RSSIt’s still about Shepherd
Doug earlier today talked about latitude in the Reformed tradition regarding the active obedience of Christ. Bill later chimed in with some remarks about the Marrow Controversy and neo-nomianism. As I’ve read the blog for the past two weeks, I can’t help but think that this debate is really between supporters (FV) and critics (non-FV) of Norman Shepherd and his proposals that started over three decades ago.
As I understand the origins of that controversy, Shepherd was concerned about anti-nomianism within the Reformed ranks. He sought various ways to correct it, one of the most important for him being the idea of obedient faith, or that the kind of faith that is full or alive is always obedient. This developed into a full-blown controversy about the relationship between justification and sanctification, and whether Shepherd blurred these doctrines in his effort to counter anti-nomianism.
It seems to me from my limited reading of FV that it is characterized by a similar concern to counter anti-nomianism. You question the doctrine of assurance, you attach a high importance to attending the means of grace, you deny the active obedience of Christ — all of these moves seem designed to get Christians to be diligent, to be faithful, to observe God’s law, to walk in the way of the covenant.
The Reformed tradition has had ways of countering anti-nomianism (the third use of the law, the Heidelberg’s structure of guilt, grace, gratitute) while also maintaining that faith alone rests and receives the saving work of Christ. Justification always leads to sanctification, but sanctification never leads to justification. In that sense, the gospel has an anti-nomian ring. It invites Paul to ask, shall we sin that grace may abound?
So I wonder if this is a big part of the difference between the various sides in this discussion.
I also wonder why those who oppose anti-nomianism are so eager to encourage us to be faithful and obedient, as if our faithfulness or obedience vindicates our faith. The Bible and the WCF are clear that our good works, our faithfulness, are filthy rags. That is why I quoted from Calvin’s catechism of 1536 way back when where he teaches that even our good works need the imputed righteousness of Christ to receive God’s favor. So I wonder if the neo-nomians do not have a sufficiently realistic view of the sin that continues to corrupt our faithfulness.
If FV teaches that continuing in the covenant through faithfulness, FV offers me no hope because I know that my faithfulness is still polluted with unfaithfulness. How could such faithless faithfulness ever keep me in the covenant?
JMeyers
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Dr. Hart writes:
“I also wonder why those who oppose anti-nomianism are so eager to encourage us to be faithful and obedient, as if our faithfulness or obedience vindicates our faith. The Bible and the WCF are clear that our good works, our faithfulness, are filthy rags.”
This assessment is too simplistic and does not take into account the carefully balanced way our Standards deal with good works.
Our obedience does indeed vindicate our faith. WCF 16.2, “These good works done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end eternal life.”
The Scripture proof text for the “fruits and evidences” clause is James 2:18-22.
DWilson
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
And the only book of Shepherd’s that I have ever read was published by Presbyterian and Reformed just a few short years ago, and was blurbed by Richard Gaffin. Would I find all Shepherd’s central denials of the gospel in that book?
D Hart
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Doug, yes. P&R is not a church. They published Frame, Hart and Muether on worship. Who are you going to believe?
JMyers, but you didn’t address the concern of the WCF on good works. Our good works, since they proceed from us, are defiled. Wouldn’t we need a little help with our faithfulness, as in a little active obedience?
JMeyers
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
What? Where does the WCF tell us in the chapter on good works that we need a little of the active obedience of Jesus to make up for the deficiencies of our good works. That’s not even in view in that chapter. Rather, our good works, though defiled (WCF 16.5) are “accepted in Christ” (WCF 16.6).
And as for your question about Shepherd, “who are you going to believe?”—I’m going to believe the church. NO CHURCH COURT HAS EVER CONDEMNED N. SHEPHERD. And that’s why P&R had the freedom to publish his book for the edification of the church.
D Hart
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
JMyers, do you have that high of an estimate of P&R’s decision to publish Guy Waters?
You’re right, by the way, that the WCF nowhere says that our good works need the active obedience of Christ. I had to reason to infer that. I imagine it is the same sort of intellectual activity that led you and others to write and sign the FV Statement, since the Bible and the Standards nowhere say those things. (Can’t we somehow get beyond literalism and biblicism, and gotchas because the Bible or confession doesn’t use your/my exact phrases?)
But while I’m at it, don’t you think we need to be perfect to stand on God’s holy hill? So where exactly does that perfection come from, if not from Christ’s active and passive obedience?
JMeyers
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
1) Yes, I have no problem with P&R decision to publish Guy Waters. Why should I? I don’t condemn Guy Waters as unconfessional or as a denier of the Gospel, even if I disagree with him on some points.
2) I would love to get beyond this debate. I find little if anything useful about it. But I am not the one railing against those who want to use the IAOC formulations. I don’t think that way of talking about our justification is all that helpful, but I don’t think for one minute that these men should be denied the freedom to theologize in this way. I didn’t write a book or publish an essay or file a complaint against anyone who wants to talk this way. I count them as brothers, even faithful Reformed brothers. I include you, Dr. Hart.
Yes, can’t we get beyond gotchas because the Bible or the confession doesn’t use your/my exact phrases? I wish we would. For heaven’s sake, we can end this sorry debate right now if we would just do that. Remember, I’m not the one engaged in hurling “gotchas” against anyone who phrases things different than me. I and others are being CONDEMNED as Gospel deniers because we won’t parrot certain narrow theological formulations. THAT is the issue.
So does this mean that you will now work to see these study committee condemnations overturned and overruled? I agree that this game of “gotcha” ought to end now.
3) Once again, I confess Christ’s righteousness and perfection. He has been perfectly faithful for me. And I am united to him by the Spirit. I died and my life is now hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). United to him my good works are accepted by the Father (WCF 16.6). To use your words, because of Christ’s active and passive obedience he ascended into heaven to “stand on God’s holy hill.” And all of this for me. It’s all of grace. It’s a pure gift.
Once again, I have no objection to the necessity of the active obedience of Christ for me. What I object to is this odd mechanism based on merit where Jesus’ moral achievements during his life are tallied up, judged to be enough to earn eternal life, and then “imputed” to me.
Once again, I don’t like that way of putting things. And I am not alone in the Reformed tradition. But I have not attacked, condemned, or otherwise even upset others in my presbytery, church, or the Reformed world about their way of theologizing about the IAOC. I would like to see formulations more faithful to biblical categories, but I have never thought nor have I accused those who hold to the IAOC of being unfaithful to the Bible or the Reformed tradition.
D Hart
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
JMyers, Thanks for a less intense reply. I do think you’re being a tad disingenuous about Waters. You decry those who condemn the way you and other FVer’s theologize. My understanding is that Waters is critical of the way you and others formulate certain doctrines. So I thought it plausible to conjecture that you didn’t care for his book.
The other part of theologizing I left out was that it doesn’t happen in a vacuum but occurs in the context of a church. When certain teachings run afoul of the orthodox consensus, the church typically tries to reign in those aberrant views. You want liberty to theologize in the way that you and other FVer’s do. But when has the church ever operated that way, except maybe in the case of the mainline Protestant denominations where only intolerance seems to be erroneous. Your invocation of theological freedom reminds me of the statement, “Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together,” from a year ago. It seemed to ask, “why can’t we all get along?” The church militant has never gotten along. Just ask the Arians, the Nestorians, the Waldensians, or the Arminians. So I’d encourage you that if you want the kind of freedom you claim, you need to become an independent Presbyterian (sometimes known as a Baptist).
Again, I wonder why you object to the language of merit since even the quotation you used for support from Rollock was chock full of merit. So if Jesus’ active obedience does not “earn” eternal life for you, what does it do for you? What is the verb or phrase-set other than “merit” or “earn” that explains the nature of the benefits that Christ has purchased for me and you?
JMeyers
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Publishing Waters is one thing. You didn’t ask me about the way Waters himself went about doing his research and formulating his critique.
I think I’ve said enough about the IAOC debate. Your last two questions can be asked of the WCF itself.
D Hart
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Pastor Myers, that’s it? No attempt at an answer? I asked earlier why you object to the imputation of the active obedience and I didn’t like the answer but at least you gave me liberty of conscience. Now you tell me that I shouldn’t really use the language of merit or earn because the Bible and the WCF don’t. So I ask for the alternative and you tell me you’ve said enough.
I’ll try to answer yours. The language of the Standards is one of justice and merit in at least the economic sense. Christ purchased the benefits of redemption. This is a transaction of some kind that requires a certain payment for a certain set of goods. Usually an economic system rests on a legal system that protects private property and involves penalties and sanctions for breaking the laws governing economic exchange. So it looks to me like the language of earning and merit makes perfect sense. I know that when I go to the market to buy butter, I need to have enough money. But in the realm of the moral law, my sin and guilt, the Bible and the WCF tell me that Jesus paid it all.
Jason J. Stellman
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Some relevant confessional material:
The “everlasting inheritance†that Christ has gained for us is something that he “purchased†(WCF VIII.5).
The purchase price for this inheritance was “the perfect obedience and sacrifice of [Christ]†(WCF VIII.5).
The payment of this price “fully satisfied the justice of the Father†(WCF VIII.5).
The saints’ perseverance in the faith is attributed to “the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Christ,†his intercession being grounded in “the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth†(WCF XVII.2; WLC 55).
Worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper includes our “trusting in his merits†(WLC 174).
Though there is no law, external to God, by which man can bring the Almighty into his debt, Adam would have had a claim upon the promised blessings of the covenant of works had he obeyed the stipulated terms of that covenant. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ, as second Adam, is able to claim those blessings (and more) on behalf of his people, grounding his claim on the Father’s promise to impute the benefits of his obedience and sacrifice to his elect. Thus, there is more to Jesus’ work than “an inherent worthâ€; it is the means by which he earned for sinners what they could never merit on their own.
James Jordan
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
If that economic language is the language of the WCF, then I think the Reformed faith needs a debate about paganism. That’s how pagans deal with their gods. I don’t think it’s how our Father deals with us AT ALL.
It’s interesting that the lutroo verbs in the NT go with the go’el kinsman of the Hebrew, who is Avenger and Redeemer. Yahweh paid nothing to Pharaoh when redeeming Israel. We need to be extremely careful in how we understand the redemption language in the NT. It’s about family members rescuing enslaved kin; it’s not about paying for goods.
D Hart
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:37 am
But James, C. S. Lewis claimed that it was far easier for a pagan than a modern to understand Christianity because the pagan religions knew the gods needed to be placated. They just had the wrong god. Rome also knew the true God needed to be placated, they just had the wrong means.
James Jordan
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
I don’t know what Lewis’s point has to do with this discussion. Mr. Stellman’s post is a series of very serious misinterpretations of the Westminster Standards, which have been dealt with repeatedly elsewhere. This being the last day, I see no point in going on with it.
D Hart
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Hey, James, I thought this was playful. Don’t take your toys and go home yet.
Surely you’re clever enough to see the point that Lewis was making. How are we right with the divine? The pagans had a sense of merit. People with a sense of needing to earn God’s favor have a better chance of understanding Christianity. That would not seem to apply to FV.
James Jordan
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
I thought Mr. Chellis said today was the last day.
I think Lewis’s point was that for the pagan, blood has to be spilled to propitiate the gods. I agree. I don’t think that’s merit or economics.