that is what he teaches. He thinks that by omitting merit and infused grace that he’s saved himself, as it were, from the Roman definition of faith. He hasn’t. He doesn’t understand that his the Roman doctrine of justification and salvation by grace and cooperation with grace. Spirt-wrought sanctity is necessary as a consequence of our justification. Justified and saved people will produce good fruit by grace alone, through faith alone. We may even say they shall do so but that Spirit-wrought sanctity and those consequent good works are not and cannot be the instrument through which we are either justified or saved. God has nowhere promised to impute perfection to our best efforts (facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam or congruent merit).
Think of all that Shepherd includes in his definition of faith:
•Spirit-wrought Obedience
•Repentance
•Keeping his commandments
•Perseverance
How much obedience does it take to make faith true? How much repentance and how sincere must it be in order for faith to be considered genuine? How well must one keep the commandments in order to successfully persevere and to be qualified to be finally justified?
Contrast Shepherd’s definition of faith in the act of justification with Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 21:
21. What is true faith?
True faith is not only a certain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word; but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
The Heidelberg never mentions or even hints at Spirit-wrought sanctity and obedience (works) in its definition of faith in the act of justification.
There is one ground of justification: Christ’s whole, perfect obedience credited to believers and received through faith defined as resting, receiving, leaning upon, trusting in Christ and his finished work. The new life wrought in us by the Spirit necessarily produces sanctity and sanctity results in obedience and good works. The putting to death of the old man and the making alive of the new is a struggle. As a consequence of Christ’s gracious salvation of his people they (we) owe him utter thankful obedience, which the Spirit is graciously producing in us, but that obedience never becomes any part of the instrument through which we are accepted with God or finally saved from the wrath to come.
Posted by R. Scott Clark
sola-fide-flag Controversy can be ugly and painful and the recent controversy over sanctification has been both at times. It can also be helpful by bringing greater clarity and this controversy has been useful in that respect. Some orthodox Reformed pastors are being charged with antinomianism because they allegedly over emphasize grace—how sinners who face eternal condemnation apart from the free favor merited for them by the perfect, whole obedience of Christ can over emphaize grace I am uncertain but that is the charge. Further, it is charged that some of these advocates of free grace downplay the moral, logical necessity of sanctification and good works as a consequence of Christ’s free justification of sinners. Whether that is so is a necessarily subjective judgment. Must one publish something on sanctification every time one publishes something on justification? Who determines how much emphasis on sanctity is enough? To be sure, it probably is the case that, in their enthusiasm for justification sola gratia, sola fide, some proponents of free acceptance with God have perhaps not been as consistently clear about the implications of grace and the normative role of the moral law for those who’ve been free justified (accepted with God) and who live before the face of God (coram Deo) by grace alone through faith alone, in union with Christ.
With those caveats out of the way, one feature of the response by some to the renewed emphasis on grace is the assertion that though we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone we are saved partly through works. This distinction has emerged more clearly in recent discussions in response to some of the recent posts on the HB and in correspondence. So, is it the case that we are justified sola gratia, sola fide but that our works are part of the instrument through which we are finally delivered from the wrath to come?
I’ve addressed this question in earlier posts (that were not written during a heated controversy and so may have been missed). As part of my regular exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism (which is why this is called the Heidelblog) I wrote 10 posts explaining the Heidelberg Catechism’s definition of faith. In part 10 I contrasted the teaching of the Q/A 21 (“what is true faith?”) with that of Norman Shepherd, one of the godfathers of the self-described Federal Vision movement and the intellectual grandfather of some of the criticisms of the advocates of free grace. In this post I want to borrow from that earlier post and weave that material together with a response to some of the critics.
In the course of this discussion it has been argued to me that our sanctification, that conformity to Christ and obedience wrought in us by the Spirit is part of the instrument, the means, not of our justification—although some seem to be distinguishing between an initial justification sola gratia, sola fide and a final justification that includes sanctity, a distinction that is utterly foreign to Reformed theology—but of our salvation, i.e., our final deliverance from the judgment to come.
I reply: Our obedience is either the ground (the basis), the instrument (the means), or the evidence (the fruit) of our salvation. The Reformed doctrine is the latter. It is the case that believers will be progressively sanctified by the work of the Holy Spirit, through the due use of ordinary means, and that progressive sanctity will produce obedience in conformity to God’s holy law. That sanctity and concomitant and consequent obedience, however, is no part of the ground or instrument of our final salvation or acceptance with God.
The difficulty is that some Reformed folk are not satisfied with making Spirit-wrought sanctity, which produces obedience that comes to expression in good works, a logically necessary fruit of justification and the evidence of their regeneration, justification, union with Christ, adoption etc. They want that sanctification and attendant good works to do more. They want that sanctity, obedience, and fruit to be a part of the means or instrument of our salvation (deliverance from the wrath to come), which includes our justification. As historians are wont to say, this has happened before.
Norman Shepherd, who taught at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia from the 1950s until 1981, and who was dismissed from his post there because of his doctrine, and whose doctrine of justification has been denounced by several confessional Reformed denominations, made good works more than the logically necessary fruit and evidence of our free acceptance with God in Christ. In his notorious 1978 “Thirty Four Theses” Shepherd wrote:
11. Justifying faith is obedient faith, that is, “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6), and therefore faith that yields obedience to the commands of Scripture.
Shepherd adopted a Romanist definition of faith formed by love. He turned “working” into “makes faith what it is” or “makes faith justifying.” It was against this very error that the Protestants were so adamant in saying that good works are never the ground (with which Shepherd formally agreed in the 34 Theses) or the instrument of salvation. Shepherd rejected the Protestant doctrine on this point. That rejection led him to teach:
18. Faith, repentance, and new obedience are not the cause or ground of salvation or justification, but are, as covenantal response to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the way (Acts 24:14; II Peter 2:2, 21) in which the Lord of the Covenant brings his people into the full
possession of eternal life.
Notice that he mentions the ground (basis) and cause of justification and salvation but he omits the instrument. This is because he has already folded works into his definition of faith as the instrument not only of justification but also of salvation. According to Shepherd, sanctification and works are our “covenantal response” and “the way” by which we “come into possession of eternal life.” I was reminded of this language in our recent discussions. There are critics of Tullian, who in this discussion, have adopted the very language. He continues:
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 3:21; James 1:22-25).
Contra Calvin and the Reformed, there are Reformed people today who adopt this view of Romans 2:13 and that should be quite concerning. The Reformed view is that, in Romans 2:13, Paul is preaching the law, he is prosecuting the Jews for thinking that they could, finally, present themselves to God on the basis of their works. In effect, Paul says: Go ahead. See how well you do. Paul says in Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Romans 2:13 ESV)
Our Lord Jesus did not merely hear the law. He did it. He performed. He obeyed. He earned his standing before God and he earned, by his condign merit, a right standing before God for all who believe. Paul is not teaching here that believers, in union with Christ, can (if they exert themselves) present themselves to God in part or wholly on the basis of Spirit-wrought sanctity. On this passage Calvin explained:
…they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced, according to this saying, “He who will do these shall live in them.” The import then of this verse is the following, — “That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.” They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.
Calvin read this passage not to teach the nature of the Christian life, as some Reformed folk do today, but he read it in light of the distinction between law and gospel. For Calvin, Romans 2:13 is not good news, that believers can, if they will, obey unto final acceptance with God. It is bad news: God still demands perfect obedience to the law and we cannot do it.
In response, as I’ve seen in this discussion, some who read Romans 2:13 to refer to Christian obedience “in the way of salvation” turn to the doctrine of congruent merit, that God imputes perfection to our best efforts so that those efforts are able to contribute toward our final acceptance with God. This is a version of the Franciscan covenant theology that the entire Reformation rejected. Again, it was against this background that the Belgic spoke of goods works “fruit” and evidence of our acceptance with God and not any part of the instrument.
We can see Shepherd folding works into faith as part of the instrument of justification and salvation here:
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).
Notice that he says “ground” but omits “instrument.” Notice too that he says that obedience is necessary for continuing in s state of justification. As Cornel Venema noted in his review of Shepherd’s Call of Grace Shepherd dispensed with merit altogether. This, of course, led him not only to deny our merits (which all Protestants should deny) but also the imputation of Christ’s merits. Yet, in this discussion, it seems that some of Tullian’s critics think that they are safe in talking about our good works somehow contributing to our final salvation so long as they deny that they are meritorious.
Speaking of “final salvation” do we really want to fall into the trap of two stages of justification or two stages of salvation? Yes, if salvation includes progressive sanctification, then, of course, it has been inaugurated in the application of redemption and will be consummated at the last day but it is not as if salvation is sola gratia, sola fide in this life and partly on the basis of Spirit-wrought sanctity and obedience at the last day. There are not two stages of justification. There is only one. “Having therefore been justified…” God’s Word does not say, “justification therefore having been initiated.”
Salvation is a broader term than justification as it includes the outworking of justification in our lives in sanctification. There are not two stages of salvation. It’s not as if we are initially delivered from the wrath to come by grace alone, through faith alone and then later delivered through faith and works or through faithfulness. No, our deliverance from the wrath to come is by grace alone, through faith alone, in union with Christ. On this Calvin is quite clear in Institutes 3.2.
When, contra the Gaffinite view of existential/mystical union with Christ I assert that there is a logical order of justification and sanctification and between faith and its effects, I’m following Calvin (Institutes 3.3.1):
With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins. Any discussion of faith, therefore, that omitted these two topics would be barren and mutilated and well-nigh useless. Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins — that is, newness of life and free reconciliation — are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith. As a consequence, reason and the order of teaching demand that I begin to discuss both at this point. However, our immediate transition will be from faith to repentance. For when this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness. Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith.
Repentance, the turning away from sin, the learning to hate sin more and more, is born of faith, it follows faith. Was Calvin an antinomian? Did Calvin deny union with Christ? Was Calvin weak on sanctification?
Back to Shepherd. Look what Shepherd does with our obedience. Having assumed a two-stage justification he teaches:
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).
Again, he denies that our obedience is any part of the ground of justification but he teaches that it part of the instrument of our justification on the last two. He’s not only made two stages of justification but he’s included our good works into faith in that justification, which he has now conflated with salvation. So, what began as a distinction between justification and salvation has elided. They are now one.
Please do not ignore what happens when good works become more than fruit, evidence or the way it is. When they become part of the ground (which even Shepherd denies—not to say that he was entirely consistent with his denial) or the instrument (which he affirms) the gospel is lost. The good news is not that we shall be finally accepted by God if we are sufficiently sanctified. The good news is that we have already been accepted by God (!) for Christ’s sake alone and because that it is so the same Holy Spirit who united us to Christ will also gradually, graciously work sanctity in us. Must we struggle to be sanctified? Yes! Amen! Is it hard? Yes! Amen! Must we take up our cross daily, die to self, and actively seek to grow in sanctity, in conformity to Christ? Yes! Amen! Is the judgment a final exam for believers wherein our standing with God is renegotiated on the basis of how well we did in this life? μὴ γένοιτο. May it never be! The standing with God of all believers has already been adjudicated at the cross and our Savior said: It is finished! That is the Word of God. That is the gospel. If an angel tries to tell you differently little one, you tell him “Get behind me Satan.”
Shepherd continues:
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; I John 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).
When Shepherd says “continuing in a state of justification” he not only implied that we can lose our justification, a denial of the biblical and Reformed doctrine of perseverance (see the 5th head of doctrine of the Canons of Dort) but he also teaches that the “good works…done from true faith” i.e., “the new obedience” are necessary to retain what has been given. They are “necessary for salvation” which he rightly defined as deliverance from eternal condemnation. This was the doctrine of George Major in the 1550s, that good works are necessary for “retaining salvation.” This is the Marjorist error that all the Protestants rejected in the 1550s.
Shepherd juxtaposed “works of the law” with “good works:”
24. The “works” (Eph. 2:9), or “works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16), or “righteousness of my own derived from the Law” (Phil. 3:9), or “deeds which we have done in righteousness”(Titus 3:5) which are excluded from justification and salvation, are not “good works” in the Biblical sense of works for which the believer is created in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10), or works wrought by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:22-26), or works done from true faith (I Thess. 1:3), according to the law of God, and for his glory, but are the works of the flesh (Gal. 3:3) done in unbelief (Gal. 3:12) for the purpose of meriting God’s justifying verdict.
He thinks that by juxtaposing the two and by making good works Spirit-wrought sanctity, that he can fold them into the instrument of justification and salvation without harm. He even says “done from true faith,” which some critics of Tullian seem reluctant to say. Shepherd explains:
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 that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.”)
Shepherd’s language of “the way of faith,” is how he teaches the Roman doctrine of faith formed by love. He quotes Calvin, as if Calvin taught Shepherd’s doctrine of justification and salvation through faith and works. He did not:
When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle.
That’s from Calvin’s 1548 Commentary on Galatians 5:6. The reason that Calvin wrote those words is the Roman doctrine of justification and salvation through faithfulness or through faith formed by love. The remarkable thing is that in two theses Shepherd actually mentions the very error that he teaches:
26. 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.
More than once in this discussion over the years it has been said to me that as long as we make justification forensic we may, in effect, say what we will about salvation (including sanctification). Well, Shepherd taught that justification is forensic (a legal declaration) but that doesn’t help if we omit sola fide from justification and salvation.
27.The Roman Catholic doctrine that faith merits (congruent merit) the infusion of justifying grace, and that faith formed by love and performing good works merits (condign grace) eternal life contradicts the teaching of Scripture that justification is by grace through faith apart from works of the law.
Shepherd is aware of the Roman doctrine of faith formed by love (fides formata caritate) he just doesn’t understand that is what he teaches. He thinks that by omitting merit and infused grace that he’s saved himself, as it were, from the Roman definition of faith. He hasn’t. He doesn’t understand that his the Roman doctrine of justification and salvation by grace and cooperation with grace. Spirt-wrought sanctity is necessary as a consequence of our justification. Justified and saved people will produce good fruit by grace alone, through faith alone. We may even say they shall do so but that Spirit-wrought sanctity and those consequent good works are not and cannot be the instrument through which we are either justified or saved. God has nowhere promised to impute perfection to our best efforts (facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam or congruent merit).
Think of all that Shepherd includes in his definition of faith:
•Spirit-wrought Obedience
•Repentance
•Keeping his commandments
•Perseverance
How much obedience does it take to make faith true? How much repentance and how sincere must it be in order for faith to be considered genuine? How well must one keep the commandments in order to successfully persevere and to be qualified to be finally justified?
Contrast Shepherd’s definition of faith in the act of justification with Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 21:
21. What is true faith?
True faith is not only a certain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word; but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
The Heidelberg never mentions or even hints at Spirit-wrought sanctity and obedience (works) in its definition of faith in the act of justification.
There is one ground of justification: Christ’s whole, perfect obedience credited to believers and received through faith defined as resting, receiving, leaning upon, trusting in Christ and his finished work. The new life wrought in us by the Spirit necessarily produces sanctity and sanctity results in obedience and good works. The putting to death of the old man and the making alive of the new is a struggle. As a consequence of Christ’s gracious salvation of his people they (we) owe him utter thankful obedience, which the Spirit is graciously producing in us, but that obedience never becomes any part of the instrument through which we are accepted with God or finally saved from the wrath to come.
Posted by R. Scott Clark
