Introduction

In my previous article, “Debating with the Devil,” in the October 1 issue of Sword and Shield, I proved that the exegetical history of James’ leadership of the Jerusalem Council; his subsequent wholehearted agreement with the special revelation of the gospel and of justification, which the apostle Paul received directly from the risen Lord; and James’ epistle written to educate his scattered Jerusalem brethren about being vindicated by faith and works because there were many false brethren all contradict what Norman Shepherd wrote thus far in his book The Way of Righteousness.¹

Further evaluation of what Shepherd wrote in The Way of Righteousness will demonstrate that he is seriously mistaken in the rest of his book. James was not reverting to the Pharisees’ doctrine when he wrote chapter 2:14–26, but he was emphasizing his Lord’s instructions to his disciples: “Ye are the light of the world…Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14–16). James would not, could not, and did not write that a man is forensically justified by faith and works.

How This Debate Ends in the Church

Consider more of Shepherd’s writing. He writes,

James writes in 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” There are at least two questions that need to be addressed as we seek to understand the meaning of this verse. First, what does James mean by the word “justified”? What is this justification? And second, what does James mean when he says that this justification is by works and not by faith alone? (20)

Shepherd makes little effort to explain exegetically the meaning of the word justified in verse 24. He merely says, “James is using the word ‘justify’ [in v. 24] in a sense parallel to the word ‘save’ in verse 14…The same reality is in view in both verses because the affirmation in verse 24 answers the question posed in verse 14” (21). Not necessarily; James’ affirmation could be successive instead of conclusive: As dead faith doesn’t save, neither does it vindicate.

However, Shepherd never really understood “the same reality” of which he spoke, mistaking the specific, wrong faith James was writing about for the true faith of scripture; then concluding, again wrongly, that true faith does not justify without works. As demonstrated, in James’ use of the word δικαιοῦται, it means to vindicate, to verify. But, assuming (wrongly) he had proved δικαιοῦται to mean forensic justification, Shepherd then (again, wrongly) states his conclusion as James’ conclusion: “His [James’] conclusion is that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (21).

Shepherd is seriously mistaken, but he continues,

Verse 24 comes at the end of a line of reasoning that begins with what is really a rhetorical question in verse 14. “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” James develops an argument in answer to this question and reaches a conclusion in verse 24. His conclusion is that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. In verse 26 he says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” The point is that “faith alone” is dead faith and therefore cannot justify. (21)

Shepherd is wrong about James’ conclusion in verse 24. Shepherd misunderstood the word justified that James used, as well as the point of James’ rhetorical question in verse 14, and therefore failed to grasp the true meaning of James’ line of reasoning.

James began with someone claiming to have faith, yet having no works. That suggests the rhetorical question of verse 14. But it is vital to understand the precise wording of that question, particularly the use of the Greek article in the phrase “µὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν,” because the article in Greek “is invaluable as a means of gaining precision.”² The Greek article specifically points out or distinguishes something in particular (Robertson, 756). In James’ question the Greek article indicates that James was alluding to the specific (wrong) faith just spoken of, not true faith. James was distinguishing that faith, holding it up to scrutiny throughout this discussion. His rhetorical question really asked, “Can that kind of faith [not faith in general] save him?” His line of reasoning was: “That kind of faith” can’t save him before God (James 2:14) nor vindicate him before men in the church (v. 24). James’ conclusion—contra Shepherd—was, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified [vindicated], and not by faith only” (v. 24).

The Greek article indicates that James had that specific type of faith in mind and not faith in general, as Shepherd implies; so that when Shepherd says that James’ conclusion is “that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” he is twice wrong. Wrong because James wasn’t writing about forensic justification but vindication; and wrong because James was not writing in verse 24 about true faith either but that kind of faith, that kind of (false, antinomian) faith without works that will not vindicate a person.

These serious errors lead Shepherd to condemn the true faith, faith that is belief in Christ and trust in all God has said, the faith of Lord’s Day 7. That faith, Shepherd says, will not justify without works! Those following Shepherd are equally guilty of condemning the biblical faith, as well as the truth of Lord’s Day 7.

James continued to write of that man who thinks that he is religious but doesn’t do the things James had spoken of previously: he doesn’t bridle his tongue, doesn’t visit orphans and widows, and doesn’t keep himself unspotted from the world (James 1:26–27). In short, he doesn’t “fulfil the royal law” (2:8). He is one of those causing confusion in the church, the very reason James was writing his epistle; not to “envision a courtroom scene,” as Shepherd proposes (21), but to teach the scattered brethren to “do well,” as the Jerusalem Council had proclaimed.

Then Shepherd quickly transforms the “royal law” into the law of Moses (“The implication is that this law of God…” [21]) to further his misconception in the direction of forensic justification, which justification, according to Shepherd, is not completed until we get to heaven (stand before God). “Salvation in verse 14 is therefore salvation from condemnation when we stand before the Lord God to be judged” (21). James’ words have now been twisted to support Shepherd’s false idea that justified in James is forensic justification, which justification is only final and complete at the last judgment. Not realizing his serious errors but compounding them, Shepherd writes, “That is why James can use the word ‘justified’ in verse 24” (21).

Returning to my explanation, in 2:15–16 James continued to describe that man who claims to have faith: A brother is naked, but his fellow brother in the church gives him nothing and just says, “Depart in peace.” Following Jesus (“Every tree is known by his own fruit” [Luke 6:44]), James concluded that such so-called faith is a fruitless tree—it’s dead (James 2:17). It can’t pass the test of verse 18: Show us that faith without works, that is, let us examine that tree with no fruit. It’s dead! That line of reasoning led James to write in verse 20: “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith [that kind of faith] without works is dead?”

To further expose and scrutinize that dead faith without works, James proposed Abraham as a good example of faith (vv. 21–23), particularly because the facts cited about him would never be disputed, even by antinomian Jews. James said in verse 21, “Was not Abraham our father justified [vindicated] by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” That led James to his conclusion in verse 24. He began with the words, “Ye see.” His purpose was to teach his scattered brethren so that they would see—that is, understand and be convinced—that a person with that kind of faith without works is like a dead tree, totally different from Abraham, who was vindicated by offering Isaac. From this example James’ brethren should have seen (understood) why that person without works could not be justified (vindicated). That kind of faith is not like Abraham’s faith. It’s dead. Which led James to his conclusion in verse 26: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” To mix the metaphors but to make James’ point: dead trees get cut down; they don’t get vindicated!

Shepherd, believing he has established his meaning of justified, proceeds with this: “When James says that ‘a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone,’ he is using the word ‘justify’ in the same forensic-soteric sense as Paul when Paul says that ‘a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law’” (22).

Shepherd is correct when he admits, “It is this fact [his wrong understanding] that appears to bring James into direct conflict with Paul” (22). Shepherd caused the conflict, not James. Shepherd then appeals to Matthew 18:21–35 and 25:31–46 to support his misinterpretation that James has the final judgment in view (23). It has been demonstrated that James had no such thing in view but was instructing the scattered brethren concerning the vindication of true faith, which needed clarification at that time, rather than the Pharisees’ view of justification by faith and works, which had been recently condemned by the Jerusalem Council.

Norman Shepherd is aware of the view that James might be using justify in the non-soteric sense of vindication. Shepherd even says, “If this interpretation is adopted, we are relieved of the discrepancy between James and Paul.” Shepherd gives two observations to disprove that “demonstrative sense.” The first: that “persons” are spoken of, “not faith.” The second: that the word “justify…cannot mean ‘show to be justified’” (24).

Before examining Shepherd’s observations, it is necessary to point out that he omits reference to any linguistic authority for his definition of justify. Also, he conveniently omits the prominent meaning of to vindicate in his definition of justify.³

Regarding his first objection, yes, three persons were “justified.” They were vindicated (a satisfactory usage of the verb ἐδικαιώθη). Regarding the second, as mentioned, Shepherd cites no authority for the definitions or the exclusion proposed regarding justify; and he conveniently omits the prominent definition to vindicate.

Shepherd then asks “whether James is using ‘justify’ in the demonstrative sense.” Shepherd concedes that it is possible, that it is a convenient way to reconcile James and Paul, but says that possibility is not proof that James was thinking that, neither is it an exegetical argument, just a theological one; neither does it “fit into the flow” of James’ argument (24–25). Then follows Shepherd’s verdict. He says that “the compelling argument” is “only if ‘justify’ in verse 24 carries the forensic-soteric sense does the verse answer the question posed in verse 14” (25; emphasis added). So, basically, his real proof is the connection between verse 14 and verse 24.

But contrary to Shepherd, first, my previous exegetical argument is proof that James used justify in the demonstrative, not the forensic, sense; proof that effectively reconciles James and Paul.

Second, by an exegetically based history of the Jerusalem Council, I also demonstrated what James was thinking and applied that to the writing of James’ epistle. 

Third, I demonstrated by exegetical arguments that accurately represent James’ thinking and “the flow” of James’ argument that it is an integral part of a follow-up letter promoting the Jerusalem Council’s decree to his scattered brethren that they must let men see their good works.

Fourth, I demonstrated that James had neither reason nor intention to teach that a man is forensically justified by faith and works (the Pharisees’ position). James, along with the whole church, guided by the Holy Spirit, rejected that demonic notion, and my articles have proved that.

Fifth, therefore, I have demonstrated that none of Norman Shepherd’s qualifications and arguments promoting his view of working faith are valid. James wrote of vindication, not forensic justification.

I pass over the rest of Shepherd’s “theorizing” about James, believing that the true interpretation has been sufficiently presented. I conclude that without any support from James’ epistle, Shepherd’s concept of working faith, or obedient faith, is merely his imaginary construct, which denys the uniform teaching of scripture on forensic justification by grace alone through faith alone apart from works (Luke 18:13–14; John 8:11; Rom. 3:21–28; 4:5–6; 5:1, 8–10, 18–19; 9:16; Gal. 2:16).

Also, first, in view of the expanding influence of Shepherd’s work, with its many public and private advocates, a solemn warning is appropriate. 

Second, because there is no such thing as working faith in James (or in the rest of scripture), all the substitute phrases and derivative statements expounding, supporting, or dissembling it are equally false and contrary to scripture.

Third, those promoting and defending these unbiblical concepts are promoting another gospel and seriously misleading God’s people away from the truth.

Fourth, those who forsake what God has said are as guilty as Eve for debating with the devil and ultimately for blaspheming God.

Fifth, hopefully, today’s “Reformed” advocates of Shepherd’s scheme will consider the proof given here concerning James 2:14–26.

Sixth, James would not, could not, and did not write that a man is forensically justified by faith and works. Therefore, the current doing theological debate, based on Shepherd’s non-existent working faith, or obedient faith, is a deceitful and false debate with the devil, which will end in disaster.

Therefore, having demonstrated that Norman Shepherd’s view contradicts the truth of scripture, that truth is briefly summarized here to confound that lie.

First, God’s Spirit creates a new heart and a right spirit in his people (Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:26–27). In this new creation (John 3:3), God’s Spirit permanently indwells God’s people. He abides with them forever (14:16). Ephesians 1:4–7 and Philippians 1:6 prove that this salvation process begins with and is completed by God himself without conditions. Salvation is all of grace through faith and not of works (Eph. 2:8–9).

Second, the Holy Spirit, then, who is the believer’s permanent, personal possession, takes the things of Christ (read, is taking, the Greek present tense indicating continuing action) and makes them ours (read, is making them ours, the same Greek present tense) (John 16:14). These things of Christ are his blood-bought, gracious gifts of election, predestination, calling, faith, regeneration, sanctification, and final glorification. Every aspect of the Christian life—all our believing and obedience—are the things of Christ that the Spirit is making ours. No sign of conditions, requirements, or working faith here; nothing about the believer’s doing, just the Spirit’s continuous doing, producing everything in the believer from regeneration through sanctification unto glorification.

Third, the Holy Spirit is the acting subject of John 16:14. The Spirit uses the instrument that he creates—faith—to accomplish all that God has willed and Christ has purchased. The instrument is most suitable, but it has no power, mind, or sense of direction on its own. It must be wielded—like a sword—by the instrument user, the abiding Holy Spirit. He continually gives to our faith its mind, power, and direction, as he wills (John 3:5–8), according to the will of Christ (10:27–28). The Spirit wields the instrument of faith, not us. In scripture our doing is the expression of the faith that the Spirit creates, empowers, and directs. Our personal possession of faith—my faith—never implies our control or activating power of that faith; rather, the our in our faith means that now faith in Christ is an organic, constituent, permanent part of us, making us believers.

Notice Paul’s expression of this truth: “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10). Note well: “The grace of God” did it; not Paul and not his obedient faith. I note particularly that Paul does not summarize: “There was something I was called to do, and I did it.” Unthinkable. Rather, “not I, but the grace of God which was with me” is the only true-to-scripture answer. “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:7). Again, NOT US! Not, I did it. The excellency of the power is of God, not of man.

Fourth, consider that in connection with Acts 16:30–31, where the Philippian jailor asks, “What must I do to be saved?” the answers given are quite revealing. The simplistic (Shepherdistic?) description is, “There was something he was called to do, and he did it.” But why say that when Paul says, “Not I. I didn’t do it; the grace of God did it”? Why prefer man to the grace of Christ? Why commend man rather than God’s Spirit? Why go in that direction of man? 

Also, it’s totally wrong. According to Acts 16:33, what was done? It was repentance and faith in Christ. The jailor couldn’t do that. He was not capable of doing that. As stated previously, commands don’t imply ability (man’s doing). Only Arminians and Pelagians (and now Shepherdites?) credit man with free will or doing-faith. But God’s commands are meant to reveal inability, hostility, and depravity! In that way the totally gracious character of salvation in Christ is revealed for God’s glory. That’s not nonsense. Acts 16:33 says the jailor was baptized, implying that what he did was repent and believe in the Lord Jesus. That he cannot do. That the Holy Spirit did! He regenerated the jailor, created faith in him, and caused him to say, “Jesus is Lord.” The jailor could not move his mouth to say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Paul is right: the grace of God did it; the jailor didn’t.

The person saying, “He did it” is seriously wrong. Jesus might say to that person, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). The statement “He did it” denies the essential, indwelling, motivating, and empowering work of the Holy Spirit and does not give God the glory (John 3:5–8; 16:14; 1 Cor. 12:3; 15:10; Eph. 2:8–10). 

However, it raises the real question with the Philippian jailor. Perhaps, there is reason for this silence about the Spirit; perhaps there’s an agenda behind it? Because if he, the Spirit of Christ, is credited for doing it, the working of the Spirit to create faith in someone indicates election and sovereign grace doing it, not man’s working faith doing it. That is a different direction than man.

Fifth, those faithful to God’s word will use the language of scripture. Those following Shepherd will not. It is the Spirit who moves us to obedience, according to God’s sovereign will of election (Rom. 8:4). We do not move ourselves to obey (7:19). We can’t even move our mouths to say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Only by the Spirit are we repenting and putting to death the deeds of the body (Rom. 8:13). Even our smallest prayer, “Abba, Father,” is only by the Spirit (v. 15). That is what scripture teaches, and I doubt that when Paul wrote it he thought it made us stocks and blocks, antinomians, or hyper-Calvinists. Scripture makes clear the ever-present, determining, and controlling factor (person) in all the believer’s faith and all faith’s activities is God the Holy Spirit. That new freedom of the believer is freedom in Christ, freedom from the dominion of sin, replaced by the dominion of Christ, our head. That is freedom indeed (John 8:36).

Sixth, concerning the believer’s works, the scripture speaks clearly: “We are his [God’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). This text informs us of the origins and certainty of a believer’s good works. God ordained those works; they will be done. God causes our good works to be done by us by ordaining them in past eternity and then by manufacturing them (“his workmanship”) in us. God’s production of good works in us is exactly parallel to his production of scripture. Every single word of scripture is God-breathed and was produced by God’s Spirit using fully human persons to think and write the exact words God wanted (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). The same is true of every good work the Christian does. Those works are designed, ordained, and fabricated in us by God himself using fully human persons to do the exact works he ordained, also by the power of his Spirit. “Walk in them” is parallel to “write them.” God’s inspiration does not produce typewriters. Neither does his crafting the exact works we do make us stocks and blocks. “Walk in them” assures us the doers of these good works are living, thinking, acting persons when they are doing, by God’s Spirit, exactly the good works God ordained before creation.⁴

Seventh, imagine…What would our Lord say to us if we asked him about our obedience in faith? Suppose we obeyed his word in answer to his commands and were wondering, “Lord, is our obedience the way to fellowship with you?”

His answer would be this: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10).

Those claiming that “obedience is the way to fellowship with God” should answer this question: How could servants doing unprofitable works ever be justified, ever be sanctified, ever fellowship with the Father by unprofitable works? Works that have no profit! Works that gain nothing for us! Nothing! That is what unprofitable means, and that is the Lord’s evaluation of his servants’ obedience: “It profits you nothing! Everything you attain is by my blood and my grace alone. Your obedience is not the way to the Father nor to anything else.” We must agree with our Lord. We either agree with him, or we are against him. Your doing his will gains you nothing! It is only your duty in gratitude to your gracious Lord.

Eighth, those with an open mind will take to heart our Lord’s evaluation of their works; those with an agenda will deny what is written here and continue with their “way.” “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12).

Ninth, Paul marveled at how soon the Galatians had departed from “him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal. 1:6). How could anyone forsake the riches of Christ freely given to his elect in an unconditional covenant that is all of grace to rush into a false, man-centered, conditional covenant and conditional salvation? The mystery of iniquity, of course!

Nonetheless, the once-delivered faith given to the saints will be upheld by the true church. Jesus said so: “Wisdom is justified of her children” (Matt. 11:19).