TheologyThoughts

On one level, I find it difficult to believe that I am actually interacting with Norman Shepherd, much less criticizing him. For me, Dr. Shepherd is is very nearly a historical figure, who publishes books and articles, and who is discussed somewhat frequently. At the same time, I am far more concerned about the truth concerning our salvation expressed in the word of God than I am about the reputation of men. I find I must part company with Dr. Shepherd in several of his formulations, and therefore, I find myself in the position of answering this response.

My response can be brief because the position Barry represents
was really anticipated and responded to in the two lectures I gave in
southern California that have been published in Backbone of the
Bible, edited by P. Andrew Sandlin, published by Covenant Media
Press (2004) (www.cmfnow.com). These lectures dealt with
"Justification by Faith in Pauline Theology" and "Justification by
Works in Reformed Theology."

As I stated earlier, one of my chief concerns with Call of Grace was that Dr. Shepherd had not sufficiently interacted with the breadth and depth of the Reformed tradition, to clarify to what extent his thinking was consistent with that tradition. At the time, I remember thinking, "Hasn't he read Richard Muller's series on Post-Reformation dogmatics" (in which Muller presents a tremendous amount of evidence that the developments of reformed scholasticism were consistent with the the theology of the early Reformers)? In this response, he has certainly asserted one major inconsistency with that position, and I assume he explains his understanding in more detail in the articles cited above (which I have yet to read, but soon, D.v., will). Dr. Shepherd is to be commended for this: in the earlier justification controversy, much of the defense of Dr. Shepherd amounted to "He isn't being clear" and "He is really saying the same thing in different terms." Dr. Shepherd's recent comments demonstrate that this defense may no longer be used.

Barry takes his starting point in a works/merit principle, the idea that
eternal life is the reward for lifelong perfect and meritorious
obedience. This principle requires a covenant of works to be fulfilled
either by Adam or by Christ. Adam failed and Christ succeeded so
that his lifelong perfect obedience is imputed to us for our salvation.
Covenant of works requires the imputation of active obedience and
conversely the imputation of active obedience requires a covenant
of works. The two doctrines are implied in one another.
My basic criticism is that this symbiotic relationship floats above
Scripture in exegetical thin air and has been imposed on Scripture
as a framework for interpretation. Theology becomes the father to
exegesis rather than the product of exegesis.

It is these kind of sweeping assertions that I find highly suspicious, to say the least. It does not accord with what I think is a proper exegetical and redemptive-historical understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, and also rather slights the traditional Reformed position on the covenant of works and the underlying hermeneutical reasons for believing it.

1. In Genesis 1-3, although the term "covenant" (Heb., BeRiTh) is not found (it will appear for the first time in Gen 6:18), the language and structure of those early chapters is essentially covenantal. This is particularly evident in the description of the Fall, which is not the story of two children with their fingers caught in the cookie jar, but the picture of two traitors joining in rebellion against their covenant king, for which the only logical penalty, in the mind of a citizen of the ANE, is death.

2. But even leading aside the more modern view of covenant expressed in my comment above, it is clear that it is the disobedience of Adam and Eve which led to their condemnation. Again, the prohibition and fall is highly covenantal in essence: if disobedience occurs, life is lost. The implication, which cannot be ignored, is that obedience leads to life. This is very consistent with the covenantal formulas found later in the OT: obey God, keep his law, and live; disobey, break his law, and die. Had Adam and Eve resisted the serpent and refused to eat of the fruit, they would have passed their probation, and lived, most likely being given full access to the tree of life.

It is my contention that a careful study of the creation-fall cycle in Genesis will support the summary above, and that the conception of the covenant of works best explains the text. It is incumbent on Dr. Shepherd to demonstrate otherwise, but it should be obvious that the CoW is not something floating in the exegetical aether which "has been imposed on Scripture," but rather a conclusion that is quite consistent with the text and our knowledge of the cultural background of that text.

Along these lines, Dr. Shepherd has made these assertions, but in his own work I have found very little exegesis at the level needed to support them. I am especially disturbed, as I hinted above, that he has failed to interact with the detailed arguments of the traditional covenant theologians, substituting for that interaction what amounts to theological "one-liners." The end result is that we effectively see Dr. Shepherd presenting a straw man, and not the real thing.

For the moment I draw attention to just one matter. In my second
lecture I pointed out that "in a doctrine of justification based on a
works/merit paradigm, the merit of works moves into the foreground
and the Cross of Christ retreats into the background" (p. 117).
Barrys blog clearly illustrates that point. Barry maintains that Christ
earned our salvation "through his active obedience to the law," and
he tells us in the last paragraph that without this doctrine the gospel
is emptied of any meaningful content. Nothing is said about the
death and resurrection of Christ even though Paul writes that our
Savior "was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to
life for our justification" (Rom. 4:25).

I am not unaware that my own blog entry was an essay, and not an exegetical/theological treatise with all the argumentation necessary to support my own assertions. Simply because I didn't mention the primacy of the resurrection, and the connection of union with Christ with the resurrection, does not mean that I am insensitive to or unappreciative of the significance of these truths (I refer Dr. Shepherd to my review of Paul Elliott's book and my response to some of his criticisms of Dr. Gaffin). As Dr. Shepherd's comment stands above, however, I simply find it a false dichotomy. The fact is that that Christ's atoning sacrifice and resurrection took place precisely because of the perfect life which he lived. The imputation of Christ's righteousness is in no way inconsistent with Rom 4:25, and provides, ultimately, the theological rationale it.

1. The temptation narratives of the Gospel are, I think quite relevant here. As has often been pointed out, these are far more than simply examples of how believers should resist temptation (though certainly such principles may be derived), but they serve to demonstrate that Christ is the second Adam who valiantly resists the temptation of the Serpent. Where Adam failed, Christ succeeded. Where Adam became the entrance point of death for the rest of the human race, Christ lays the foundation for becoming the new covenant head of a redeemed humanity. It was through Adam's disobedience that sin and death entered the world (covenantally), it was through Christ's obedience that righteousness (DIKAIOSUNE and cognates) becomes the major quality of the people of God (this is also Paul's arguments in Romans 5).

2. The sinlessness and holiness of Christ is a major theme of the Scriptures, but I think Dr. Shepherd has failed to see the radical implications of Christ's holiness, and what this means for the fact that the people of God are (covenantally) in union with Christ. Christ was made like us in every way -- but without sin. God's purpose in election was that we might be made holy, but that holiness is "In Christ." The implication here, and particularly when we consider the various "in Christ" expressions of which the apostle Paul is fond, is that to be in Christ in terms of holiness and righteousness is to have Christ's holiness and righteousness, the all important iustificatio aliena. What else could this be other than imputation?

My colleague, Dick Gaffin, has rightly stressed the centrality of the
death and resurrection of Christ, but this is lost when salvation is
based on a works/merit principle. Then the death and resurrection of
Christ do not save us, but only get us back to square one. They may
serve to keep us out of hell, but they do not get us into heaven.
I find this subordination of the death and resurrection of Christ to the
imputation of active obedience totally out of line with what we read in
the New Testament. The New Testament tells us on page after
page that we are saved by the death and resurrection of Christ.
There is virtually no exegetical evidence for the imputation of active
obedience, and the few texts that are cited are not at all convincing.
Barrys position may well be compatible with the Westminster
standards, but I dont think it is compatible with the Three Forms of
Unity (Belgic Confession; Heidelberg Catechism; Canons of Dordt).
Let me quote from Lords Day 25. Q&A 66 affirms: "And this is
Gods gospel promise; to forgive our sins and give us eternal life by
grace alone because of Christs one sacrifice finished on the cross."
Note that here the Catechism says we have eternal life because of
what Christ did for us on the cross. The follow-up comes in Q&A 67,
"Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our
faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground
of our salvation? Right! In the gospel the Holy Spirit teaches us and
through the holy sacraments he assures us that our entire salvation
rests on Christs one sacrifice for us on the cross."

Of course we have eternal life because of what Christ did on the cross. People in the Reformed tradition have always abundantly affirmed this, and even Arminians don't deny it. This is another false dichotomy bordering on a straw man. Dr. Shepherd also makes it sound as though the Heidelberg somehow supports his position. In fact:

Q60: How are you righteous before God?
A60: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ: that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and am still prone always to all evil; yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me; if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart. (emphasis mine)

For the Heidelberg Catechism, and for Reformed theology in general, there has historically never been a dichotomy between the crucifixion of Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The two are integrally related, the latter would be impossible without the former.

I also need to point out that this false dichotomy is never made by Dr. Gaffin, whom Dr. Shepherd cites in his favor. Dr. Gaffin, in demonstrating the centrality of the resurrection, also takes care to show how that Scriptural emphasis is quite consistent with the more traditional expressions of Reformed theology.

Let me state my position as succinctly as possible. The sin of Adam
left us with two problems: the guilt of sin with the penalty of death,
and the corruption of our natures so that we cannot please God. Our
condition is hopeless because we cannot atone for sin (we can only
suffer the penalty) and we cannot rid ourselves of our corrupt
nature. Jesus, by his death and resurrection, dealt with both of these
problems. He died for us and in our place. In him the penalty for our
sin is paid and we are vindicated in his resurrection. This is
justification. Second, by his death and resurrection we have died to
sin and have been resurrected/recreated/renewed/regenerated in
righteousness and holiness. This is sanctification. "He saved us
through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus
3:5).

The parallel between Adam and Christ does not reside in the fact
that they were both subject to a covenant of works. It resides in the
expressed fact that by the one trespass of Adam sin and death
entered into human experience, and by the one act of righteousness
of Jesus Christ righteousness and life entered into human
experience (Rom. 5:18; I Cor. 15:22).

This is one of those explanations that does very little to explain or answer the objections raised. Yes, we inherit guilt and corruption, the entire package of total depravity, as it were, from Adam, but Dr. Shepherd leaves unanswered the question of how that takes place. Adam is our covenant representative, our federal head, and it is "in Adam" that we sinned. At this point, I can only recommend the treatise written by Dr. Shepherd's professor, John Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. In this compact and tightly argued work, Murray demonstrates, with the exegetical finesse quite characteristic of his writing, that Adam's sin is in fact imputed. If this is the case, then the parallelism with Adam and Christ must mean that Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to his people.

Both benefits, justification and sanctification, become ours when we
are united to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the words of I
John 1:9, God forgives our sins and purifies us from all
unrighteousness. In the words of Lords Day 1 of the Heidelberg
Catechism, I belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. "He has fully
paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free
from the tyranny of the devil."

The question is not that these benefits are applied in union with Christ. The question is the basis for doing so. Is the ground of our justification and sanctification the righteousness of Christ, or is it something else? While I greatly appreciate Dr. Shepherd's emphasis on the centrality of Christ's work and the dependence of our salvation on it, Scripture actually gives us data which allows us to formulate our understanding of this more precisely. In other words, it gives us the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which takes place as part of the union of Christ, tied as it is to Christ's death and resurrection.

There is no sacrament that memorializes or proclaims the
imputation of active obedience. We have two sacraments that
memorialize and proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ as
the only ground of our salvation. With Paul we must preach Christ
crucified (I Cor. 1:23). Christ crucified, not the imputation of active
obedience, was the gospel Paul preached to the purveyors of works
righteousness among the Galatians. "You foolish Galatians! Who
has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly
portrayed as crucified" (Gal. 3:1). Christ crucified and risen again is
the gospel we must proclaim to lost sinners.

Dr. Shepherd here raises an essentially irrelevant objection. The sacraments memorialize (they do much more than memorialize, of course, but that is a different discussion) the work of Christ in toto, and do not focus on any one aspect of that work. Scripture informs us that there is a great amount of action which takes place in the work of Christ, in fact, the entire ordo salutis, traditionally understood, is subsumed under that work, and especially the resurrection (the point of Dr. Gaffin's The Centrality of the Resurrection). That means that the active imputation of Christ's righteousness is as much a part of the memorial as any other of the complex of truths involved in the cross and resurrection of our Savior, his name be praised.