An Aberration Or Standard In Progressive Covenantalism? Issues About Covenant Conditions

by Harrison Perkins on November 30, 2021 | 16 Comments

Baptists have long differed with Reformed theology about how to explain the various biblical covenants in relation to the progress of redemptive history. In this regard, one of the newer developments is “progressive covenantalism,” which is a baptistic paradigm in biblical theology for emphasizing the covenants while maintaining a distinct understanding of the new covenant to preserve Baptist ecclesiology. The principal work in this paradigm is Kingdom Through Covenant by Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry, a massive outline of their view of the covenants (which I have previously reviewed). Another contribution to this paradigm, however, is a collection of essays, Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies, edited by Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker. The purpose of this particular essay is to interact with one specific chapter in this collection, Ardel B. Caneday’s “Covenantal Life with God from Eden to Holy City.”

Although the chapter’s title might suggest that it is about a biblical theology of the new creation, protology, and eschatology, its focus is actually on the conditions for having covenantal life with God. Although most of this collection’s essays highlight expected topics arguing for a distinctly Baptist view on the relationship of the covenants (including some that argue against Dispensational readings as well), Caneday’s contribution is unique in that it addresses an issue that should indeed unite Baptist and Reformed Christians in agreement, yet his take is troubling.

Caneday’s main argument is to undermine the law-gospel distinction. In his words, “This chapter disavows the notion that all of Scripture consists of two isolatable messages: law, consisting of God’s demands, and gospel, composed of God’s gracious giving. Instead, it argues that the formulation of covenant stipulations remain the same while the content of stipulations changes.” (pg. 103; italics original). Apart from the vague imprecision of calling law and gospel “two isolatable messages,” it is notable that in his view that both before and after Adam’s Fall, “the term [conditional] refers to the covenantal stipulations placed upon humans with whom God enters covenant and which do not jeopardize fulfillment of any of God’s covenants. God obligates humans to obey what he stipulates in his covenants, and all whom he desires to enable do obey.” (pg. 102; italics original) Although the covenant “provision,” is Christ’s death for salvation, “At issue are covenant stipulations that identify who receives access to the tree of life and to the holy city, the access Adam surrendered by disobedience.” (pg. 102) In terms of Caneday’s structure of enabled obedience, Christ’s death is the foundation that enables someone to obey, but then a believers obedience decisively marks them as heirs of God’s kingdom. As he stated,

Inheriting God’s promises is always conditional, for he grants his covenant blessings to those who, by his own grace, observe stipulations that require persevering, obedient belief. From Adam’s habitation of the Edenic garden with access to the tree of life to inheritance of our eternal habitation, God’s holy city, with free access to the tree of life, covenantal life with God always entails stipulations expressed as commands or conditionals. (pg. 105)

Within these introductory remarks, Caneday clearly set out his rejection of the law-gospel distinction and his view that everlasting life is conditional upon believers’ obedience.

The first section further outlines Caneday’s rejection of the law-gospel distinction. He criticizes Reformed, Lutheran, and Dispensational theology for not giving works a true role in salvation. Rejecting the Reformation doctrine that works are fruits and evidences, as Westminster Confession 16.2 puts it, he wrote, “Consequently, they interpret exhortations and warnings that issue in either salvation or condemnation as retrospective tests of faith’s genuineness.” (pg. 105) Rather, than requiring evidence of true faith, “the gospel threatens believers with eternal perdition” (pg. 106).

This section is fraught with imprecision and confusion. This problem is obvious even on the surface since, although law is clearly understood as the covenant stipulations, Caneday never explains what he understands the gospel to be. The content of his arguments suggest that this is not an incidental problem but one inherent in his theology. After all, what does it mean that the gospel threatens perdition to believers? It is hard to imagine how Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are warnings that all who trust in Jesus may go to hell. I struggle to think of a passage that makes this particular point. Perhaps Caneday uses “gospel” to refer to the whole body of New Testament teaching (unlikely but possible). Still, the specific point that believers are threatened with hell is an overstated interpretation of even the most intense warning passages.

Further confusion resides in the appeal to the probationary law given to Adam to support the rejection of the law-gospel distinction. First, confessional Reformed theology hardly debates whether Adam’s access to the tree of life was based on his works. Indeed, this is the whole point of the covenant of works but proving that the law grounded Adam’s relationship with God before the Fall hardly proves that there is no law-gospel contrast after the Fall. Second, this confusion deepens as Caneday argues that God’s covenant with Adam being “gracious” makes his point about the law-gospel distinction. The structure of his argument is then that Adam received grace and then obtained access to the tree of life by keep the law, and this pattern of grace enabling works that obtain everlasting life remains true for sinners after the Fall. This pattern of grace enabling someone – notably before and after the Fall—to perform works that warrant everlasting life is precisely part of the medieval tradition that Protestants rejected at the Reformation.1

In the next sections, Caneday’s redemptive-historical arguments do not clarify the problems. It is certainly not clear why he thinks his argument for continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant helps his case in the slightest, since Reformed theology affirms, in contrast to Baptist and “progressive covenantal theology,” that the substance of the covenant of grace, namely Christ and his benefits (Westminster Confession 8.6), was and is administered in both covenants. His point here seems to undermine the whole paradigm he is meant to be clarifying.

More than that his discussion of the differences between the old and new covenant is highly convoluted. He argued,

Concerning their content, new covenant stipulations of repentance, faith, obedience, or doing good are distinctively different from old covenant stipulations. The new, with the law engraved upon the heart, stipulates obeying Christ Jesus as Lord; the old, etched in stone tablets, stipulates obeying God’s covenant commandments that feature a panoply of heavenly shadows and copies. Though the content of stipulations differs, their form does not, for both new and old covenants employ variously formatted stipulations, including imperatives and conditionals: “If you obey, then I will bless you” or “Do this, and you will live.” (pg. 111)

This passage contains numerous problems. First, it is fully untenable to claim that the new covenant’s stipulations of repentance, faith, new obedience are distinctly different from the old covenant. Paul repeatedly appealed to Abraham as the one who was justified by faith (Gal. 3:6; Rom. 4:1–5), since Abraham was “the man of faith” (Gal. 3:9). Paul also named David as one justified by faith (Rom. 4:6–8). Hebrews 11 names ten examples, including the whole people (v. 29), who followed God by faith. The New Testament is emphatic that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation, which applied equally to old covenant believers. Caneday’s first claim withers under even a brief consideration of Scripture.

Second, Caneday claimed that the stipulations of the old and new covenants were vastly different but then explained both in terms of obedience. Specifically, the new “stipulates obeying Christ Jesus as Lord” and the old “stipulates obeying God’s covenant commandments.” He suggests that the content of the commands have changed from old to new but the primary difference in Caneday’s phrasing seems to be the two objects of obedience: Christ and God. This distinction is massively problematic theologically and biblically. Theologically, to distinguish Christ and God as the object of obedience suggests that they are not both the one God. Perhaps this is a poor choice of phrasing, but one that is potentially redolent of very serious Christological error, if not heresy.

Biblically, Caneday’s distinction crumbles with the consideration of a few passages. Jude 5 says, “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Notice that it was Jesus who saved the Israelites out of Egypt. Further, it was Jesus who destroyed the unbelievers among them. So, following Christ as Lord explicitly was a feature of the old covenant. Moreover, in reference to Caneday’s preference for the Scripture’s threats over assurance, Christ did not destroy unfaithful believers but overtly “those who did not believe.” So, his claim that the gospel threatens believers with hell—as he repeats in this context “Hebrews emphatically presents the gospel as threatening us with perdition unless we persevere in loyalty to Christ” (pg. 112)—is undermined. In 1 Corinthians 10:1–6, Paul made the same point about the Israelites in the wilderness that the spiritual Rock that followed them in the wilderness was Christ. In sum, Caneday has proposed that the conditions of the old and new covenants differ mainly in whom the people are to obey and how the old covenant does not have the summons to faith, repentance, and new obedience. Since Caneday himself argued that Christ’s death is the foundation enabling obedience, it seems that the old covenant without Christ as Lord lacks that enabling, leaving the people to earn access to the new creation without even Christ’s death as the foundation. This is a hard covenant.

Certainly, that fits with the third problem in this passage that Caneday says the “do this and live” formula is how believers obtain everlasting life. Paul explicitly rejected this premise. In Galatians 3:11–12, he wrote,

Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Paul cited Caneday’s exact quotation of Leviticus 18:5 and said that it contrasts with the righteousness had by faith. Clearly, he also said that no one can be justified in that way. Jesus’ citation of this phrase in Luke 10:28 should be read in light of Paul, namely showing that someone who fulfills the law perfectly obtains life, but this contrasts with righteousness by faith. Caneday concluded, “Thus, to claim that the stipulations of the new covenant are different formulations structurally – “Do this because you are blessed” versus “Do this in order to be blessed” is not accurate and does not address the new covenant’s true superiority over the old (Heb. 8:8–12).” (pg. 111–12). Caneday thinks rather that the old and new covenant differ only in the content of the law and in obeying Christ rather than God’s commandments.

In the end, Caneday does promote a salvation by works. He states,

Warnings do not call for retrospective review of faith’s authenticity but for prospective laying hold of the inheritance of salvation in Christ. They warn lest we follow a course that irrevocably leads to perdition. They urgently juxtapose salvation as the assured blessing for heeding the gospel’s warning antithetically to perdition as the unalterable curse for ignoring the gospel’s threat. (pg. 113)

In other words, warnings do not ask us to examine if our faith is genuine, since genuine faith is assumed. Rather, biblical warnings call us to ask if we have been faithful enough to avoid hell. He applies this point to reject the traditional Reformed distinction between antecedent and consequent conditions, which differentiates between something necessary in order to obtain salvation and something necessary because we have been saved (pg. 115–17). Rather, it seems that even if Christ’s death may be a foundation, works are the antecedent conditions, not as evidence of faith, but for believers to warrant everlasting life. Caneday’s attempt to mitigate the moralistic force of these arguments is to assert that the law requires simply heartfelt rather than perfect obedience and that God’s commands are always preceded by grace (pg. 117–22). Still, this differs little from medieval structures of congruent merit that Protestants rejected at the Reformation.

Strikingly, even in his closing reflections, Caneday never unpacks God’s promises and blessings in the gospel but throughout has emphasized really only that he thinks the gospel threatens. It is hard to see what Caneday thinks the gospel is other than a call to obey the law imperfectly so that we might warrant everlasting life. There is no emphasis on trusting Christ. There is a one sentence concession that we can obey only with the Spirit in us (pg. 125). Caneday’s closing words fittingly capture his message:

And so it is that if we obey God’s stipulations proclaimed in and through his new covenant in Christ Jesus, God’s Word assures us that we shall have access to the tree of life in God’s Holy City. But if we do not heed God’s threatening stipulations, we will be cast outside, and our share in the tree of life and in the Holy City will be taken from us. (pg. 126)

Caneday has emphasized the gospel as a threat rather than a promise, noting how works contribute as a condition—essentially and antecedent condition—to entering everlasting life. Based on this essay, his Christ is a hard master whose burden is heavy and his understanding of covenant conditions is a turn away from Protestant soteriology. And before the criticisms come for charity and graciousness, that is the gracious assessment.

It follows that Caneday’s view needs to be considered in regard to the wider project of progressive covenantalism. Caneday’s argument relates to that wider project in respect to the paradigm’s rejection of the distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants. In some ways, this rejection as such is vague in not specifying what sort of conditions are meant. The Reformed are quick to assert that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace (Westminster Confession 7.3). Likewise, everyone agrees that Christ’s atoning death is a condition for believers to receive salvation (Westminster Confession 7.4). So, to reject the idea of an unconditional covenant is not very clear nor controversial. Progressive covenantalism needs to be clear about what sort of conditions it says are bound to the covenants. I raised this issue in my earlier review of Kingdom Through Covenant:

On the other hand, the dismissal of the distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants is more provocative. Even here though, questions remain for those holding traditional covenant theology. What sort of conditions? This has never been specifically defined. The condition of faith, works, or a mix? That answer could make their view very contentious. Further, Reformed theology has long distinguished antecedent and consequent conditions. Which does Wellum have in view?

When adherents to the paradigm reject the distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants because they believe that every covenant arrangement demands perfect obedience, namely a perfectly obedience son, a lack of clarity remains. Is this demand typological, pointing to the need for Christ to provide imputed righteousness for his people’s everlasting life? Or, on the other hand, is this demand real for every individual, requiring that even believers must supply this obedience for themselves? How one answers these questions affects some of the most fundamental aspects of how we explain the gospel.

Although other proponents of progressive covenantalism have said to me that they maintain the law-gospel distinction, which could be consistent with a typological account of each covenant’s demand for perfect obedience, Caneday’s essay explains progressive covenantalism’s understanding of covenantal conditions, not as typology, but as a true collapse of the law-gospel distinction. Caneday’s is perhaps not the progressive covenantalism view, as individual adherents to any paradigm can explain various features in differing ways. Still, it is worrying that a volume attempting to answer follow up questions about the paradigm includes this essay. For progressive covenantalism to have greater prospect to continue dialogue with Reformed theology, they need to propose a differing solution for how to explain the relation of each believer to covenantal conditions.

Resources

NOTE

1. John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio I.17.1.1–2 in Opera Omnia, 21 vol. (Vatican City: Vatican Press, 1950–2013), 5:202–3; Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 5.2; in A.C. Peltier (ed.), S. R. E Cardinalis S. Bonaventure…Opera Omnia, 15 vol. (Paris: Ludovicus Vivès, 1864–71), 7:297; Christopher M. Cullen, Bonaventure. Great Medieval Thinkers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 153–64; even St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 5 vols. (New York, NY: Benziger Bros., 1948; repr. Notre Dame, IN: Christian Classics, 1981), 1a2ae.109.5; 1.12.4; 1.62.1; 1a2ae.91.4.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


16 comments

  2. It is hard to conceive how Caneday understands even the very word “grace.”

    It appears this “Progressive Covenantalism” is Romanism repackaged. Am I missing something?

    Yet recently, I have seen social media posts by ordained teaching elders in very Reformed denominations arguing that good works are a condition of salvation rather than a consequence of being saved.

    I know you have explained ad nauseam their misunderstandings of WCF XVI.2 and WLC 32, yet they persist in twisting the archaic words to mean that works are “a” condition rather than understanding that faith is “THE” condition:

    “and requiring faith as THE condition to interest them in him…” (WLC 32)

    The use of the definite article by the Assembly is unmistakably precise and intentional to avoid just the sort of misunderstanding being perpetrated by Caneday, Piper and many others. Faith is “THE” condition not “A” condition.

    Why are we so prone to contort these doctrines?

    My own understanding is terribly simplistic, I understand Ephesians 2: 8-10 to teach us that there is nothing in us inherently to enable our own belief, yet, when faith is freely given to us, the consequences are that we will be presented with “good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Even this is an internal work of God’s free grace in sanctification. Works are a consequence of saving faith, not an antecedent to salvation.

    • Jim,

      Sadly, in the Reformed world the doctrines of the covenant of works and it’s clear distinction from the covenant of grace was nearly lost in the 20th century. It is only gradually being recovered. That loss, however, did a lot of damage because it is how articulated the distinction between works and grace, which was almost lost at the same time.

      Second, this confusion is also driven by a deep fear of antinomianism. Remember. the General Assembly of the Scottish church, in the 18th century, came to be dominated by neonomians influenced by Richard Baxter. So too it is in our age. The reaction to antinomianism by many has been not to clarify the necessary relations between true faith and fruit but to try to turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works.

      Third, just as the covenant of works/grace distinction was nearly lost so too the classical Reformation distinction between law and gospel was almost lost among the Reformed in the 20th century. Piper comes out of the Daniel Fuller approach to redemptive history and both deny the distinction.

      It is not a coincidence that Caneday is closely aligned with DGM and John Piper, where the doctrine of “final salvation through works” is considered orthodoxy.

    • Jim,
      I’m also not clear on what Caneday truly thinks grace or the gospel is. The closest he seems to come is in saying that the gospel enables you obey enough to fulfill the condition of obedience. That premise runs aground pretty quickly in Protestantism. I think that even some of the folks you have in mind would get squeamish about the way Caneday formulates things – certainly they should.

      As for Progressive Covenantalism, it’s not yet established if Caneday’s view is *the* understanding of covenant conditions for the paradigm. If it is, then all of the questions that I have tried to raise about it have terrible answers and PC is not only unclear but a move away from Protestantism. That said, Stephen Wellum tends to write helpful things on a lot of areas in Christology. I know he edited the collection with Caneday’s essay but I want to think that this is not his own view. It does not HAVE to be the explanation PC takes on this issue. There are better ways. Part of the rationale for this post was to prompt them to go another direction – not that they are paying attention to what I think.

      There is a lack of clarity about what PC means when they state that they reject the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. I first thought that Wellum meant that simply (as is the case with most Baptists) they reject the one unified covenant of grace, namely with an eye against infant baptism.

      It may be more serious than that, not that this point is superficial. In Caneday’s essay, he has turned every covenant into a covenant of works. That is not accidental either. He appeals to the doctrine and to the doctrine of republication. And he argues from Adam having a law to earn blessings that it works the same in the new covenant. This is a very dangerous move.

      So, when PC says they think every covenant requires perfect obedience, they could mean that Christ has provided that and the covenants have a typology of Christ. Or they could mean Caneday’s view, which is not very Protestant. It is up to them to clarify. But they need to do so and on the points raised.

      • Tragically, the notion that Romans 2:13 is referring to Christians who cooperate sufficiently with grace and appear finally, at the judgment, on the basis of “Spirit-wrought” sanctity is more widely held than one might hope.

    • Hi Dr. Clark,

      Thank you for what you shared in your reply to Jim. Your brief response is a help in understanding what is occurring today in the Reformed world. You said the distinction was “nearly lost in the 20th century.” This really helps me to see why even today there is vagueness on this issue.

      From the perspective of my corner of the world, it seems that God used the WHI, WSCAL, and other people/groups in the late 1900’s-early 21st century to bring clarity again to the crisp difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace. But sadly, it seems that we heard and believed this difference–and then let it quietly drift away. I don’t hear much about this crisp distinction and its primacy anymore… It seems that it is being swallowed up again by teaching that conflates the two covenants.

      This conflation seems to be coming from conservative reformed people/institutions. Again: this is simply my perspective from the ground…it makes me sad and–quite frankly–creeps me out.

      It shows me that we need to constantly “harp” on the gospel in each generation, for we so quickly gravitate to unbelief. As my friend has said, it seems that each generation has to rediscover the gospel for themselves. I would add, each generation needs to faithfully PROCLAIM and TEACH the gospel t-boot–and not be afraid of those who would label this distinction antinomian. This takes courage.

      Thanks again for your great comment/reply to Jim! Merry Christmas to you and yours.

      John 1:14,

      Chuck

  3. Thank you for your clear and sound arguing here, Dr Clark. This quote from Calvin’s Antidote to the sixth session of Trent rings as true as it ever was, it seems.

    The doctrine of man’s Justification would be easily explained, did not the false opinions by which the minds of men are preoccupied, spread darkness over the clear light. The principal cause of obscurity, however, is, that we are with the greatest difficulty induced to leave the glory of righteousness entire to God alone. For we always desire to be somewhat, and such is our folly, we even think we are. As this pride was innate in man from the first, so it opened a door for Satan to imbue them with many impious and vicious conceits with which we have this day to contend. And in all ages there have been sophists exercising their pen in extolling human righteousness, as they knew it would be popular. When by the singular kindness of God, the impiety of Pelagius was repudiated with the common consent of the ancient Church, they no longer dared to talk so pertly of human merit. They, however, devised a middle way, by which they might not give God the whole in justification, and yet give something.

  4. I agree that there are significant differences between baptists and confessionally reformed people. When misunderstanding covenants is misinterpreted, it has to change your views on pretty much everything that follows. And yet we continue to welcome each other to communion, pulpits etc. Do the differences really matter, or do we just pay lip service to them? I have been wrestling with this for a long time now, and what I see disturbs me. I am grateful for your work in pointing out the differences…it is very informative and enlightening.

    • Hi Peter,
      It is important to acknowledge our differences and not pretend that we are the same when we are not. That is one reason why I think the categories “Baptist” and “Reformed” do not overlap.

      Nonetheless, it is also important to acknowledge where we agree. In this regard, I think the answer to your question depends on what kind of Baptist we are talking about. There are many Baptist theologians who, even though I think they are very mistaken about how to understand redemptive history and ecclesiology, are very clear on the gospel. Some confessional Baptists have done the most work on pushing against errors concerning the classical doctrine of God. I personally would not hesitate to preach for my friends Matt Bingham, Sam Renihan, or Richard Barcellos, and would be happy to have them preach to me as an occasional thing.

      I’ve been preaching through 1 Corinthians for some time now. The main point of the letter is to correct divisions in the church. One of Paul’s main correctives is to love one another, be charitable, and go out of your way to be accommodating to brothers and sisters in Christ. Although Baptists and Reformed people belong to different denominations, still I think Paul’s exhortations remind us not to forsake kindness and love for those who are our family in the Lord, even if they are wrong about significant things.

      Still, we don’t paint over the differences as if they don’t matter. We keep discussing and recognize our disagreements. But we’ll rarely persuade anyone if we are not winsome in our confessionalism.

      Still, the answer depends on what sort of Baptist. I think Stephen Wellum does not agree with Caneday on this point. We’ll see as they both write more (perhaps). I would not want someone holding to views described in the essay above preaching to my or in my stead. Yet, there are sadly those in Reformed churches who may come close to agreeing with Caneday (although I personally think his formulations are extreme even then). I’d not want to hear that preaching either.

    • Harrison, I appreciate your response. Being a member of a confessionally reformed church, when I see anyone, whose beliefs contradict reformed theology, i.e., infant baptism, being admitted to communion, I think it’s reasonable to assume we pay lip service to the differences. I have heard that reformed people have been admitted to communion at Baptist churches as well. It has been a difficult journey for me, even though I was brought up in a confessional reformed church. It wasn’t that long ago that this wouldn’t have been an issue. I take my baptism seriously, and in good conscience cannot participate in communion with someone who would deny my baptism. One who adheres to credobaptism should not want to participate with those considered unbaptized. Do you see the struggle? Its not a salvation issue…salvation belongs to the Lord. It’s not my place to judge who is and who isn’t saved. Its my responsibility to discern between what I confess to be true and what I confess to be untrue.

  5. Bethlehem College and Seminary, where Piper is chancellor, has Caneday on as an adjunct professor. When I read your helpful piece, Piper is the name that immediately came to mind.

      • Here it is from Oct 18, 2007. Harrison found it and sent and it’s preserved here for archival purposes:

        Now and Not Yet Aspects or Phases of Justification
        In the comments portion of my last blog entry, “The Piper Approach on the Wright Approach,” JGB has raised some important questions to which I have offered responses. JGB’s observations and comments concern the futurity of justification, which is close to the title of John Piper’s latest book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright.

        This question concerning the futurity of justification brings back memories from twenty-four years ago. At that time my wife and I, with our two sons, were attending a Reformed Church where the senior pastor was a member of the Board of Trustees for Westminster Theological Seminary (East). The Board of Trustees, as was the seminary, was deeply engaged in a theological discussion (dispute?) concerning Professor Norman Shepherd’s paper, “The Grace of Justification,” written for and presented to his faculty colleagues in 1979. I had a copy of the paper. I had received it from a friend who had been a student at Westminster Seminary.

        The senior pastor of our church, whom I deeply respected then and now, was a great encouragement to my wife and to me at a very critical and difficult period of our young lives. He was a wonderful mentor to me at a time when I most needed one. During conversations with me and with a couple of other young men, all seminary graduates, our pastor spoke to us about the theological conflict at Westminster Seminary. He expressed great frustration with Norman Shepherd’s views concerning justification. Especially perplexing to him was what he represented as Shepherd’s belief in “two different justifications, one in the past and another in the future on the Last Day.” Given my minority relationship to our senior pastor, a wise and godly and grayhaired gentleman, I did not presume to become his instructor, though it was evident that I had a much better understanding of Shepherd’s beliefs than he did.

        If I had been foolish enough to presume to offer instruction to our senior pastor who sat on the Westminster Seminary Board of Trustees, I would have kindly proposed something akin to what I have said in my comments by way of reply to JGB.

        Norman Shepherd does not believe in two separate justifications, one now and another on the Last Day. For Shepherd, justification does not consist of two separate parts. To reduce his understanding of justification now and not yet to the notion that justification consists of two separate parts, we have part now and we will receive the other part later, is to fail to do justice to the singularity of justification as Shepherd understands it and explains it.

        Replace the word parts with aspects. The word parts, for most people, tends to connote “the idea of division.” Thus, they think of justification now as separate from justification not yet. If you will replace the word parts with the word aspects, you will help yourself to avoid the wrong implications concerning what Shepherd is saying and meaning.

        The term aspects tends to connote phases of one singular thing, as in aspects or phases of the moon. The not yet justification is of a piece with the already justification. Justification is singular. There is not a past justification that is separate from a future justification. Not yet justification is simply the Last Day phase of what God has already declared over us in and through the gospel in the present time.

        There is no more separateness or division between the now and the not yet phases or aspects of justification than there is between the first quarter and the last quarter aspects or phases of the moon. It is the same and singular moon with distinguishable phases or aspects. It is the same and singular justification with distinguishable aspects or phases, one now and the other not yet.

        Can anyone reasonably argue with this expression concerning justification? Justification is singular, just as eternal life and salvation and redemption each are singular, even though each of these expressions biblically portrayed has distinguishable aspects, both now and not yet aspects. Concerning these biblical portrayals and more, all with discernible aspects of both now and not yet, I commend chapter 2 of The Race Set Before Us.

        Mention of Norman Shepherd reminds me that I will be taking part in an ACT Biblical Forum in Carol Stream, Illinois, November 1-3. The forum will consist of an engagement of Shepherd concerning his beliefs with conversational style responses.

        In 1984, when visiting Minneapolis, I had the privilege and opportunity to meet Norman Shepherd when he was pastoring First Christian Reformed Church (now dissolved, its church plant, Calvary, survives) in Edina, Minnesota. He graciously welcomed me into his church office to speak with him for about 45 minutes. During our conversation, I asked him if he would be willing to correct my understanding of his beliefs concerning justification. This, of course, required that I articulate for him my understanding of his views. When I had finished summarizing his beliefs, I was pleasantly and warmly commended by Norman Shepherd, who said, “I have never heard anyone articulate my beliefs more clearly, more accurately, or more concisely than what you have done. I have no corrections to offer.” It is good when one has such an opportunity as I had, to be able to speak with the man, represent his beliefs to him, and then be told that I have correctly understood him and that I have correctly represented him. It is even more commendable, if someone can do this and still not agree with the views addressed, not that this latter statement describes my beliefs in relation to Norman Shepherd’s.

        By the way, I did not come to my own beliefs concerning justification now and not yet by reading Shepherd’s “The Grace of Justification.” I had already come to my beliefs a few years earlier, quite independent of Norman Shepherd. I had no knowledge of his views until I heard about them from my friend from Westminster Seminary, a few years after I had already come to my own beliefs now expressed in The Race Set Before Us.

        For those unfamiliar with the doctrine of Norman Shepherd, here are some resources:

        Shepherd began teaching justification “through faith and works” in ’74–75 and later “through faithfulness” at WTS/Phila. He was dismissed by the board in 1981.

        He is the father of the Federal Vision movement and has published at least a couple of articles in collections of essays explaining and defending the Federal Vision theology. Resources on the FV.

        Let us hear no caviling about the 9th commandment. The judgment of the Reformed churches (including the URCNA, where I serve) about the theology of Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision has been clearly expressed in numerous ecclesiastical reports and even in ecclesiastical decisions.

Comments are closed.