Introduction

My allegory continues with Shepsema, shaken by Thames’ and Spaul’s scolding, shuddering as they shame him: “Shepsema, where is your wedding garment? Can’t you see? This is a royal wedding! You may not come in here wearing that! The King’s wedding garment is required! Not your filthy rags! You have no wedding garment. You should leave!”

I now begin a longer and more difficult road of investigation as I consider Norman Shepherd’s brief chapter on Paul’s theology of justification.¹ In many ways the chapter reminded me of my boyhood days hunting rabbits in upstate New York. The thing with rabbits is that they can outrun you, and they know it. They’ll run fifty yards and wait for you to catch up. Then, they’ll run another fifty yards and repeat the procedure, figuring you’re getting tired or lost. The way to outsmart a rabbit is to stand still—do nothing—and let your beagle chase him. Beagles love to run after rabbits, and after twenty minutes—sure enough—there’s the rabbit. Rabbits always run in huge circles—never straight—coming back to where they started because that’s where their hiding place is.

I use that approach in this article to deal with Professor Shepherd’s brief chapter on Paul’s theology of justification, because Shepherd sets a forest of over one hundred verses in front of the reader, making the trail of his thought quite a chase through the woods. I will not try to pursue him by examining every verse; rather, I will observe his trail and confront him at the end because he will return to his discredited starting point of justification by obedient faith.

Those who consider this lightheartedness inappropriate must realize that an ocean of conservative ink has already been spilled critiquing Norman Shepherd’s federal vision theology, beginning before 1975 and culminating with Rev. N. Langerak’s definitive articles in Sword and Shield, “Revisiting Norman Shepherd.”²

Therefore, this article will not repeat those criticisms but will be confined to the scriptures Shepherd abuses.

Previously, I have taken James from Shepherd by demonstrating that James wrote that a man is vindicated by works, not by faith alone. James convincingly contradicted Shepherd’s erroneous view of justification and with it his notion that James introduced some special meaning of the word faith.

In this article James will join with Paul—that is, Thames and Spaul—to fight against Shepherd’s further abuse of what they wrote. While waiting for him at the end of his run, they will be rehearsing their song, “In Christ’s coach they sweetly sing, as they to glory ride therein.”³

Getting Started

Here is an overview of Norman Shepherd’s theological trail, which leads the reader through a scripture forest that Shepherd believes verifies his view of justification. He begins by asking three questions and then answers each one in complicated detail.

His first question is, “What does Paul mean by justification?” (33). Shepherd spends three pages discussing this and lists twenty-six Bible verses in his answer of this question.

First, justification is the forgiveness of sins so that we are accepted by God as righteous and receive the gift of eternal life. Second, justification is the forgiveness of sins grounded upon the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Third, the righteousness of Christ imputed for our justification is his death and resurrection for us and in our place. (33)

Shepherd’s second question is, “What does Paul mean by faith?” (33). Shepherd spends four and one-half pages discussing this and lists forty-one Bible verses in his answer of this question.

First of all, justifying faith is faith in Jesus; but Paul can also speak of justifying faith simply as faith in God…

Second, justifying faith is a penitent faith…

Third, justifying faith is not only a penitent faith but also an obedient faith. (36–38)

Shepherd’s third question is, “What are the works that Paul excludes from justification?” (33). Shepherd spends five pages discussing this and lists twenty-six Bible verses in his answer of this question.

First, by “works of the law” Paul refers to the Mosaic covenant…the whole Mosaic system…

Second, by works of the law Paul means obedience to a limited selection of laws found in the Law of Moses and in the tradition…

Third, works of the law are works that are done without faith. (41–43)

Norman Shepherd begins by quoting James 2:24 and Romans 3:28, notes their differences, and then says, “Therefore we have the questions, what does Paul mean, and does he contradict what James teaches?” (33).

If I may make a few remarks about this opening gambit, it might help the reader prepare for Shepherd’s loaded questions and convoluted answers.

Below are quotations of James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 in both the King James Version (KJV) and the English Standard Version (ESV), which Shepherd uses.

James 2:24

KJV: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

ESV: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Romans 3:28

KJV: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

ESV: For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Shepherd’s opening gambit about James and Paul reveals two things.

First, I have already sufficiently demonstrated that James wrote, “By works a man is vindicated” (not justified). This means that James and Paul are not in conflict and do not need to be reconciled. They are writing about two different subjects. But by creating a conflict and then proceeding to “reconcile” James and Paul, Norman Shepherd can present his theory as an ingenuous theological solution. False. Paul had no such conflict with James. James said that he fully agreed with Paul (Gal. 2:9).

Second, I also previously demonstrated the biased language of the ESV that Shepherd prefers. Notice carefully the difference in the modifiers in Romans 3:28: “without the deeds of the law” (KJV) and “apart from the works of the law” (ESV).

Shepherd favors the ESV. Why?

First, consider the KJV’s “without the deeds of the law.” Paul explains his meaning further in Romans 4:5: “To him that worketh not, but believeth…” There, you see, Paul explains himself: “worketh not” means no works! That explains Paul’s previous phrase, “without the deeds of the law.” Paul writes that a man is justified by faith alone—he works not; he has done no works. This is as Luke 18:14 teaches: the publican was justified before having done any works.

Then why does Shepherd prefer the ESV? (And this is true throughout his book The Way of Righteousness.)

Because, as previously pointed out, the modifier apart from supports his theory that a person is justified by an obedient faith that is doing the works of repentance—“doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with your God” (45)—but those works are apart from or separate from faith when God justifies the believer. In this way Shepherd can say that he believes in justification by faith. Also, those works previously mentioned, Shepherd says, are not “works of the law,” which Paul excludes from justification (41–45).

Moving on, Shepherd’s trail of scripture quickly passes over Romans 1–2, getting him to Romans 3, which notes the universal condemnation of the human race and the introduction of God’s righteousness, which Shepherd then “explains” and which “explanation” is important for understanding his theology of justification.

Shepherd begins his explanation with two paragraphs, which he says are taught in Romans 3:25. They are some of the smoothest and subtlest paragraphs you will ever read. Here are Shepherd’s words:

This revealed righteousness is the sacrifice of atonement offered up by Jesus Christ on the cross (v. 25) and this propitiatory sacrifice demonstrates the justice of God…

Paul makes clear that justification is the forgiveness of sin grounded in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That righteousness is his propitiatory sacrifice offered on the cross in obedience to the will of his Father in heaven. When Paul says in verse 28 that a man is justified by faith, he means that his sins are forgiven by faith. This faith is faith in the blood of Jesus (v. 25), and the blood of Jesus atones for sin. (34; emphasis added)

These two paragraphs hustle the reader through an “explanation” of Jesus’ atonement, God’s justification, Christ’s righteousness, the forgiveness of sins, faith, and the blood atonement of Christ—some of the weightiest subjects in scripture made “clear” in five sentences! Quite an accomplishment, if true.

The last paragraph is a good sample of the whole book. With its many tightly woven statements—joined by our old friend is—it moves the reader quite quickly over Romans 3:25. Too quickly. By doing so, Shepherd hides his corruption of the text’s true meaning, while the reader’s attention is too busy trying to hold together so many vital aspects of God’s word to realize it.

I will demonstrate that this paragraph is a crafty series of limiting statements that conceal rather than reveal God’s righteousness. I call to your attention the last sentence: “This faith is faith in the blood of Jesus (v. 25), and the blood of Jesus atones for sin.” Keep that in mind.

Here is Romans 3:25: “Whom [Christ Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” We must carefully consider every word.

“Spiritual discernment is the skill of distinguishing truth from error. Spurgeon famously said that the real difficulty in discernment is distinguishing what’s true from what’s almost true.”⁴

Romans 3:25 answers a most fundamental issue of biblical theology and by doing this exposes a major fault in Shepherd’s theology—one on which his view of justification stands or falls. That most critical issue is whether Christ’s lifelong righteous obedience is included in his atonement and therefore is imputed to believers in their justification. Romans 3:25 teaches that it is.

Shepherd denies this. That is why you did not read it in his quick paragraphs about justification. And that is why I called attention to his last sentence: “This faith is faith in the blood of Jesus (v. 25), and the blood of Jesus atones for sin.” Here discernment and attention to detail are demanded if we are to distinguish “what’s true from what’s almost true.”

In Romans 3:25 Paul uses the Greek word ἱλαστήριον, which is translated as “propitiation,” to describe the setting forth of Christ as a display of God’s righteousness. By using that word, Paul alludes to the high priest’s day-of-atonement ritual of going into the holy of holies with blood to pour on the mercy seat.

How do we know that? We know it because in the Greek Old Testament the mercy seat is called the ἱλαστήριον, the same word that Paul applies to Christ. And we know that the mercy seat was in the holy of holies, where the high priest went once a year with blood (Ex. 25:21; Lev. 16:13, 15). Literally, Romans 3:25 says, “Christ was set forth as the mercy seat.” That detail is vital to understanding the verse.

That same Greek word (ἱλαστήριον) may be translated as the propitiatory act or the mercy-seat act. That is, God set forth Christ as the mercy-seat act, the act in which the high priest sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat.

Paul is saying in Romans 3:25 that there is the great display of God’s righteousness. Christ is “set forth” as the great antitype of that climactic high priestly ritual on the day of atonement. Christ is the sacrifice; it is his blood. He is also the high priest who brings the sacrifice. And his cross is (figuratively) the mercy seat on which the blood is poured. The crucifixion of Christ displays the propitiatory act, the ἱλαστήριον (Ex. 25:21; 30:7; Lev. 16:13, 15; 17:11). Romans 3:25 is about the revelation of God’s righteousness through the high priestly act of Jesus’ offering his own blood on the cross.

That is quite similar to what Shepherd wrote. However, by merely saying, “This righteousness is the sacrifice of Christ,” he left out the most critical element of the propitiatory act—the element on which it all depends and without which it all fails.

I will demonstrate this in what follows.

First, remember Nadab and Abihu! They were Aaron’s sons and anointed priests. They were bringing to God the sacrifice. But they died! They were struck with fire from the Lord (Lev. 10:1–2). Why? Because they did not follow carefully all God’s holy requirements. By either ignoring or despising them, they offered strange fire on God’s altar. By that incident at the very beginning disclosure of the atonement-day ritual in Leviticus, God would have us realize the absolute holiness of his requirements for sacrifices, and he solemnly warned anyone who would ignore those requirements of the condemning judgment of his holiness.

Shepherd does a Nadab and Abihu, but he doesn’t tell his readers. How? Like Nadab and Abihu, Shepherd ignores God’s holy demands. He leaves out the most critical element for an acceptable sacrifice.

What is that most critical element? That Christ “offered himself without spot to God” (Heb. 9:14). Without spot! That is the critical and decisive element!

“Without spot” refers to the qualifications of the typical Old Testament animal sacrifice, of which our savior was the great antitype (Ex. 29:1; Lev. 1:3, 10; 22:19–24; 23:18; Num. 28:19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 36; Ezek. 43:23, 25; Mal. 1:7–8).

If we divide the sacrificial event between the antecedent life of the animal and the actual presentation of the animal for sacrifice, clearly the antecedent conditions of the animal’s life were in view when the animal was either accepted or rejected as spotless or not spotless. That decision was based on the antecedent conditions of that animal’s life because God had said to Israel, “[The] blind, or broken, or maimed…ye shall not offer these unto the Lord” (Lev. 22:22). Brokenness, blindness, maimed, and diseased were all conditions that occurred before the animal’s presentation for sacrifice and not at its presentation.

Therefore, it is clear that the term spotless refers to the condition of the sacrifice prior to its presentation, namely its antecedent life. In other words, in the spiritual realm relating to our savior, spotless would definitely refer to his lifelong spiritual condition prior to his crucifixion—that is, his lifelong righteousness—and not simply his obedient sacrifice on the cross, as Shepherd teaches.

Therefore, the preceding life of the sacrifice is not a nonessential condition but the vital condition of acceptance. The acceptance or rejection of the sacrifice terminates on its complete preceding life. Most significantly, then, the righteousness of our savior’s preceding life determines his acceptance or rejection by God! If our savior’s spiritual condition had not been faultless (sinless), he would not have been acceptable to God as a sacrifice, and his blood poured on the mercy seat would have done nothing; worse, his sacrifice would have been an abomination, as were those Old Testament sacrifices of blind and crippled animals (Lev. 22:31; Deut. 17:1; Ezek. 43:23, 25; Mal. 1:7–8). Remember Nadab and Abihu!

Scripture abundantly testifies that this spotless condition was fulfilled by Christ’s lifelong sinless obedience: he was born sinless (Luke 1:35); as he confessed in Luke 2:49, even in his boyhood days he was obedient to his Father’s will; at his baptism in the beginning of his ministry, he was already the Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36); in his whole earthly ministry, he was fulfilling all righteousness (Matt. 3:15); and his own blessed testimony, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (John 8:46), proves that he was the spotless Lamb of God when he presented himself to be crucified. Because of that fact, he was accepted by the holy God for the propitiatory act that displayed God’s righteousness once for all (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5; also, only the spotless sacrifice is a sweet savor to God [see Lev. 6:15; 8:21; Eph. 5:2]).

So we see that the matter of “without spot” makes all the difference between acceptance and abomination! Between propitiation and blasphemy! Christ’s lifelong righteousness—his spotlessness—is the ultimate issue, one that cannot be avoided or denied, as Shepherd does. Shepherd, by disregarding this ultimate issue in the qualification or rejection of our savior’s propitiatory act, is like those Old Testament Israelites who brought the blind and the lame. They ignored God’s holy commandment (or worse, despised it). Those sacrifices mocked God, and the prophet condemned them:

7. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.

8. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts. (Mal. 1:7–8)

By this same judgment must Shepherd’s words be judged.

First, he denies that God’s holiness demanded lifelong spotless righteousness for Christ’s sacrifice to be acceptable. Therefore, Shepherd’s doctrine of justification is a denial of justification (Lev. 10:1–2; 19:7–8; 22:31; Num. 16:31–32; Ezek. 43:23, 25; Mal. 1:7–8; 1 Cor. 11:29).

Second, he denies that Christ “offered himself without spot to God” (Heb. 9:14), meaning that Christ’s lifelong righteous life was included in his sacrifice. “The life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). Therefore, Shepherd’s doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice is a denial of Christ’s propitiation and satisfaction.

Third, Shepherd denies that Christ’s lifelong righteousness is imputed to believers in their justification for their eternal peace with God (Rom. 5:1). Therefore, Shepherd’s doctrine of justification is a denial of the gospel.

This explains why Shepherd’s chapter on Paul’s theology of justification is basically smooth words describing Christ’s sacrifice, while at the same time subtly denying it. It is no different than the Israelites’ telling the priest, “Don’t worry about that broken leg!”

Remember how zealously our savior, as the true high priest, cleansed the temple of those who were selling oxen and sheep (Matt. 21:12–13; John 2:13–16). Surely, he was demanding that God’s requirements of temple holiness be observed. How much more would the people have been thrown out of the temple if those animals had been blind or crippled? The Lord Jesus Christ himself drove out of the temple all those who would disregard God’s requirements of holiness. That would include Shepherd also. Christ’s blessed zeal for God’s house is our savior’s own testimony that he was a spotless sacrifice; a lifelong divinely righteous sacrifice; the only sacrifice that would be acceptable to a holy God (Ps. 69:9–13; Luke 9:51; John 4:34).

11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:11–14)

Now we know why Romans 3:25 refers to that final act, to Christ’s blood being shed.

First, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11), and “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

Second, the giving of that spotless life is the final moment—the climax—of the once-for-all fulfillment of the high priestly sacrifice, satisfying the demands of righteousness that vindicate God in his justification of sinners.

Third, the giving of that spotless life is the historical moment of the accomplishment of God’s eternal counsel of redemption.

Fourth, the giving of that spotless life is the concluding act of obedience, whereby the incarnate Son of God vindicates the triune God’s justice and righteousness for all eternity: “That he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26; Job 34:10, 12; Ps. 89:14; Matt. 25:31–46).

To put this matter simply: if Christ’s sacrifice does not include the lifelong divinely righteous obedience of the Son of God, he is not a spotless offering but an empty sacrifice rejected by God (Mal. 1:7–8). Then, there is no propitiation. No atonement. No forgiveness. No display of God’s eternal justice and righteousness. Then, Satan has mocked God. He has defeated the Son of God. There is no gospel. We are still in our sins. That is the seriousness of Shepherd’s teaching on justification. It is a victory for the devil. And, as I have said previously, Satan’s subtle debating seeks to destroy the whole truth of God, not just part of it.

I have taken the time to go into some detail on Romans 3:25 because it is profoundly important.

It is important, first, because it illustrates regarding the cornerstone of Shepherd’s theology what I have previously pointed out in connection with passages of scripture that Shepherd abuses (James 1:21; 3:1; 4:12; 5:7, 9, 12; Matt. 25:31–46). Shepherd takes only parts of verses and twists them to suit his conclusions, rather than explaining those passages in context and detail. He cannot explain them in context and detail because if he would, the passages would contradict him.

Second, many have rightly criticized Shepherd’s positions with sound theological reasoning. What was also needed was a sound exegetical basis for the condemnation of his view of justification.

Third, his very orthodox-sounding words are persuasive until one realizes that they are an evil abuse of the verses he supposedly explains.

Fourth, he abuses scripture with a purpose: to teach a justification without the righteous lifelong obedience of Christ imputed to believers, thereby making necessary their lifelong obedience (that is, their obedient faith) as a condition to be fully justified, sanctified, and glorified. Shepherd’s theology lays a foundation for a conditional salvation and a conditional covenant.

He is seriously wrong. The word of God demands our savior’s lifelong righteousness to qualify him to make propitiation for the sins of his people, and that lifelong righteousness is imputed to them in their justification, negating any condition of obedience on their part for their justification, salvation, glorification, and eternal fellowship with God. They have robes of righteousness. Shepherd does not!

After “explaining” Romans 3:25 and 28, Shepherd proceeds to the broader context of Romans. He says that his conclusion is confirmed in that broader context: “This conclusion from the immediate context of 3:28 is confirmed in the broader context of Romans” (34). Remember his conclusion: “Righteousness is his [Christ’s] propitiatory sacrifice offered on the cross” (34).

Not really. Here is Shepherd’s real conclusion, with his own limitations added: (Limited) righteousness is Christ’s (disqualified) propitiatory sacrifice offered on the cross and rejected by the will of his Father. That is Shepherd’s real conclusion. Shepherd’s view cripples Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice. And that faulty conclusion Shepherd will incorporate into his further exposition of Paul’s theology of justification.

Going on to Romans 4:1–6, Shepherd says, “Paul describes justification as the imputation of righteousness apart from works of the law” (34). This is a curious statement because the English Standard Version in Romans 4:5 speaks of “the one who does not work.” Notice the difference: Shepherd says, “Apart from works.” But the ESV says, “Not work,” meaning no works.

Where does Shepherd get the words apart from?

From Romans 4:6, again in the ESV: “Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.” Here Shepherd quietly uses his preferred wording, which supports his view of justification by obedient faith “apart from works,” that is, separated from works but not without them. This is why he does not use verse 5 from the ESV, which says, “To the one who does not work but believes.” That verse Shepherd quietly passes over. Quite revealing. The phrase that contradicts his whole system he quietly ignores. “Does not work but believes” reveals the fraud and deception of the federal vision’s dogma of working faith. No wonder Shepherd hides that phrase.

Shepherd continues with Paul’s exposition of justification in Romans 4 and says that in verse 6 “Paul describes justification as the imputation of righteousness apart from works of the law.” Then, Shepherd says, “David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works” (34). The KJV translates verse 6 this way: “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” In light of the words “does not work but believes” in verse 5 of the ESV—no works—the KJV translation of verse 6 is obviously correct, and the translation “righteousness apart from works” in the ESV is a mistranslation, perhaps even a biased translation. Again, Shepherd is wrong and continues to abuse the scriptures, as he did the epistle of James. But Shepherd will hold to that mistranslation because his theory depends on it.

From that context (Rom. 4:1–8), including Psalm 32:1–2, Shepherd next says, “Here Paul virtually defines justification as the forgiveness of sin” (34).

Again, that is a curious conclusion because in Romans 4:1–8 Paul writes about Abraham’s justification, including the imputation of righteousness through faith (v. 3), as well as blessedness through faith (v. 6). So it seems, according to verses 1–8, that justification includes far more than Shepherd allows. Justification is not just the forgiveness of sins. From verses 1–8 justification includes the imputation of the lifelong righteousness of Christ, the forgiveness of all the believer’s sins (past, present, and future), as well as the present and eternal state of blessedness! And especially note: all of these blessings are imputed to the believer “that worketh not, but believeth” (v. 5).

Here again, we find Shepherd’s serious abuse of scripture continuing. So far, in the first section of his chapter on Paul’s theology of justification, Shepherd corrupts Christ’s propitiation, rejects Christ’s righteous obedience, confounds God’s display of righteousness, and confuses the reader about God’s justification. All with words as smooth as oil.

What follows Shepherd’s explanation of Romans 4:1–8 is a series of statements that basically repeats his interpretation of our savior’s blood being offered for the forgiveness of sins. Shepherd says that in Romans 4:25 Paul writes, “[Jesus] was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” Shepherd adds this comment: “By his death Jesus paid the penalty for sin” (34). Shepherd then summarizes that Jesus’ resurrection “certifies that the penalty for sin has been paid in full and that therefore the justice of God has been satisfied” (34–35).

These are all true statements in themselves and seemingly based on specific verses of scripture, so that the unwary reader now agrees with what has been said. However, when Shepherd’s qualifications and limitations are taken into account, these statements mock the word of God instead of explaining it. They are all leading statements that take the reader to this summary question: “What is justification in Romans 3:28?” (36).

Shepherd’s answer:

Justification is the forgiveness of sin so that we are accepted by God as righteous and receive the gift of eternal life. The ground of justification—the basis on which forgiveness is granted—is the suffering and death of our Lord. This is the one act of righteousness imputed to us for our justification. (36)

Summary: the omissions and denials in these statements have been pointed out. That makes them misleading and deceptive. To arrive at his conclusion, Shepherd omits Christ’s righteous obedience, thereby falsifying Christ’s propitiation and God’s revealed righteousness and ultimately falsifying God’s justification of sinners. What remains is the crippled sense of God’s truth; and when that is rightly understood, Shepherd’s statements are actually a trampling of God’s courts that does not vindicate God as just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus; neither do they faithfully represent the Son of God in his covenant service.

However, when it is faithfully understood that justification includes the imputation of Christ’s righteous life and sacrificial death and that the blood of Christ is understood as representing his whole divine, righteous life (Lev. 17:11), only then his propitiatory act displays forever that God is just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus. Only then is there the forgiveness of all a believer’s sins and the state of present, ongoing, and eternal blessedness in fellowship with God. Only then are these blessings received through a faith created by the Word and Spirit of God in a person who “worketh not, but believeth” unto a salvation that is all of grace, all of Christ, all unconditional, and all vindicating God in his righteous judgment, for the eternal praise and glory of God (John 12:28; 17:1; Rom. 4:4; 11:36; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; 19:1–4).

This ends Shepherd’s explanation of his first statement under the first question regarding Paul’s theology of justification: “Justification is the forgiveness of sins so that we are accepted by God as righteous and receive the gift of eternal life” (33).

We now know what Shepherd plans to sell us in his next statements: “Justification is the forgiveness of sins grounded upon the imputation of the righteousness of Christ” and “The righteousness of Christ imputed for our justification is his death and resurrection for us and in our place” (33).

Post Mortem

Here are some things Norman Shepherd has previously written.

Norman Shepherd teaches lifelong forensic justification, that is, at initial faith and at the last judgment.⁵

This lifelong forensic justification corresponds to his view of the covenant, which is conditioned throughout by man’s faith and obedience (read, obedient faith [his theses 19, 23]), and not election! Note that well: man’s working faith determines the outcome of the covenant of grace for Shepherd, while election has effectually nothing to do with the covenant. (“The decree,” Guy Waters concludes, “has no meaningful connection with or relationship to Shepherd’s covenantal perspective.”⁶)

Norman Shepherd’s view of the covenant is diametrically opposed to the unconditional covenant governed by God’s decree of election and sovereign grace, which we believe and which the Canons of Dordt teach (2.8). In his explanation of the covenant, Shepherd necessarily holds to a conditional covenant, a covenant divorced from predestination, that makes all the covenant promises dependent upon the condition of obedient faith (of man) and not God’s sovereign grace and election.

For these reasons Shepherd’s theology is the true church’s greatest enemy in terms of historical development, because in Shepherd’s theology the complete Reformed order of salvation is taught, but with every blessing of God’s covenant cleverly gained by man’s “obedient faith”—man’s doing—and lost without it. Only by “obedient faith,” according to Shepherd, is a man justified (a lifelong process), only by “obedient faith” is a man sanctified, and only man’s “obedient faith” keeps him in the covenant, finally justifying him at the last day of God’s final judgment (theses 32, 34). For this reason Norman Shepherd and his followers insist that they are thoroughly Reformed and that they believe we are justified and saved by grace through faith (that is, “obedient faith” or “working faith”).

Finally—and ominous—is the fact that Norman Shepherd grounds many of his theses in statements of the Westminster Confession of Faith (for example, theses 10, 13–14); and most ominous is a statement the Westminster Confession of Faith makes and Norman Shepherd frequently and prominently uses: “Faith…is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces” (XI:2). That confessional statement, basically saying what Shepherd is saying, contradicts Luke 18:14 and Belgic Confession 24, which says, “It is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works” (Confessions and Church Order, 53).

Confirming this ominous state of affairs for the Reformed churches is the decision of Mid-America Reformed Seminary to affirm Norman Shepherd after he was dismissed from Westminster Theological Seminary by allowing him to teach at Mid-America Reformed Seminary and to serve on the board of trustees.

Even more curious is the emphasis of the covenant of works and the decision to follow the statement of the Westminster Confession of Faith in Mid-America’s Doctrinal Testimony Regarding Recent Errors, that “faith is never alone, it is always accompanied by repentance and obedience,” contradicting Belgic Confession 24. The Doctrinal Testimony states, “We deny that justifying faith justifies believing sinners because of any of those other graces that do always accompany it.”⁷

Next time, the Lord willing, Shepherd’s next two statements regarding Paul’s theology of justification.