66. What are the Sacraments? The Sacraments are visible holy signs and seals appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel: namely, that of . . . Continue reading →
65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only, whence comes this faith? The Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the . . . Continue reading →
Here, then, we have the principle tinctured with the blood of our Puritan, Covenanter and Huguenot forefathers — that which is not commanded, either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures, is prohibited to the church. She can utter no new doctrine, make . . . Continue reading →
65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only, whence comes this faith? The Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the . . . Continue reading →
He even talks of eschatological justification and regards it as something that is not complete until the judgment…He does not recognize that justification is entirely God’s forensic act of declaring we are just because he has imputed to us Christ righteousness. The result is no one could ever bring against Shepherd the charge brought against Paul in Rom. 6:1—Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Continue reading →
Shepard affirms that from a covenantal perspective a person may pass from an elected and justified status to a non-elect and non-justified status. This transition does not mean simply that a person is first treated as though he were elected and justified . . . Continue reading →
While he speaks in a number of places of faith alone (unhyphenated) as the instrument by which we appropriate justification, he also insists that works must go with it, so closely related that justifying faith and works are almost identical…. This apparently . . . Continue reading →
it would be in my opinion and feeling that Norman Shepard, if he should logically continue to expand the position as set forth in all of his documents, would ultimately come to a position like that of Osiander and perhaps even close . . . Continue reading →
Because the popular rhetoric in evangelical and even in confessional Protestant circles has frequently been that the medieval (or the Roman communion) taught justification by works and the Reformers taught justification by grace well-meaning but misguided Christians sometimes conclude that so long . . . Continue reading →
1. Regretfully I share the view that matters of substance, not merely of terminology are involved…. 2. I am unhappy with the way in which Mr Shepherd represents the historical theology behind the reformed doctrine of justification as stated in the Westminster . . . Continue reading →
As one who has been trained in, and has taught the classic systematic theology with the biblical theological basis of Professor John Murray’s approach, I find Mr. Shepherd’s original paper, and also his later statements, quite confusing and disturbing. For example, he . . . Continue reading →
In attempting to claim a fundamental cleavage between Reformed thought and Lutheranism, evangelicalism and other movements on the point of justification, Shepherd appears to abandon the traditional view that there is substantive agreement among all evangelical Protestants concerning this topic. The fact . . . Continue reading →
Shepherd, as I see it, is going into an extreme…when I started to read what he said about j(ustification) by faith, I was hoping that he mean that this faith must be more than a merely abstract acceptance of a proposition; in other . . . Continue reading →
If he feign another rule of faith besides the written word of God, we reject, repudiate, and refuse to acknowledge any such, and reduce the whole rule of the catholic faith to the scripture alone. …Faith, therefore, is not the gift of . . . Continue reading →
The Reformation solas (by grace alone, through faith alone, according to Scripture alone) are not well understood today. Yesterday, however, was the anniversary of Luther’s famous declaration at the Diet of Worms. Although already under ban for his teachings, Charles V had promised . . . Continue reading →
The primary purpose of the Heidelblog is to explain the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). The catechism was written primarily by Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83) at the behest of the Elector Palatinate, Frederick III (1515–76). It was adopted by the German Reformed Church and by . . . Continue reading →
…although they make their boast of Him, yet in deeds they deny the only Savior Jesus, for either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or they who by true faith receive this Savior, must have in Him all that is necessary to their salvation. Continue reading →
Ultimately, the Socinians, the Romanists, and the moralists (e.g., Baxter) agreed: the gospel of free justification with God and free salvation must be rejected because it’s insufficient to produce the desired outcome. Continue reading →
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. Continue reading →
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Rom 4:5; ESV) Continue reading →
