My satire, sustained satisfactorily, subsides. Shepsema, sullen, speechless, his septic suppositions smashed in pieces like a potter’s vessel, swoons. His devotees—disheartened, disconcerted—despair. Satisfied, Jamestra and Paulsema serenely stride straightway, their spotless stage safeguarded by six stout steeds, steering straightly—gerechtvaardigd near huis terug—as sweet hosannas ring: “In Christ’s coach we sweetly sing, as we to glory”— without works—“ride therein.” Welgelukzalig zijn allen, die op Hem betrouwen! Die zichzelf verhoogt, zal vernederd worden, doch wie zichzelf vernedert, zal verhoogt worden.

Introduction

As I said in my previous metaphor about chasing Norman Shepherd through the forest of scripture verses with which he impales his readers, my plan was to send my imaginary bloodhound after him, and I would wait at the end, knowing he was merely making a large circle and would eventually return to his hiding place. Now I believe I have located that hiding place, and the time has come for the end of this theological shenanigan. It is shotgun time.

My bloodhound first chased Shepherd quite quickly through James. Although Shepherd insists on it, James said nothing about forensic justification by faith and works. James never would, could, or did. It is a blatant deception but a most necessary launching platform to get Shepherd’s theory off the ground. After that, my bloodhound pursued him through Matthew. But Matthew 25 said nothing about a forensic justification at the last judgment. That is a critical falsehood. Although it is important to Shepherd’s puzzle, James and Matthew are his weakest links, which has been pointed out numerous times.

Still after him, my bloodhound’s pursuit revealed Shepherd is completely wrong about Paul. Shepherd tries to make Paul say that justification is by a penitent and obedient faith, that is, a working faith. In fact, Paul said, “If that were true, ‘then Christ is dead in vain’” (Gal. 2:21). Paul taught that as God engrafts us into Christ by his Spirit and Christ begins to live in us, we are justified by a faith that is alone (John 6:44, 65; 15:4–5; Eph. 1:3–4).

Shepherd’s third chapter twists John the Baptist’s words in an attempt to make them agree with Shepherd that man’s repentance is necessary for justification. However, when I examine this, I find that John agreed with Paul against Shepherd. Shepherd attempts the same with our Lord’s words, but our savior also rejected Shepherd’s contention that repentance is necessary for justification. That ends the third chapter of The Way of Righteousness and leaves two remaining chapters.¹

To finish my work after examining the third chapter, I will skip to the fifth and end my exposure of this complete fraudulence. That will be when the chase through Shepherd’s forest of scripture passages finally comes to an end, and we will have arrived at Shepherd’s secret hideout. There is a name for this place. In literary work it is called a “rabbit hole,” that being a term for things getting deliberately buried or intentionally hidden from someone.

No Holy Spirit

I discovered Shepherd’s “rabbit hole” by reading his chapter on our Lord’s view of justification. It was amazing! Shocking. Even appalling. Having read what Norman Shepherd writes about James, Paul, and our Lord in The Way of Righteousness—forty-four pages of so-called Reformed theology—I found that he writes nothing about the Holy Spirit. That’s right. Zero. Three chapters on justification and salvation in James, Paul, and our Lord and not one meaningful word, comment, or explanatory sentence about the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the faith, justification, and obedience of sinners. Not one word! That is appalling.

Oh, yes, there are three pro forma verses quoted that name the Holy Spirit, but in three chapters there is not one sentence, explanation, or comment by Shepherd about what the Holy Spirit does in the justification and salvation of sinners. Nothing!

However, there are some very curious qualifications. First, in these three chapters on James, Paul, and our Lord, God’s Spirit is named four times. In his chapter on James, Shepherd says, “The Holy Spirit did not give us an obscure, misleading, or defective statement of the gospel in James” (20). That’s all Shepherd says of the Holy Spirit in that whole chapter—just the Spirit’s work in the inspiration of James’ epistle. How sad. By that remark Shepherd’s ulterior motive is showing. Only one mention of God’s Spirit, and that merely to establish solid ground for his theory of James 2:24 before having to deal with Paul’s statements that contradict that theory.

The same absence of the Spirit is found in Shepherd’s chapter on Paul. Shepherd quotes one verse, Galatians 5:5: “By faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope” (39). That’s it. The verse is merely stated. Its appearance and unexplained meaning serve only to support Shepherd’s vital commitment to a future forensic judgment, that is, waiting for the righteousness we hope for. Shepherd also uses the text to support his false idea that believers secure righteousness only at the last judgment. Other than that questionable use of Galatians 5:5, there is not one substantive word of explanation in Shepherd’s chapter on Paul about the actual, decisive work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s coming to faith and justification.

Then, finally, in his chapter on our Lord, Shepherd quotes without comment Matthew 28:19–20, the Great Commission, and Acts 2:38, Peter’s statement on Pentecost (53–54). Both verses name the Holy Spirit; but again, not a word of explanation concerning the gracious ministry of the Spirit.

That is the extent of Norman Shepherd’s references to the Holy Spirit in his forty-four pages of so-called Reformed theology about justification in his chapters on James, Paul, and our Lord.

Second, and even more curious, is the fact that Norman Shepherd, in his Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works² defended at the Presbytery of Philadelphia in 1978, made several references to the Holy Spirit, but none of those references to the Spirit appear in any meaningful way in his three chapters on James, Paul, and our Lord.

Here are those references from 1978 (emphasis added):

10. Although believers are justified by faith alone, they are never justified by a faith that is alone, because faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit is given together with all the other gifts and graces flowing from the cross and resurrection of Christ, and the exercise of faith is co-terminous with the exercise of the other gifts and graces so that when a man begins to believe he also begins to love God and bring that love to expression through obedience to God (West. Conf. of Faith XI, 2).

19. Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are his disciples, who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God, are in a state of justification and will be justified on the day of judgment; whereas unbelieving, ungodly, unrighteous, and impenitent sinners who are covenant breakers or strangers to the covenant of grace, are under the wrath and curse of God, and on the day of judgment will be condemned to hell forever, unless they flee from the wrath to come by turning to the Lord in faith and repentance (Psalm 1; John 5:28, 29).

23. Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5, 10; 1 John 3:13, 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9).

24. The “works” (Eph. 2:9), or “works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16), or “righteousness of my own derived from the Law” (Phil. 3:9), or “deeds which we have done in righteousness” (Titus 3:5) which are excluded from justification and salvation, are not “good works” in the Biblical sense of works for which the believer is created in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10), or works wrought by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:22-26), or works done from true faith (I Thes. 1:3), according to the law of God, and for his glory, but are works of the flesh (Gal. 3:3) done in unbelief (Gal. 3:12) for the purpose of meriting God’s justifying verdict.

31. Because faith is called for in all gospel proclamation, exhortations to obedience do not cast men upon their own resources to save themselves, but are grounded in the promise of the Spirit to accompany the proclamation of the whole counsel of God with power so that the response of the whole man called for in the gospel is wrought in the sinner.

Observing these references to the Holy Spirit, the reader must keep in mind my earlier assertion and proof that Norman Shepherd’s work involves formal agreement with the complete Reformed understanding of calling, justification, sanctification and glorification; but all of it is accompanied by significant subtle and subverting qualifications, making all of it conditional. These qualifications mock God’s justice, invalidate Christ’s righteousness, deny the decisiveness of the Holy Spirit’s work, make the covenant of grace conditional, and undermine the believer’s eternal security!

Briefly note these subtle, subverting qualifications.

In thesis 10 there is the false and unbiblical claim that justifying faith is not alone. But Romans 3:28 and 4:5 demonstrate that faith is alone.

In 19 notice the subtle qualification of a forfeitable “state of justification.” Why? It is forfeitable because only if believers “walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God” will they “be justified on the day of judgment,” according to Shepherd’s false notion of forensic justification at the last judgment.

In 23 notice the subtle, unbiblical notion of “continuing in the state of justification” by means of obedient faith, repentance, and good works.

In 24 notice the confounding of works of the law and works of faith to make room for Shepherd’s notion that the latter are involved in justification. He actually says in his book, “The point in all of this is that Jesus makes justification contingent upon obedience” (61).

Question: Is this the origin of the statement “There is that which a man must do to be saved”?

And in 31 notice what I call Shepherd’s formal, covering remark about the Holy Spirit in these words: “The promise of the Spirit to accompany the proclamation of the whole counsel of God with power so that the response of the whole man called for in the gospel is wrought in the sinner.” I call those mere covering words because Shepherd never includes them, elaborates on them, or incorporates them into the response of the “whole man” to the gospel in his chapters on James, Paul, or our Lord. Actually, those covering words completely and conveniently disappear down the rabbit hole, as is plainly seen by Shepherd’s omission in those three chapters of any explanation of the Spirit’s decisive work.

Why does Shepherd hide the decisive fact that our Lord, at the very beginning of his ministry, instructed Nicodemus and all of us about the Holy Spirit—that the new birth and every movement of the elect sinner, from being drawn to Christ to final glorification, is effectively caused by the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 3:8)? Why does Shepherd conceal the fact that Jesus said that no one can come to him unless the Holy Spirit regenerates, indwells, and draws him (6:63)?

When writing about Paul, why does Shepherd bury the fact that Paul wrote that the Holy Spirit would “quicken [our] mortal bodies” (Rom. 8:9, 11)? Why not enthusiastically tell his readers that Paul wrote that we are led by the Spirit, walk in the Christian life by the Holy Spirit, and repent or put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit (vv. 4, 13–14)? Why mysteriously hide the fact that Paul said that it is the decisive power of the Holy Spirit that fills the believer with all joy and peace in believing (15:13)? Why does Shepherd mask the fact that no one can say “Jesus is the Lord” except by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3)? Why not elaborate on this God-glorifying verse: “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6)? Why did all that go into the rabbit hole?

Very incriminating, especially when we remember how often—thirteen times in three pages—Shepherd trumpets his false view of Christ’s blood alone justifying the sinner. In this you see that what Shepherd considers important appears prolifically in his writing. Thirteen times the reader is bathed in that false theory, but not once in that chapter—not in a single sentence—does Shepherd explain the precious Holy Spirit’s decisive activity in the Father’s drawing sinners to Christ and the Spirit’s decisive part in the effective calling, union with Christ, and salvation of those sinners.

And how often in the first three chapters does Shepherd repeat his false statement that sinners are justified by a penitent and obedient faith at the last judgment? I didn’t count, but it must have been dozens. This is unbelievable. There must be a hidden reason (hint: there is!) that Shepherd continually teaches that sinners must repent, sinners must believe, sinners must obey, without ever explaining how faith is created in the sinner, how the sinner is enabled to confess Christ, how the sinner is enabled to repent and obey! Why is Shepherd doing this?

Where is the grace of God in forty-four pages about man’s repenting, man’s obeying, man’s believing, and man’s being justified? One simply does not read any of it, even though Shepherd claims that all of these things are of “pure grace” (63). Also, what of Shepherd’s claim in thesis 31 regarding “the promise of the Spirit to accompany the proclamation of the whole counsel of God”? Where is any of it in these three chapters? It went down the rabbit hole.

That is my first blast at Shepherd’s false theology. It is as plain as day what Mr. Shepherd is hiding from his readers. Three chapters without ever learning anything of God’s Holy Spirit.

Instead, Shepherd summarizes his idea of the good news with this: “The point in all of this is that Jesus makes justification contingent upon obedience” (61; emphasis added).

Shepherd’s Failures

Then, to add another blast at Shepherd’s theology, I summarize his failures before completing my review of these “garments spotted by the flesh.”

First, I have pointed out how Shepherd takes advantage of the English language, using the questionable translation of the English Standard Version, and particularly the mistranslation of the Greek word that may mean either justification or vindication.³ That translation problem became acute because the King James translators used “justified” when James intended vindicated in James 2:14–26. Even Luther, an expert linguist, puzzled by this situation, was tempted to give up on James.

It is my conviction that James guided us to understand which usage was meant because James was definitely opposed to justification by faith and works (as demonstrated) and, therefore, he would have avoided confusion in his usage of that Greek word. This was especially true because James was familiar with how our Lord used the Greek word. James was also familiar with the ongoing controversy in his day regarding justification by faith alone versus the Pharisees’ faith-and-works doctrine, which he opposed at the Jerusalem Council.

James’ rule was this: the context decides the meaning intended by that Greek word. If the context involves works, as in James 2:14–26, the Greek word means to vindicate; and if the context is without works or against works, the Greek word means to forensically justify, that is, justification. Therefore, we have the important clarification of James 2:24 that a man is vindicated by works and not by faith alone and of Romans 2:13 that not the hearers of the law will be vindicated, but the doers of the law shall be vindicated. My proof is that “doers of the law” in Romans 2:13 involves works; and the context points to the future, to the last judgment, which is about vindication.

Second, I reinforced a most important truth in Matthew 25:31–46 by demonstrating that the text is about the vindication of God the Father and Christ and definitely not about forensic justification, as Shepherd repeatedly and falsely claims. That is his second biggest blunder. I demonstrated that in Matthew 25 God is vindicated in his election and reprobation by revealing the works the elect and reprobate have done, which also clarifies the following verses: Matthew 12:36–37; 16:27; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:6–13; 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:8; Colossians 3:25; 2 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 9:27; James 2:12–13; 1 John 4:17; Jude 14–15; and Revelation 20:12; 22:12.

Third, I demonstrated that Paul’s words “justified by faith without the deeds of the law” in Romans 3:28 are clarified in Romans 4:4–5; so it is clear that Paul’s meaning is “justified by a faith that is alone”—a faith that is not working, not doing anything, but just believing—thereby affirming the Reformed confessions (Belgic Confession 24; Heidelberg Catechism LD 7).

Fourth, Shepherd begins with James because Shepherd thinks he finds there the beginning proof of his errant view of faith and justification. Shepherd believes that James introduces some new idea of faith that includes repentance and obedience, which Shepherd labels penitent and obedient faith. From that starting point he makes justification to be by a man’s obedient faith—extending obedient faith all the way to the final judgment, which Shepherd repeatedly says will also be forensic justification by an obedient faith—and finally admits that justification is by works (61). That construction turns out to be his weakest link, because, as demonstrated, James never says any of it. Having set up that false theory about James, Shepherd also fails miserably to verify it with Matthew 25, which, as demonstrated, is not about justification. That view is finally shipwrecked on Romans 4:5. Justifying faith “worketh not, but believeth.”

Shepherd’s next abuse is his attempt to force his idea of final justification by working faith into James’ words, claiming that James has the last judgment in the background of his epistle. Shepherd’s deceptive use of James 1:21; 3:1; 4:12; and 5:7–9, 12, and 20 was exposed by careful attention to the text and context, pointing out Shepherd’s continual misrepresentations based on his shallow, selective English Bible usage.

Fifth, Shepherd develops the idea that in Romans “works of the law” are minor works done by the Jews as their unbelieving efforts to justify themselves so that Shepherd can plausibly dismiss those works as the works Paul rejected for justification, thereby making room for the necessity of obedient faith and its required works for justification. Shepherd even twists Paul’s statements that justification is not by works—which Shepherd says were aimed at Jewish efforts of self-righteous unbelief—to provide cover for his own faith-works justification. This fabrication crashes because Romans 4:5 makes clear that justifying faith is alone; it does no work or any doing.

Forgiveness in Jesus’ Ministry

Now I go into Shepherd’s third chapter, which he begins by saying that what is “startlingly new” in our Lord’s ministry is that “Jesus himself claims to forgive sin!” (48).

Shepherd mentions the paralytic of Matthew 9:1–8 and calls attention to Jesus’ words “Son, your sins are forgiven” (48), but Shepherd provides no explanation for the actual words of Jesus nor for the all-important word “son.” Shepherd cannot explain because that would contradict his whole misuse of the text.

Using the Greek perfect tense (ἀφέωνταί; see Luke 5:20), which indicates that the paralytic’s sins had been forgiven before he came to Jesus for healing,⁴ Jesus said to the paralytic, “Your sins have been forgiven.” Thus the paralytic’s coming indicated vindication of his faith. That is why verse 2 says, “Jesus seeing their faith”—meaning seeing their faith in him—which was justifying faith and the forgiveness of sins.

Also, the word “son” refers to the son of Abraham and to Jesus’ fulfilling the promise of the Abrahamic covenant, giving forgiveness and salvation to God’s elect sons of Abraham. But Shepherd doesn’t want forgiveness sovereignly given because it indicates election and God’s covenant faithfulness, of which Shepherd writes nothing in his chapter on Jesus’ ministry. Again, by ignoring the context and picking one element from it to suit his purpose, the text of Matthew 9:1–8 is abused; our Lord’s ministry as the promised savior of Israel disappears; and Shepherd seems to have proved his point. Typical Shepherd.

The woman in Luke 7:36–50 is another example of that. It is quite characteristic that Shepherd gives no explanation of Jesus’ words “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven [Greek perfect tense]; for she loved much” (v. 47). Again, if Shepherd would explain, it would contradict his false theory. All Shepherd finds in this text is that “Jesus…revealed himself once again as the Son of God with power to forgive sin” (49).

However, the Greek indicates much more, particularly against Shepherd. The Greek indicates Jesus said that the woman had been forgiven before she came to Jesus, before her loving deeds were done to him and not because of them. Again, the Greek perfect tense indicates completed action with present effects. That was our Lord’s own contradiction of Shepherd’s penitent faith that justifies. Her penitent deeds were vindication of her faith in Jesus and used by him to illustrate Simon’s lack of forgiveness by his lack of love for Jesus. Having abused another text, thinking it supports his purpose, Shepherd says, “This is the gospel that we find in the gospels” (49). By that comment he thinks he has demonstrated in our savior’s own words justification by penitent faith. However, when faithfully explained, that text contradicts Shepherd. The text says that the woman believed in Jesus (was justified by faith alone) and then expressed her faith in loving deeds.

See how Jesus confirmed that with his parable of the two debtors. Before the debtors did anything, their debts had been forgiven (Luke 7:42). Then Jesus asked Simon, which of the two would then show greater love? That is, which would show greater response to having his debt forgiven? To illustrate his point Jesus directed Simon to the woman’s loving deeds. Our Lord’s teaching is that those who are forgiven much will then (after being justified) love much. But here again you see typical Shepherd. He snatches a few words out of context and holds them up to the reader as proof of his (false) theory. I have demonstrated this insidious technique multiple times.

Then notice another disreputable technique. He links together a few texts that he does not faithfully explain. After Luke 7:36–50, Shepherd goes to Luke 23:34, our savior’s words “Father, forgive them,” to which Shepherd adds Hebrews 9:22: “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Then, sweeping together the words forgive and forgiveness, the usual conclusion comes forth. What else? Of course, Shepherd’s constant refrain about forgiveness of sin by Christ’s blood alone (49). I have extensively corrected Shepherd on that denial of atonement day, which demands pointing out that his view puts him in company with Nadab and Abihu, who sadly also disregarded the Lord’s atonement-day requirements.

Why would this blood-alone trick be so important to Shepherd? Why thirteen times in four pages? Because without Christ’s lifelong righteousness, believers are naked! They have no lifelong righteousness that meets the demands of God’s perfect holiness, and they never will because their good works (by grace) are always imperfect! They will be forever naked and hiding from God. Exactly what Satan did to Adam and Eve. However, God gave them new skins (robes), the symbol of Christ’s lifelong righteousness (because when you take an animal’s skin, you take its whole identity and not merely its blood). Blood alone puts Shepherd in very bad company.

But Shepherd runs with this blood-alone gambit, thinking he has been successful, and adds, “We cannot leave this point without referring to the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9–14)” (49).

I have previously dealt with Luke 18:9–14.⁵ In a parable Jesus creates a contrast between a self-righteous Pharisee’s trusting in his works for justification and a tax collector’s trusting in nothing but God’s mercy. Shepherd’s comment on this parable is this: “Here was a sinner who acknowledged and confessed his sin before the Lord asking only for mercy” (50). Shepherd adds this loaded statement: “This is what we mean by justification. The sinner is forgiven and is therefore now acceptable before God. He is in a right relationship with the Lord God. He is justified” (50).

This is another fine example of Shepherd’s adorning a text with his theory, while not truly dealing with the text or the context. Jesus’ point in the parable was not to teach how one is justified, but how one is not justified, that is, how one will never be justified by trusting in anything he does. Remember, the context is this: Jesus spoke this parable “unto certain [persons] which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (Luke 18:9). In other words, the parable was addressed to the Pharisees. It was against trusting in oneself, trusting in one’s doing.

That is why Jesus made the parable a contrast between works and no works: because he was correcting the Pharisees’ doctrine of justification by faith and works. Even the positions of the two characters and their body language express this contrast between doing and not doing. The Pharisee stood forward and prayed loudly and clearly, reciting all his works (vv. 11–12). The publican stood “afar off.” He didn’t go forward. He didn’t recite any works. He did nothing. He didn’t even look up toward God. The publican was nothing (v. 13). Jesus made his parable a contrast between a typical Pharisee’s exalting himself by his doing and a poor sinner’s doing nothing because he realizes he can do nothing.

By this parable Jesus taught the Pharisees that justification is through faith alone in God’s appointed sacrifice, Jesus Christ. That was what the publican’s plea expressed. “Propitiate me! Apply the atonement sacrifice’s blood to me!” This parable proclaims the gospel: faith in Christ alone and nothing of self. Sadly, Shepherd makes it a parable that promotes trust in man’s doing, the very thing Jesus was condemning.

Injection of Obedient Faith into the Words of John the Baptist and Jesus

Shepherd’s next failure is his attempt to inject his view of obedient faith into the ministry of John the Baptist. More classic Shepherd. Shepherd points to John’s preaching and says that John told the Jews to “turn away from sin, to do what was right, and to produce fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8)” (50). Shepherd adds, “What John is calling for in his preaching is a penitent and obedient faith” (51). We should totally reject what Shepherd is attempting to do with John the Baptist’s words for the following reasons.

Keep in mind that John’s call to repent was proclaimed to those who were supposedly covenant members; so that “when he [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism,” he would naturally have commanded them to “bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:7–8). “Fruits meet for repentance” mean works appropriate to confirm repentance. John went on to say, “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father” (v. 9).

Remember what I previously pointed out concerning the Pharisees’ source of justification and the importance of the special preposition (ἐκ) that the Spirit used in Romans 3:30 to emphasize that source.⁶

The Pharisees believed that their covenant membership, signified by circumcision; their (supposed) conformity to the law of Moses; and their being descended from Abraham was their source of justification (Acts 15:1, 5, 24; Rom. 2:17, 23; 4:13; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:3–6).

Therefore, the context of Matthew 3 indicates that John commanded those who claimed faith in God and presumed that they were justified to demonstrate their faith and justification by “fruits of repentance.” In other words, John demanded the Pharisees to vindicate their presumed justification by true repentance.

I call attention to the fact that James’ message to the dispersed Jews was very similar to John’s message to the presuming Pharisees about faith’s vindication by works.

Having said that, notice how slyly Shepherd distorts John’s call to vindicate one’s faith with true repentance: “Of special significance for the doctrine of justification is the fact that John preaches repentance, which is unto the forgiveness of sin” (51). Then Shepherd adds, “The fact that John preaches the forgiveness of sin and warns of a judgment to come brings us into the sphere of justification” (52).

Smooth as oil, sad as cancer. It is totally false. Contrary to Shepherd’s words, justification is not mentioned; and we would not expect John, when preaching to a crowd of supposed covenant members who presumed to be justified, to do that. Rather, as a prophet in Israel, he would command the self-righteous Pharisees to vindicate their presumed justification by true repentance and then receive his baptism as a visible sign (fruit) of that repentance. Shepherd’s mistake, again, is to disregard the context and falsely equate John’s preaching to evangelizing a crowd of unbelievers rather than the forerunner’s announcing Israel’s Messiah to God’s covenant people.

Also, Shepherd is twice wrong because, as demonstrated, there is no forensic justification in the final judgment that is to come. Hence with John’s preaching we are not in the sphere of justification! Shepherd is three times wrong because he is incorrect to use John’s urgency—“the axe is laid unto the root of the trees” (Matt. 3:10; Luke 3:9)—in support of his notion that John taught that only penitent and obedient faith will justify a person at the last judgment. Shepherd is wrong because in Matthew 3:10 John warned physical Israel of the impending end of the Old Testament age, not the last judgment. There is nothing in the prophecy of Isaiah 40, fulfilled by John, about the last judgment. Isaiah 40 is all about the coming of Christ and the division in Israel produced by Jesus’ preaching the gospel. By the gospel Jesus reconstructs Israel, makes her crooked roads straight, levels the self-righteous hills, and fills in the dirty valleys. He does it with the winnowing fan of the gospel (which separates wheat from chaff) in his hand. Therefore, no last judgment here. It is the final speaking of God’s Son, Israel’s Messiah, to physical Israel (Heb. 1:2).

As repeatedly observed, when carefully explained, we see that text after text contradicts Shepherd because here, John the Baptist was plainly teaching that repentance is something done after justification that vindicates justification, and therefore repentance is not involved in justification at all but plainly after it. As John says, repentance is “fruit.” Matthew 3:8 and Luke 3:8, when carefully understood, also reject and condemn Shepherd’s theory of the necessity of penitent and obedient faith to be justified.

Shepherd follows up, after John the Baptist, with a few verses that speak of repentance to reinforce his conclusion about the necessity of penitent faith to be justified. Using Luke 15—the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son—Shepherd says, “Jesus testifies to the joy in heaven over the sinner who repents” (51). This is true, but then Shepherd adds Matthew 11:20–24—the woes pronounced by Jesus on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for their lack of repentance—in order to say, “Jesus says these cities will come under divine judgment because of their obstinacy and their impenitence” (51). That also is true, but the problem is that Shepherd uses those verses to con the reader into his unbiblical conclusion that Jesus taught repentance as a necessary condition for justification at the last judgment, which is not true.

To further support that false inference, Shepherd refers to Luke 24:46–47, where he says that Jesus commanded his disciples to preach “repentance and forgiveness of sins…to all nations” (53); which is true, except Jesus did not teach in that text that a penitent and obedient faith is necessary for justification, but he taught that the message to be preached is repentance and forgiveness of sins in his name.

The same is true of Shepherd’s next reference to the Great Commission. Shepherd extracts Jesus words “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” to remind the reader that Jesus preached obedience (53). Again, true, but Shepherd intends this reminder to further nudge the reader toward Shepherd’s desired conclusion that only obedient faith justifies at the last judgment.

However, Luke 24 and Matthew 28 fail to say anything beyond the fact that the preaching of the gospel demands the response of repentance and faith and that those who do repent and believe will be saved. These texts teach the good news, but Shepherd’s shady implication is that such repentance and faith are set forth as contingencies, conditions man must fulfill for justification. However, neither of these texts are set forth as conditions for man to fulfill because they are divine demands commanded of sinners who are dead in trespasses and sins. They are impossible demands, condemning demands, but by the wonder of grace, they are demands effectively calling the elect, who are given faith and ears to hear God’s salvation in Christ.

Having massaged Jesus’ words to make them appear to support his theory, Shepherd has reshaped the gospel demand of repentance and faith in Christ into a requirement for man to gain justification by man’s penitent and obedient faith. I say again: smooth as oil, sad as cancer. On and on that sad story repeats: “The demand for repentance is of a piece with the demand for obedience to the Lord” (54). That is Shepherd’s gospel. All demands man must fulfill. All requirements for man’s penitence and obedience—man is the one acting—and not one word of grace or the Holy Spirit’s working in the whole third chapter. It’s all the works of man. Man’s doing repentance and faith for justification. Page after page with no grace until finally Shepherd blurts out his real purpose: “It has become apparent by now that in the proclamation of the gospel, our Lord makes justification and salvation contingent upon [man’s] obedience” (59; emphasis added).

Finally, Shepherd comes to Matthew 12:36–37, which he quotes: “Men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (60; emphasis added).

This is a strange quotation for Shepherd because it is not the King James Version, and it is not the English Standard Version either. Shepherd does not say what version it is. I believe he wants the word “acquitted,” but although his usual quotations are from the ESV, acquitted is not there.

Notice very carefully exactly what Jesus said. At the last judgment there will be an accounting of what men have spoken and done. Matthew 25:35–45 present that accounting for the purpose of vindicating God’s election and reprobation, not for forensic justification. Also, the Greek word for accounting means to “render payment owed or earned” (Bauer, 90; see Matt. 5:26; 16:27; 18:26, 30; 20:8). Does Shepherd really want to teach that justification is owed to man or earned by man’s words and works? In addition, James’ rule regarding the Greek word for justification or vindication applies in Matthew 12:37 because that word is used but is translated as acquitted in the version Shepherd uses. Applying James’ rule, because the context involves words or works, the meaning of the Greek is vindicated, that is, “For by thy words thou shalt be vindicated, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”

Then notice at the last judgment there is vindication— the blessed elect take possession of their kingdom inheritance (Matt. 25:34); and at the last judgment there is condemnation—the reprobate are commanded to depart into everlasting fire (v. 41).

Then consider Shepherd’s comments: “This verse is talking about justification because it is talking about acquittal in the Day of Judgment” (60; emphasis added). No, he is very wrong, as just demonstrated. But then he adds this shocking admission: “This is justification by works (‘words’ are ‘works’), and it is the teaching of our Lord” (60; emphasis added). There it is clear as crystal: Justification for Norman Shepherd is by works!

But wrong again! Justification is without works; it is by a faith that works not but believes (Rom. 3:28; 4:5). But Shepherd adds this: “The point in all of this is that Jesus makes justification contingent upon obedience” (61; emphasis added). That too is false.

Then comes the climax of Shepherd’s three chapters: he says that Jesus, Paul, and James all agree—they all “make justification and salvation contingent upon a penitent and obedient faith” (63; emphasis added). Pathetically, that makes Shepherd the father of all those who say, “There is that which a man must do to be saved.” However, by now we may all say, “That is nonsense!” Actually, it is more than nonsense.

Paul would say,

“O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?”

Why?

Faith is fixed on Christ. The eye of faith sees only Christ. But by deceitful words Satan fascinates, and a person looks for a moment somewhere else. As soon as you take your eye off the sufficiency of Christ, you have said, “He is not sufficient. He is not enough.”⁷

You are bewitched.

By this time I have adequately and convincingly demonstrated that all of Shepherd’s work, including his final statement that Jesus, Paul, and James all agree and “make justification and salvation contingent upon a penitent and obedient faith,” is a deceitful fraud, a false gospel. His work corresponds to the times in which we live—the great deception of 2 Thessalonians 2—that the man who is considered the most sincere and gentle soul could produce the most deceptive theology the church has ever faced.

Hypothetical Grace

Now let us put some things together. Remember how I began this article with Shepherd’s complete omission of any explanatory comments about the work of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration and salvation of the sinner. Now add to that his gospel of justification by works. Here we see these two prominent features of Shepherd’s work come together in his conclusion: justification by man’s penitent and obedient working faith and no Holy Spirit. Quite bizarre for a theology that claims to be Reformed. But it gets worse.

Shepherd finishes his third chapter by giving his readers this dialectical jewel: “Living, active, penitent, and obedient faith can only receive what is promised, and what is promised is pure grace” (63).

Hats on. Remember Shepherd deliberately chose these words and decided how he would put them together. Notice, from his use of is three times, we know definitely what is promised—it’s pure grace. But what we don’t know is if that promised grace is definitely received or only possible to receive because Shepherd’s sentence says it “can” be received, and “can” is ambiguous in English!

Consider that word can. Can may mean able: he can do that. Or can may be only permissible: he can do that if we allow him. Again, can may suggest only possibility: he can do that if he tries his hardest.

Therefore, Shepherd’s use of “can” makes the sentence sufficiently indefinite on purpose. It could mean faith will receive promised grace. Or faith could receive promised grace. Or faith might receive promised grace. But that is the mystery of Shepherd’s words: “can” does not state definitely that grace is received. As far as faith’s actually and definitely receiving that promised grace, those words do not say it. Shepherd’s “promised grace” is hypothetical grace (read, conditional), just as his final justification and salvation are conditional.

There are better, more definite ways to speak about what faith will receive, but Shepherd chose those ambiguous words because he had something hiding behind them. The basic, deceptive uncertainty of it all is because Shepherd cannot come right out and say that man’s doing is decisive. Both Arminianism and Pelagianism are obvious, and both have been thoroughly rejected by Christ’s church. Shepherd’s only choice is conditionalism. He must keep the decisiveness of salvation hidden. Darkness is the only costume available to his theology. Third time: smooth as oil, sad as cancer.

Remember, Shepherd has said nothing of substance about the Holy Spirit’s effective work in creating and sustaining faith all through this tragic theology, but now at the end of this chapter on our Lord, all Shepherd can say is this ambiguous statement about grace that promises much but actually delivers nothing. But that fits with what he says: “The point in all of this is that Jesus makes justification contingent upon obedience” (61; emphasis added). But with conditional grace, there can only be conditional salvation. Observe the shameful nakedness of Norman Shepherd’s thoroughly untruthful theology.

Conclusion

As I stated at the beginning, Shepherd’s whole theological fog would clear up, and he would finally lead us to his rabbit hole and expose all his buried truth. Now, finally, that hiding place is exposed. We are onto it. Shepherd has hidden any meaningful exposition of the Holy Spirit from his readers so far. In his chapters on James, Paul, and Jesus, Shepherd has curiously concealed all relevant, biblical exposition of the Holy Spirit’s effective work in the calling, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification of sinners. However in Shepherd’s fifth and last chapter, it all comes forth promptly, profusely, and profanely. It will be most profitable digging through it all.

Then, I will go beyond correcting Shepherd’s abuses of scripture into the construction of his theological conditioning and the reason for the things hidden in the rabbit hole. That will all come out in conjunction with his last chapter, the Lord willing.

“The promise of the Spirit to accompany the proclamation of the whole counsel of God with power” (thesis 31) never appeared in the first three chapters because it had to wait for the last, most obtuse chapter of all, which finally and thoroughly confounds for the reader the Spirit’s decisive ministry.

The first three chapters serve to convince the reader of Shepherd’s man-centered, conditional salvation, so that the reader’s mind is schooled in Shepherd-thought so that when the reader faces the grand onslaught of contradiction about the Spirit in Shepherd’s last chapter, the reader’s mind will be dulled and unready to challenge Shepherd’s dialectics about the Holy Spirit.

To me, that is the plot. We must prepare now to untangle Shepherd’s final dialectic performance, imprisoning God’s Spirit in the most unwelcome, unintelligible, and unacceptable paradoxes so that Shepherd’s devious words about man’s responsibility to remain in the state of justification and keep covenant with God seem to be the gospel when they are the opposite, a gospel of darkness.

Shepherd’s man-centered theology needed a new disguise. Pelagianism and Arminianism are so easily recognized nowadays that their reappearance demanded a new costume. That costume Shepherd provides. All the truth about the natural man being dead in sin and totally unable to know spiritual things has been quietly buried, as well as the truth of the Spirit’s effective work in the elect sinner, until Shepherd has performed all his magic tricks on the scriptures in preparation for the final frame-up to appear, the grand dialectical feat of introducing the Spirit’s work while denying all of it at the very same time. Bang! That will be my last blast at this dialectical diatribe!

“Living, active, penitent, and obedient faith can only receive what is promised, and what is promised is pure grace” was just a sample of what is to come.

Next time, the Lord willing, condemning this debate with the devil.