Non-Meritorious Works
Saturday, 7. January 2006, 13:24:03
In my recent review of Paul Elliott's Christianity and Neo-Liberalism, I asserted that a number of criticial reviews had been published, many of them on the Web, of Norman Shepherd's Call of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000) and related documents. Here is a web site that has links to most of that material:
http://www.paulperspective.com/
Simply click on the link entitled "Norman Shepherd and Associated Thinkers."
When I first read Call, (both a the pre-publication version and the later complete edition) my initial impression was that although Shepherd did not use the language of traditional covenant theology in expressing his concepts, he nevertheless had captured it's essence, particularly in his emphasis on the sovereignty of God in the covenant and absoluteness of grace: he stresses in several places throughout the book that works have no merit and that salvation is through faith alone (e.g., p. 35). His language on the conditional nature of works in the covenantal sense I nevertheless thought a bit confusing (cf. p. 47 "Thus the obligations of the New Covenant include not only faith and repentence, but also obedience"). I asked myself the question, "Is Shepherd really saying the same thing as traditional reformed theology, particularly as expressed in the Westminster Standards, which I, through a great deal of study and reflection, have confessed holds the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures?" I therefore wrote that he needed to clarify this. While I think it is possible to advance in our understanding of the Scripture and formulate better expressions of the truth, I was not sure that Shepherd had done so in Grace.
Subsequent developments have demonstrated, unfortunately, that Shepherd's views are defective from the Westminster Standards point of view, and ultimately from the Scripture's themselves. I am thinking here of Shepherd's denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believer (see Brian Schwertley's article at the website above, footnote 2). While there are other problems in Shepherd's formulations, here I want to focus on this one narrow issue.
Now, one of the propositions that Shepherd defends in Grace is that works are always non-meritorious in nature. The key word here is always. If we understand this, we can see the logical relationship of Shepherd's view of works with his understanding of imputation. If works are never meritorious, then how has Christ merited salvation on our behalf? The implication of this is a denial of the Covenant of Works. Adam and Eve would not have been confirmed in eternal life by their obedience to God, but by the grace of God. Christ did not earn our salvation through his active obedience to the law, but simply through God's grace.
This does not make a great deal of sense out of the data of Scripture on the relationship between grace and law. If it is the active disobedience of Adam which lost him his status with God, it is only the active obedience of Adam which can return him to that state. The great dilemma is that once the state is lost, no amount of obedience can earn him that status, as Scripture abundantly testifies. As revelation unfolds, it becomes particularly clear that there is need for a savior-Messiah who can accomplish what Adam did not, and that savior-Messiah is born in the fullness of time in a stable-cave in Bethelehem.
Here, the parallelism between Adam and Christ expressed most clearly by Paul in Romans chapter 5 and 1 Cor 15:42-49 becomes central. Without taking the time here to do the requisite exegesis on these passages, it is clear that Christ is the second Adam, who, through his own works perfectly fulfills God's righteous requirements. As the sin of Adam was imputed to all his descendents, so the righteousness of Christ (through union with Christ) is imputed to all his followers. In effect, Christ brings into existence a new and renewed human race, who receive his righteousness federally (i.e., covenantally) even as the old human race recieved Adam's disobedience federally. Christ becomes the new covenant head of the true humanity, conceived spiritual/covenantally (though not ontologically).
The simple question is this: if our righteousness is not the imputed righteousness of Christ, then on what basis are we justified (declared righteous)? If our righteousness depends not on the work of Christ, then how can God be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:26)? Our works can never merit salvation because of the taint of sin. The works of the law can only point to the perfect obedience of the One who could merit salvation on our behalf. Adam could have confirmed the human race in righteousness had he obeyed God (that is not speculation, but a clear implication based on the whole of the biblical data on the subject). Christ has restored his people to righteousness based on his obedience.
It is therefore completely erroneous to claim that all works are non-meritorious. The work of Adam was meritorious, and had consequences for the entire human race. The works of Christ are meritorious, and have eternal significance for all his people. If the logic of Shepherd's position is ruthlessly pursued, it ultimately overturns not only the covenant of works, but the very foundation of the covenant of grace, and so empties the gospel of any meaningful content whatsoever.
http://www.paulperspective.com/
Simply click on the link entitled "Norman Shepherd and Associated Thinkers."
When I first read Call, (both a the pre-publication version and the later complete edition) my initial impression was that although Shepherd did not use the language of traditional covenant theology in expressing his concepts, he nevertheless had captured it's essence, particularly in his emphasis on the sovereignty of God in the covenant and absoluteness of grace: he stresses in several places throughout the book that works have no merit and that salvation is through faith alone (e.g., p. 35). His language on the conditional nature of works in the covenantal sense I nevertheless thought a bit confusing (cf. p. 47 "Thus the obligations of the New Covenant include not only faith and repentence, but also obedience"). I asked myself the question, "Is Shepherd really saying the same thing as traditional reformed theology, particularly as expressed in the Westminster Standards, which I, through a great deal of study and reflection, have confessed holds the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures?" I therefore wrote that he needed to clarify this. While I think it is possible to advance in our understanding of the Scripture and formulate better expressions of the truth, I was not sure that Shepherd had done so in Grace.
Subsequent developments have demonstrated, unfortunately, that Shepherd's views are defective from the Westminster Standards point of view, and ultimately from the Scripture's themselves. I am thinking here of Shepherd's denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believer (see Brian Schwertley's article at the website above, footnote 2). While there are other problems in Shepherd's formulations, here I want to focus on this one narrow issue.
Now, one of the propositions that Shepherd defends in Grace is that works are always non-meritorious in nature. The key word here is always. If we understand this, we can see the logical relationship of Shepherd's view of works with his understanding of imputation. If works are never meritorious, then how has Christ merited salvation on our behalf? The implication of this is a denial of the Covenant of Works. Adam and Eve would not have been confirmed in eternal life by their obedience to God, but by the grace of God. Christ did not earn our salvation through his active obedience to the law, but simply through God's grace.
This does not make a great deal of sense out of the data of Scripture on the relationship between grace and law. If it is the active disobedience of Adam which lost him his status with God, it is only the active obedience of Adam which can return him to that state. The great dilemma is that once the state is lost, no amount of obedience can earn him that status, as Scripture abundantly testifies. As revelation unfolds, it becomes particularly clear that there is need for a savior-Messiah who can accomplish what Adam did not, and that savior-Messiah is born in the fullness of time in a stable-cave in Bethelehem.
Here, the parallelism between Adam and Christ expressed most clearly by Paul in Romans chapter 5 and 1 Cor 15:42-49 becomes central. Without taking the time here to do the requisite exegesis on these passages, it is clear that Christ is the second Adam, who, through his own works perfectly fulfills God's righteous requirements. As the sin of Adam was imputed to all his descendents, so the righteousness of Christ (through union with Christ) is imputed to all his followers. In effect, Christ brings into existence a new and renewed human race, who receive his righteousness federally (i.e., covenantally) even as the old human race recieved Adam's disobedience federally. Christ becomes the new covenant head of the true humanity, conceived spiritual/covenantally (though not ontologically).
The simple question is this: if our righteousness is not the imputed righteousness of Christ, then on what basis are we justified (declared righteous)? If our righteousness depends not on the work of Christ, then how can God be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:26)? Our works can never merit salvation because of the taint of sin. The works of the law can only point to the perfect obedience of the One who could merit salvation on our behalf. Adam could have confirmed the human race in righteousness had he obeyed God (that is not speculation, but a clear implication based on the whole of the biblical data on the subject). Christ has restored his people to righteousness based on his obedience.
It is therefore completely erroneous to claim that all works are non-meritorious. The work of Adam was meritorious, and had consequences for the entire human race. The works of Christ are meritorious, and have eternal significance for all his people. If the logic of Shepherd's position is ruthlessly pursued, it ultimately overturns not only the covenant of works, but the very foundation of the covenant of grace, and so empties the gospel of any meaningful content whatsoever.
WIDGETIZE