My allegory has served its purpose. It therefore ceases. Those satirical words were written according to Psalm 2, that the Lord God holds in derision all who would defy his Son and the gospel of his grace. From these pages God’s word has addressed Norman Shepherd’s “vain imaginations” and “dashed them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” What remains is the call to his followers: “Be wise…be instructed…kiss the Son, lest he be angry” (Ps. 2:10, 12).

Introduction

I begin with the past and quote words spoken by Dr. Edmund Clowney, president of Westminster Theological Seminary at the time of the Shepherd debacle:

It must be recognized that Professor Shepherd does present, in the areas of debate, much that must be described as classical Reformed doctrine. He was a diligent student of Professor Murray and is well read in Reformed theology. Few theologians, in this country at least, have his knowledge of the Latin theological works of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods…

Further, there are differences in tradition between the Reformed faith in Holland, in Scotland, and in the United States (to name but three countries!). Klaas Schilder’s views of the covenant and the controversies that led to the establishment of the “liberated” churches in Holland are virtually unknown in U.S. Presbyterianism, but are well known to Professor Shepherd, who has spent many months in Holland, speaks Dutch fluently, and uses the literature regularly.¹

Those substantial qualifications of Prof. Norman Shepherd, especially his broad knowledge of Dutch Reformed theology and Klaas Schilder’s view of the conditional covenant, alert us to the fact that with Norman Shepherd’s writing we are dealing with an expert’s understanding of the Reformed faith, not with a seminarian’s amateur blunders. We are dealing with an expert’s cunning—as demonstrated by Shepherd’s formulations that have been exposed as deceitful twisting of God’s word—concealing of contradictory scriptures and ignoring of exegetical data that contradict him, all of which are sufficient to condemn Shepherd’s writing as another gospel.

Also, those facts concerning Shepherd’s knowledge indicate that in what I have written so far as critical refutations of his views, I did not simply criticize someone’s ignorance of the Reformed faith; but I exposed Norman Shepherd’s deliberate, dangerous, and devious denials of scripture and the Reformed confessions.

Those facts also demonstrate that Shepherd’s burying of biblical testimony that contradicts his views and his ignoring of exegetical data that refute his views were equally deliberate and disgraceful omissions.

For all these reasons I believe Shepherd’s theology is merely a new costume for Pelagianism to return from hell and to deceive those not faithful to the gospel (2 Thess. 2:10–11; Rev. 20:7–9; Canons 3–4, rejection 9).

With this final article I will go beyond correcting Norman Shepherd’s abuses of scripture and attack his devious theology of conditions and the surreptitious spreading of his conditional theology. I will survey these garments spotted by the flesh, hating the contradictions of scripture they produce but having compassion, making a difference, and pulling some out of the fire (see Jude 22–23).

I begin this final adventure with the sharp sword of the Spirit in hand.

At the very beginning of our Lord’s ministry, he solemnly proclaimed (“Verily, verily…”) to Nicodemus the great principle of the believer’s experience. Jesus taught that the means of being born again was by the Spirit; so that one’s seeing, entering, and remaining in the kingdom depend only on the Spirit (John 3:3, 5). Notice that well: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Jesus solemnly swore that his word and his Spirit are the only effective means that create the experience of the new birth (passive), the effective calling (passive), and the hearing of faith (passive, justification). Those operations of the Spirit and the word bring the elect sinner into permanent kingdom-citizenship and ongoing, uninterrupted fellowship with God that is both positive and negative: God’s chastening is also God’s love being expressed (Heb. 12:5–6; Rev. 3:19).

In addition, Jesus solemnly stated the principle of who is first and who is second in salvation: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish” (John 10:27–28). He is first: his voice is heard; his sheep are second: they follow him. All of the believer’s salvation experience—means, cause, results—is the effective hearing of the Lord’s word by the Spirit, the leading of the Spirit that produces the believer’s walking in the Spirit and thus following Jesus.

What directs Jesus’ voice and his sheep’s following him is God’s eternal counsel. “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6; see also John 10:14, 26–27; Rom. 8:28–30; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; Canons of Dordt 1.6–7; 3–4.11).

The experience of God’s elect is all election experience (Ps. 33:12; 65:4; 135:4; Isa. 44:1; John 6:37, 39, 44; 15:16; 17:2, 6; Acts 2:39; 13:48; Rom. 9:15–16; Eph. 1:4–5; Col. 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:2; Canons of Dordt 1.6–7, 9). Election directs all causes and controls all means, so that the elect person effectually hears the gospel, trusts in Christ, and repents and obeys God’s word—all because he is one of God’s elect. The elect’s hearing of faith, his lifelong confessing of sin and repenting, and his ongoing obedience are all effectively produced by Jesus’ word and the Holy Spirit within him because he is one of God’s elect.

Having begun in the Spirit, each elect is made perfect not by his obedience but by the Spirit (Gal. 3:3). Therefore, God is always first, and man is always second: “For of him [God], and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36; see also Matt. 6:13; 10:8; 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 11:4; 12:32; John 1:12, 16; 3:27; 6:37, 39, 65; 10:28; 13:31; 17:1–2, 11; Rom. 8:32; 2 Cor. 1:20; Eph. 1:6; 3:21; Phil. 1:11; James 1:17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Rev. 4:11; 21:23).

The Believer’s Experience

We are now ready for Shepherd’s opening gambit about the believer’s experience. Shepherd writes this:

Our focus now is on the experience of justification among the people of God. How do people make the transition from wrath to grace, or from condemnation and death to justification and life? How do they get justified, how do they stay justified, and how do they know they are justified?²

Within this folksy little paragraph, in which Shepherd pretends to ask simple questions about justification, lies his continuing, complicated, and concealed deceit. It is hidden in the little word “stay.” “How do they stay justified?” From all that preceded the fifth chapter in The Way of Righteousness, we know that hidden in the words “stay justified” is Shepherd’s whole errant process theology of ongoing justification by penitent and obedient faith—man’s doing right up to and including the last day of judgment. Believers stay justified by their doing in Norman Shepherd’s devious drama. Remember that he has written, “The point in all of this [the final judgment according to works and a reward according to works] is that Jesus makes justification contingent upon obedience” (61).

So because of Shepherd’s little qualification—that staying justified is contingent upon man’s obedience—the whole paragraph is fouled with the smell of man’s works. “The transition from wrath to grace” depends on man’s obedience. The transition “from condemnation and death to justification and life” depends on man’s obedience. Being justified, staying justified, and knowing one is justified depend on man’s obedience. Shepherd’s whole gospel-pot bubbles over with man’s obedience, not with God’s Spirit.³

Shepherd’s contingency is already a major contradiction of what Jesus solemnly stated in John 3, that seeing and entering the kingdom are by the Spirit, not by man’s will or obedience (see also 1:13). “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh” (Gal. 3:3)? Yes, Shepherdians are that foolish! They imagine that “in some sense,” the clay precedes the potter’s hand! (See Romans 9:22–23.)

Another question Shepherd’s paragraph raises is this: Is God’s justification a judicial verdict that is final when a sinner first believes, so that there is no question regarding his staying justified?

Shepherd’s answer is no. Justification is not a final, forensic act of God’s justifying a sinner when he first believes. Shepherd writes a dismal paragraph characterizing the classic Reformed doctrine of justification as a sinister “secret assize” that nobody knows. He writes,

Because it [the judgment that has taken place at another time and in another place and in total secrecy] is so secret, no one can really know for sure that it has actually ever taken place at all.

The point to be made here is that the Bible knows nothing about a secret assize like the one just described. There is no secret courtroom where the sinner is not present to be judged, where he does not see the judge, and where neither he nor anyone else can hear this momentous ultimate judgment being pronounced. The Bible knows nothing of such a secret judgment. The secret judgment is a theological invention. (90)

By now Shepherd’s readers have been spoon-fed doctored scripture; and they might readily swallow that lie because of Shepherd’s previous false interpretations of James, Matthew, Paul, and Jesus, plus this shady characterization of the classic Reformed doctrine of justification as some horrible, hidden “assize.”

It is plainly deceitful for Shepherd to say, “Because it is so secret, no one can really know for sure that it has actually ever taken place at all.” This statement borders on blasphemy because God has publicly revealed the truth of justification in his word. God has said it, and faithful men have proclaimed it for the last five hundred years! Justification is not hidden or unknown!

As just one example, consider Romans 5:1: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The words “being justified” in the Greek (Δικαιωθέντες—aorist passive) tell us that because God’s justification verdict is completed, we are having peace. One Greek expert translates it this way: We “keep on enjoying peace with God, the peace already made”⁴ (see Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor. 6:11; Belgic Confession 23). Romans 5:1 may be translated as “Our justification being completed, we are having peace with God.”

So we are off and running. But what have we learned so far? We have learned that Shepherd’s sweet little folksy paragraphs and innocent-sounding questions usually contain one small poisonous pill or phrase surreptitiously inserted—for example, “stay justified”—that falsifies his theology by making the whole crafty thing conditional.

As we shall see, there are levels or degrees of complexity in Shepherd’s deceit. This is a level-one deceit because “staying justified” is briefly described and easily spotted. Level one is a simple, plain-language deceit. There are higher degrees of deceit yet to come, for example, when Shepherd attempts to prove that there is assurance based on his conditional faith. That’s a level three. But we will be ready.

After this sly introduction Shepherd continues speaking of the conversion of sinners. He refers to Old Testament Israel: “God had been wonderfully good to his people, Israel…He not only gave them life, he also taught them how to live” (79). But they rebelled and killed the Lord. Shepherd says,

By his death and resurrection Jesus accomplished what the law was intended to do, but never could. He made definitive atonement for sin as the ground of our forgiveness, our justification; and he destroyed the power and corruption of sin, laying the ground for the regeneration and sanctification of his people. (79)

Check your shoelaces because we are still running after Shepherd’s devious words. The law was never intended to do what Christ did. The law “entered, that the offence might abound” (Rom. 5:20). The law “could not do” what Christ did (8:3); and “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal. 3:21). God’s people swiftly reject Shepherd’s false statement because that statement also denies the necessity of our Lord’s incarnation (Matt. 26:39; John 10:18). That level-one deceit is also easily discerned and dispatched.

Then there is the next pothole for the reader: Shepherd’s statement that Jesus “made definitive atonement for sin as the ground of our forgiveness.” Here we notice that Shepherd chooses the adjective “definitive” to describe Jesus’ atonement rather than the classic Reformed adjective definite. There is a major difference of language in these two adjectives, which Shepherd exploits in this leveltwo deceit and which is the abuse of strategic language differences.

Shepherd has chosen his words very carefully to describe this “laying the ground for” the salvation of God’s people. Don’t be deceived by the ongoing subtlety of his words. Why the choice of “definitive” instead of definite? Remember he’s an expert theologian; he knows the difference. The Illustrated Oxford Dictionary says that these two words are often confused. Shepherd probably counted on that. Definitive contains the idea of decisive but not the sense of “exact and discernible limits” (or numbers), which definite does contain.⁵ Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines definitive as “decisive, that which decides or settles in a final way,” but definite is defined as “having exact limits…precise and clear in meaning…referring to a specific or precisely identified person, thing, etc.”⁶

So that’s it. Shepherd wants only the idea of definiteness but clearly not the idea of specific numbers or definite individuals for whom Jesus atoned. So we see that Shepherd has chosen his words carefully to create the subtle difference in meaning that he needs: an atonement that actually occurred—so that there is some kind of ground— but not a definite or limited atonement because that speaks of election and predestination. Shepherd needs an indefinite atonement with respect to individuals, not the specific or definite (limited) atonement of scripture and the Reformed creeds (John 10:15, 27; Canons 2). By this crafty choice of words, Shepherd has the definite ground for his indefinite salvation based on the contingent obedience of man rather than on the definite election of God’s eternal counsel and predestination (“I lay down my life for the sheep,” John 10:11, 15, 26–27). We take note of Shepherd’s subtle tiptoeing around the truth of scripture and condemn his level-two deceit.

Shepherd will only speak of Christ’s atonement as the possible “ground for” something but not the definite accomplishment of anything for anyone. Implied in Shepherd’s words is that, given the definitive ground provided—which is indefinite with reference to individuals—individual certainty can only come from the contingent obedience of man added to that foundation of Jesus’ atonement. It is Shepherd’s same old familiar song with a slightly different tune.

Then there is the next pothole. The words “ground for” are also ambiguous. “Ground for” could mean merely intended for without specifying any actual, definite, and permanent connection of anyone to that ground. “Ground for” exactly what? For believers to look at? For their encouragement in their doing? For them to build on themselves by their obedience? The vital element of exactly how that ground—our Lord’s atonement—actually functions is not stated.

So we see that right from the start of the last chapter of his book, Shepherd is coming on strong with the complete plan of his false theology: Jesus’ people have a definitive ground on which they add their repentant and obedient doing; thereby they “stay justified”—and eventually get themselves finally justified at the last judgment.

Remember Shepherd’s last words in his chapter entitled “Justification According to Our Lord”: “The point in all of this is that Jesus makes justification contingent upon obedience” (61). Also, Jesus, Paul, and James all agree: They “all make justification and salvation contingent upon a penitent and obedient faith” (63). Again, “This is justification by works (‘words’ are ‘works’), and it is the teaching of our Lord” (60). A conditional atonement, covenant, and salvation are the message of Shepherd’s bewitching gospel built on deceit. It is no gospel! It is anathema! Those following it are deceived and need to be snatched from the fire (Jude 22–23).

But let us use our imaginations for a moment. Let us drag Shepherd’s ambiguity onto the pulpit. A preacher would proclaim that Jesus by his wonderful, “definitive” atonement has made our salvation possible! That would be a valid equivalent of Shepherd’s words. Let’s call it a Shepherdism! A Shepherdism is a seemingly truthful way of sneaking salvation by man’s doing onto the pulpit. The preacher would proclaim in hearty, sincere, ambiguous tones the great blessing of Jesus’ atonement: by his atonement Jesus has made our salvation possible!

Think of the preacher’s saying to the bride of Christ, “Your salvation is possible!” “Your marriage to the Lamb of God is possible!” What robbery! What blasphemy! That kind of preaching demotes the church of Christ into a mere gathering of “possibles” hoping for salvation but not possessing it. By that Shepherdism God’s people are not being addressed as Christ’s beloved bride who possesses her salvation and her marriage to the Lamb of God. That preacher has robbed the bride of Christ! That is the effect of Shepherdite preachers who use ambiguous language to drag a man-centered gospel onto the pulpit. They rob Christ’s church of her salvation and her Lord! Time to flee these “thieves and robbers” (John 10:8).

Notice carefully how Shepherd ends the paragraph regarding Christ’s “definitive atonement”:

In the words of Paul to Timothy, Jesus destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light (2 Tim. 1:10). Following his resurrection Jesus ascended into heaven to reign as the ultimate king. Now Jesus sends his Holy Spirit to apply the benefits that he wrought for them by his death and resurrection. Now he is building his church as sinners are transformed into saints and become the righteous who live by faith. (80)

Very fine words, until you get to the final qualifying phrase, “become the righteous who live by faith.” That phrase changes everything because we know that faith for Shepherd is man’s necessary doing of repentance and obedience. By that qualifying phrase at the end of the paragraph, Shepherd again subtly makes the requirement of man’s doing qualify everything. Man’s doing qualifies the Spirit’s application of Christ’s benefits, the building of the church, and the transformation of sinners into saints. These blessings are all contingent on man’s doing.

That is why Shepherd can talk all day about salvation by grace through faith—because for him faith is man’s doing, not the Holy Spirit’s creating repentance and obedience in God’s elect because of Christ’s definite atonement for his elect. As we continually see, the pattern we may count on is Shepherd’s stated decisiveness always being qualified and contradicted by the contingency (read, condition) of man’s necessary obedience. Those wishing to conceal their Shepherdite ancestry might substitute the words in the way of.

What follows next is a level-three exercise in devious dialectics, as Shepherd begins to unfold his view of the covenant and introduce the Holy Spirit. Remember the covenant is Shepherd’s major emphasis, and he knows quite well Schilder’s conditional covenant. (The Netherlands was Shepherd’s choice of advanced study.) I will quote the whole paragraph to show this and give us the flavor of his writing. Pay attention to Shepherd’s continual use of the editorial we and us throughout. That folksy device makes the whole thing universal (the free offer?) and, therefore, hypothetical because we and us being unspecified amounts to everyone. Also notice the profuse appearances now of the Holy Spirit (eighteen times) as Shepherd goes into the believer’s experience of justification and salvation. I will explain subsequently, but notice carefully that everything God does is stated in very positive language, but it’s false; it’s actually all hypothetical because it all requires man’s doing to become actual. You will see that at the end of this scripture-“supported” levelthree deceit in the phrase I emphasize. Be ready.

What happens when sinners are converted? How is Christ building his church? In the beginning God created human beings for union and communion with himself, for covenant fellowship. Sin separates us from fellowship with God and alienates us from him. We become hostile to God. Therefore the initiative for restoration of that fellowship comes from God himself. That is his saving grace. Because of our separation from God, God comes to us with his grace from outside of us, in the preaching of his gospel.

The Lord commissions his church to preach the gospel, to proclaim the word of life. That commission is fulfilled in a variety of ways, some of them more formal than others. In any case, the word of the gospel strikes our ears, and the Holy Spirit accompanies that word with power according to the sovereign will and purpose of God. “Our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction” (1 Thess. 1:5). The Spirit drives that word home to the heart. This is the teaching or the testimony of the Holy Spirit. “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20). The Holy Spirit also transforms the heart to receive the word. In Acts 16:14 the Lord opens Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message. This is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the new birth. At the same time the Holy Spirit takes up residence in us; he comes to live in us. Paul says in Romans 8:9 that the Holy Spirit lives in us so that we are activated, motivated, and controlled by the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Holy Spirit in us unites us to Christ because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. In Romans 8:9 Paul calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Christ, the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. Because we have the Spirit of Christ, we have Christ in us. We are united to Christ and belong to him. Thus united to Christ we become the beneficiaries of all that Christ has done for us by his death and resurrection. Specifically, we are justified—our sins are forgiven—and we are sanctified—recreated in the image of God in righteousness and holiness.

Regeneration, justification, adoption, and sanctification represent the promise side of the new covenant, and these promises are received by faith. According to Romans 10:14, 15, faith comes by hearing the word preached or proclaimed. What do we do when we preach the gospel, and what kind of response are we looking for? (80–81)

Here we have a big mouthful to chew on. I will translate:

1. The initiative comes from God; it is his saving grace, but they are only the promise side of the covenant. That is, all those positively stated actions of God are just talk because they require man’s obedience (his working faith) to become actual. Hence all God’s positively stated activity is contingent on man’s doing, and therefore it is hypothetical.

2. The word strikes our ears in company with the Spirit according to God’s sovereign will and purpose, but that too is just talk, only the promise side of the covenant. The promise requires man’s obedience to become actual. Hence the promise is hypothetical and contingent.

3. The Spirit drives home the word, but that too is talk; it is only the promise side of the covenant. It is only a promise dependent on man’s obedience—again hypothetical and conditional.

4. The Spirit transforms the heart to receive the word. This is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the new birth, but it is only the promise side of the covenant. Only words.

5. The Holy Spirit lives in us so that we are activated, motivated, and controlled by the Holy Spirit. Because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, we have Christ in us, but it’s all talk; it is only the promise side of the covenant, only a promise contingent on man’s obedience.

6. We are united to Christ…we become the beneficiaries of all that Christ has done for us by his death and resurrection. But alas, that too is only the promise side of the covenant. Only words conditioned upon man’s obedience. It is all hypothetical.

So we actually have nothing. It is all Shepherd-talk, another Shepherd-charade. All these definite covenant blessings are paraded in front of the reader; but being all hypothetical, they dance away like Tchaikovsky’s sugar plum fairies. All that definiteness vanishes when the all-important qualifier is added at the end: “These promises are received by faith,” that is, by man’s doing. “This is justification by works (‘words’ are ‘works’), and it is the teaching of our Lord” (60).

In Shepherd’s conditional covenant the actualization of all its blessings takes place only through man’s obedient faith, making man’s doing the primary and prior ingredient for the effectualizing of promises. Throughout Shepherd’s work there is no priority of grace; rather, man’s doing takes the place of grace. Shepherd does not deny God’s grace and Spirit, but Shepherd’s actualization of promises by man’s faith-action makes God’s grace and Spirit secondary factors subjected to man’s prior act. Hence the current formula man is first in some sense, and God is second is being used by some to introduce Shepherd’s conditional thinking into Reformed churches.

The Preaching of the Word

After pointing to Romans 10:14–15, that faith comes by hearing the word preached, Shepherd goes into the preaching of the word and asks more leading questions: “What do we do when we preach the gospel, and what kind of response are we looking for?” (81). He then mentions several steps for the preacher: expose the sin, condemnation, and death of the sinner “in dependence upon the teaching and transforming power of the Holy Spirit”; “tell guilty sinners what God has done for us in Christ”; “plead with sinners to come to Jesus so that their sins can be forgiven…[and] to come in the only way they can come, in repentance and faith” (81).

“When this preaching is accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit, sinners do respond in repentance and faith. At this point they are converted…they are justified and saved” (81).

Join me on Shepherd’s linguistic roller-coaster. If I’m not mistaken, in the phrase “they are justified and saved,” both verbs indicate finality and completion. The verbs are past tense. But not in Norman Shepherd’s world. In his theology it is possible for the person who is “justified and saved” to become unjustified and unsaved and lost forever. Keeping Christ’s commandments is required to continue being justified. Here it is in his twenty-third thesis:

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).⁷

According to Shepherd’s twenty-third thesis regarding continuing in Shepherd’s state of justification, doing good works are “necessary for salvation…and therefore for justification.” Therefore, when Shepherd says “They are justified and saved” (81), he is again using level-two deceitful language. They are not justified and saved. Those spoken of have not yet attained the finality and completeness those verbs signify! From his own words, “justified and saved” are promises contingent upon continued repentance and obedience to Jesus’ commands. By using positive language while speaking hypothetically, we have another serving of Shepherd’s deceitful theology of darkness. In the real world a completed condition that is permanently contingent upon something else happening is not a completed condition. But in Shepherd’s world it is: those “justified and saved” are not “justified and saved” until they complete their lifelong obedience to Jesus’ commands.

Shepherd’s linguistically-challenged paragraph continues with another conditional explanation of the church’s evangelism task. The church’s evangelistic preaching gets sinners “started walking on the path of righteousness, the Way of Holiness (Isa. 35:8)” (81). And then preachers “encourage God’s people to persevere in this faith” (82). It all ends with Shepherd’s usual subtle and devious qualifier: “Those who endure to the end will be saved because there is no condemnation now or ever for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1)” (82).

Another ride on Shepherd’s roller-coaster! The sinner is “justified and saved”—but this must be understood conditionally. It is not reality according to the meaning of those words. The Spirit is controlling that person, but he must persevere by his works if he is to remain “justified and saved,” even though “there is no condemnation now or ever for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Answer this: If there is no condemnation “now or ever,” how can the justified, saved, and Spirit-controlled sinner ever be lost? How? Because all that is only promise! The deciding factor is man’s doing, man’s works, not God’s eternal counsel, not God’s sovereign grace, and not Christ’s definite atonement. Shepherd is fully aware of the difference, but he holds tenaciously to his contingency and conditionality—his allegiance to darkness.

Using Romans 8:1 to secure a conditional justification and salvation shows us the depths of deceit in Norman Shepherd’s theology. He openly recites the words but insidiously falsifies their meanings, demonstrating that this theology deceitfully, recklessly, continuously, and blasphemously casts God’s word to the ground, just as Satan has done from the garden until now!

After explaining how the church evangelizes, Shepherd makes this statement: “Both perseverance and assurance are intimately tied in with the biblical doctrine of justification, and for that reason we need to reflect more fully on both of these graces in relation to justification” (82). This statement is also devious because Shepherd calls perseverance and assurance “graces,” but in saying this he abuses the term. Grace is God’s unmerited favor freely given unto someone by the effective working of God’s Spirit; but in Shepherd’s theology grace is merely offered to someone, who then has to secure it by his working faith (read, works). Don’t miss that curveball.⁸

Shepherd’s discussion of perseverance begins with his definition of justification: “We enter into a right relationship with God…because of what Jesus has done for us” (82). But then, of course, the qualifiers start to roll out, such as “We cannot turn to Christ in faith without turning away from sin in repentance. Further, justifying faith is not a momentary act. It is not the act of a single moment…justifying faith is an ongoing reality” (82).

Before I list Shepherd’s qualifiers, realize that his justification is not only an “ongoing reality,” but justification is also a revolving door; it goes around, letting people in and out until judgment day. Therefore, justifying faith is both repentance and obedience, that is, justification by works; justifying faith is not a momentary act, therefore not completed, so the person is not justified; justifying faith is an ongoing reality; therefore, justification is an uncertainty made certain only by the sum of man’s lifelong works. This is Roman Catholicism!

But then it’s time for Shepherd to add some clever covering words: “We cannot say that we enter into a justified state by faith and then we remain in that state by works” (82). Of course not; who would admit that we stay justified by our works? No, the point of these covering words is for Shepherd to introduce his magnum opus: “We enter into a justified state by means of a living faith and we remain in a justified state by means of a living faith” (82). I would imagine that all of Shepherd’s faithful followers salute him for this brilliant piece of falsehood.

Let us consider these pieces of contradiction. I translate: we enter into justification by turning to Christ in faith, but that faith is also repentance, which is then called justifying faith and which is not a momentary thing but an ongoing reality that keeps the believer in a state of justification; this is not by works, but it is by works. (Shepherd said so. He even said that Jesus said so: “This is justification by works (‘words’ are ‘works’), and it is the teaching of our Lord” [60].) So let me quote Shepherd’s last sentence, adding his own words:

This is to say that the sinner whose sin is forgiven and who has been transformed into the likeness of Christ—all by faith [which is by works]— perseveres in that faith [which is works] and so remains in a right relationship with God [which is not by works but actually is by works]. (82)

That double-talk is followed with more of the same. “Perseverance in faith is represented to us in Scripture as a gift from God” (82). This is followed by a reference to John 10:27–29: Jesus gives his sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish. Then this: “Paul gives this promise in 1 Corinthians 1:8, 9, ‘(God) will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’” (83). So 1 Corinthians 1:8–9 is just a promise. Follow that. “On the basis of this promise Paul offers this prayer in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 25” (83). More follows: “In Philippians 1:6 Paul expresses his confidence ‘that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus’” (83). Shepherd adds to that 1 Peter 1:3–5 and then summarizes:

In all of these promises the end point in view is the Day of Judgment and the consummation of all things…Of course, this promise of perseverance, like all of God’s promises, must be received by faith, and saving faith is always a living and active faith. (83)

Here is a level-three deception in full bloom: multiple true-then-false catch-me-if-you-can statements threaded with scripture falsified by Shepherdian language games, swaddled in a positive-sounding verbal package and sweetly seasoned by Shepherd’s ever-faithful terminus: “Saving faith is always a living and active faith” (read, man’s doing).

I translate: Perseverance is a gift, but it is conditioned upon man’s works to possess it. Jesus’ assurance that his sheep will never perish is just a promise conditioned on man’s works. God’s infallible word “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” is just Paul’s confidence! Top that fakery off now with Shepherd’s pernicious garble: “In all of these promises the end point in view is the Day of Judgment.” Hence man has much to do for his salvation. Then all of this is accompanied by Shepherd’s final, fatal fiction: “Of course, this promise of perseverance, like all of God’s promises, must be received by faith, and saving faith is always a living and active faith.” Right to the end, there is no priority of grace in Shepherd’s scheme, just two tracks—God’s promises and man’s obedience (read, works). Those wishing to conceal this denial of the faith will call it “God’s grace and man’s responsibility.”

I summarize: God’s gifts and Jesus’ assurance to his elect are all conditioned on man’s obedience. God’s infallible word is just a man’s confidence. Each must earn the “gracious” promises by doing works until judgment day. And finally, remember: all of God’s promises must be earned by man’s doing his faith (read, works). So goes a level-three deception!

Naturally, Shepherd then links perseverance to man’s doing: “Therefore coupled with the promise of perseverance as a gift is the exhortation to persevere in faith and obedience to the Lord” (83). Shepherd says, “The New Testament is filled with this kind of exhortation and encouragement,” pointing to Christ’s warnings to the seven churches in the book of Revelation, and specifically to the church in Smyrna: “‘Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life’ (Rev. 2:10)” (83). Quite deceptive to cherry-pick a few dramatic verses that exhort God’s people to faithfulness. But Shepherd never comes near the exhortation of Philippians 2:12–13: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

Latching on to the exhortations of Hebrews, Shepherd fuses works and justification again by using the writer’s exhortation in Hebrews 10:22–36, saying, “The verse that is of special interest because of its direct connection to justification is Hebrews 10:36” (84). Shepherd says the writer

urges them [believers] to hold unswervingly “to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful” (v. 23). He urges them to spur one another on “toward love and good deeds,” and to encourage one another as they see the Day approaching (vs. 24, 25). Then comes a solemn warning about the day to come when the Lord will judge his people. Now we are clearly in the sphere of justification. (84)

When Shepherd goes into detail about scripture, it is a big mistake. The exhortation of Hebrews 10:25 is based upon Jesus’ finished, high priestly sacrifice of atonement spelled out in verses 1–18, ending with the assurance to these believers that they have a high priest who made atonement for their sins, and those sins are eternally forgiven (v. 18). Therefore, they have boldness to enter the holy of holies (God’s presence) because of Jesus’ shed blood. “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith…Let us hold fast the profession of our faith…Let us consider one another to provoke unto love…and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (vv. 22–25).

These are all exhortations to justified believers grounded in a definite atonement that is past and completed because the hearts of these Hebrew believers had already been “sprinkled” clean (perfect passive tense is completed action) by the blood of Jesus, and their bodies had been “washed [perfect passive tense, again completed action] with pure water” by Spirit-baptism (Heb. 10:22). They draw near with a “true heart” (that is, a new heart, Jer. 31:33), the evidence of membership in the new covenant (Heb. 10:16). Therefore, the exhortation of verse 25 is to justified believers, who are to continue in their good works (“so much the more”) as judgment day nears, which day will “devour the adversaries” and all who “sin wilfully” after hearing the gospel, but not the believers: “But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul” (v. 39).

Take note: the justification of these believers has already been completed, and there is not one word about future justification at the last day. Shepherd’s stratagem “Now we are clearly in the sphere of justification” is one of his continual and costliest mistakes!⁹

In addition, I notice that the Holy Spirit has disappeared again. That’s right: Shepherd writes the whole section about “Perseverance in Faith,” and there’s not a word about God’s Spirit providing even the smallest assistance. No, it’s all done by man’s living faith (works). “We enter into a justified state by means of a living faith and we remain in a justified state by means of a living faith” (82). The section on perseverance ends with this tragedy of errors and twisting of scripture:

The message of Hebrews is that we who have believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who persevere in that faith in spite of the obstacles and opposition we meet along the way, will be justified and saved in the Day of Judgment. Therefore we should not grow weary, but “hang in there.” (85)

By now you know all the tricks and devices Shepherd uses to convince his readers of his gospel. Despite his handicraft, Hebrews 10 ends clearly with the distinction made by the sharp sword of election theology: “But we are not of them who draw back [the reprobate] unto perdition; but of them [the elect] that believe to the saving of the soul” (v. 39).

When Are We Justified?

Following that fabrication, Shepherd launches into a discussion of “When are we justified?” (86). He begins by saying, “Theologians have offered a variety of answers to this question” (86). He then summarizes: some say justification occurs in God’s eternal decree, some when Jesus died and rose again, and others when one is baptized or at the moment of initial faith. At the end is Shepherd’s review: “And then there are those who say that we are justified really only in the final judgment” (86). After that review he gives his theory:

There is a measure of truth in all of these views, but the key to understanding the biblical doctrine lies in the last view mentioned. We will be justified on the day when we appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and when each one will receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10). (86)

By using 2 Corinthians 5:10, Shepherd deliberately leaves the impression that a person is justified by what he does—by his works. This charade Shepherd carries on by referring to additional verses that appear to support him: John 5:29, that those who have done good will rise to life; Matthew 12:37, that by your words you will be acquitted; etc. Because all of this has already been disproved, especially Shepherd’s mistaken understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:10, ¹⁰ I happily assign it to the wastebasket.

Shepherd then says, “The question of assurance is this, what is going to happen to me on that day, and can I know for sure what will happen to me?” (87).

He says that the Roman Catholic Church said no to the latter question. The Puritans said that one could know only by special experience. Calvin and the Reformation said yes. Shepherd, then, almost with alarm, says, “Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism actually go so far as to define justifying faith as ‘a deep-rooted assurance,… that…I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation’ (Heid. Cat. Q. & A. 21)” (87–88).

Heads up now. One of Shepherd’s fastballs is coming. Following that quote of Lord’s Day 21, Shepherd gives an explanation of the Reformed position of justification but then immediately and slyly contradicts it all by saying,

All these things are true: I was justified when Jesus died for me; I was justified when I was converted; I am now in a justified state; and I will be justified in the Day of Judgment. But it is precisely because of what will happen in the Day of Judgment that I can speak of a justification now, by faith. Justification as a present benefit in the application of redemption has meaning only because of what will happen in the Day of Judgment. (88)

This is Shepherd’s grand finale, so I will quote some more:

It is essential to note that this assurance is not simply information about the future and what is going to happen in the future. As believers we do not live by sight; we live by faith. It is the assurance that is given with faith in Jesus and faith in the promises that he has made to us. No one is privy to secret information about the future. No one can peer into the mind of God, or into his eternal decree. Assurance is the assurance that is given with faith in Jesus Christ. It is not assurance that I have independently of my response to the gospel with a true and living faith. Therefore this assurance does not stay at the same level all the time. Faith can waver; it can be stronger or weaker…my assurance will rise as I walk closer to the Lord…We must cultivate assurance of grace and salvation in the same way that we cultivate faith. (88–89)

Note well: we have here all the mendacity Shepherd relies on to con his readers. Denying God’s decree of election (Eph. 1:4–6), Shepherd says, “Assurance is not simply information about the future and what is going to happen in the future” (88). Denying God’s forensic justification of the believer (Rom. 3:28), Shepherd says, “the Bible knows nothing about a secret assize like the one just described” (89). Denying the believer’s trusting what God has written in his word, Shepherd says that is to “live by sight” (88). Denying God’s revelation of his sovereign will (Rom. 8:28–30), Shepherd says, “No one is privy to secret information about the future” (88). Denying that we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5), Shepherd says, “No one can peer into the mind of God, or into his eternal decree” (88). Denying that the Holy Spirit creates faith in us, which is both knowledge and trust (John 6:44; 2 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 3:5; 1 Pet. 2:9; Belgic Confession 22), Shepherd says that assurance “is not an assurance that I have independently of my response to the gospel” (88–89). And finally Shepherd gives his parting advice: “My assurance will rise as I walk closer to the Lord” (89).

Building all of his conditional castle by falsifying James 2:14–26, Matthew 25:31–46, Romans 3:24–28, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and many more verses, Shepherd ends his sad theology with one final falsehood.

The gospel is not nearly as complicated as we might think from looking at the many heavy tomes of scholastic theology written on the subject. We are justified and saved according to the eternal plan and purpose of God. We are justified in the death and resurrection of Christ 2,000 years ago. We are now justified by a living, active, penitent and obedient faith in Jesus. And we are sure to be justified when the ascended Christ returns to this earth to judge the living and the dead. That is the good news of the gospel. (92–93)

How sad for those reading Shepherd’s theological tome, thinking these stones are the gospel. Even sadder are Shepherd’s compadres, who forsake God’s effective grace for man’s doing and forsake the faithful preaching of the word to promote the regenerated human’s activity. Many are the casualties of the great deception spoken of in 2 Thessalonians.

Postlude: God is Always First

Now it is my turn to ask the questions. In the present controversy between the Protestant Reformed Churches and the Reformed Protestant Churches, several passages of scripture have been put forward as supposed proof that man is first in some sense. I believe these faux remarks do nothing but insult the gospel.

Consider Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, and Luke 5:20. Jesus said to the paralytic, “Your sins have been forgiven.” The verb is ἀφέωνταί in all three texts, which is the perfect, passive indicative, indicating completed action in the past with present effect.¹¹ Luke 7:48 is the same (εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῇ, Ἀφέωνταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι). Jesus said to the woman who washed his feet, “Your sins have been forgiven.” We must carefully understand his words.

First, “Jesus, seeing their faith…” (Matt. 9:2). Here is faith that could be seen. It was faith that could be seen by its works: the paralytic came to Jesus believing Jesus could heal him, and the woman’s faith was seen by her loving devotion. This was true faith validated by works. Jesus called it “seeing-faith.”

Second, to those having this “seeing-faith” Jesus said, “Your sins have been forgiven.” That is, forgiven previously, before the people came to Jesus.

Third, the point of these texts is the gospel, not what is first and not healing. Jesus was preaching the gospel, preaching forgiveness of sins through faith in him. The paralytic and the woman believed in Jesus, were forgiven, and then came to him. Jesus saw their faith and authoritatively confirmed it by saying, “Your sins have been forgiven.” What he said vindicated that previous justifying faith and its forgiveness. According to these texts, forgiveness is before the faith evidenced. This is the very thing Paul would write in Romans 3:28 and James would also confirm: “Ye see then how that by works a man is [vindicated], and not by faith only” (James 2:24).

You see, one can explain this truth of salvation. But those turning these gospel texts into misleading remarks, such as believing precedes remission, when actually in these texts remission precedes faith, are only serving the present overthrow of the gospel by the inaccurate and impious abuse of Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20, and Luke 7:48.

Suppose that the psalmist would decide to take the wings of the morning and go to the uttermost parts of the sea. Would you say that in some sense the psalmist is first and God is second? Not according to Psalm 139:10 because the psalmist plainly said, “Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.” What about the leper of Matthew 8:1–4? What about the centurion of Matthew 8:5–13? And the woman with the issue of blood in Matthew 9:20–22? And the Syrophoenician woman of Matthew 15:21–28? Did all of them decide first to come to Jesus, and Jesus acted second in healing them? If you think that, you contradict John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Notice very carefully that our Lord connected that truth about the Father’s drawing with the Father’s sending Jesus. That means that with any man’s coming to Christ, we are in the sphere of God’s eternal counsel of election. If God’s election is drawing the person to Christ, how is a regenerated human in some sense first?

This is why we fight you who say man is in some sense first. You deny that union with Christ means that Christ lives in a regenerated person, so that the regenerated human is now permanently walking after the Spirit (Rom. 8:1). Answer this: in all that regenerated human’s Spiritfilled activity, how is he first and God second? What is the Spirit doing at that time when the regenerated believer is drawing nigh to God (James 4:8)? Sitting on a chair? Can you not read Romans 7:15, 19? Paul says that the good he would do, he doesn’t do! He doesn’t draw nigh. He says, “What I hate I do! Who will save me from this body of death that can’t do the good? That can’t draw nigh? I thank God through Jesus Christ” (see vv. 24–25). Can you not see that Christ in Paul does the good that Paul cannot do? Christ, who lives in Paul by his Spirit—Christ does it! Paul said that! But you say that man does it; man is first. You blaspheme! Paul says, “Christ in me draws nigh!”

Furthermore, you insinuate that Paul is a radical. How so? Because if someone says something like “God built the ark, Noah didn’t,” you suggest that he is a radical, a hyper-Calvinist! But Paul said exactly the same thing: “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10). There it is! Paul said, “I didn’t preach in Corinth, God did! I didn’t preach in Ephesus, God did!” Does that make Paul a radical? Is he a hyper-Calvinist?

When you say that the regenerated human is first in some sense, you deny that the believer walks by the Spirit and that only by that walking in the Spirit does he repent and obey. Either man has the Spirit and walks by the Spirit, repenting and obeying; or else that man does not have the Spirit and does not belong to Christ (Rom. 8:9). Either you are a regenerated human being led by the Spirit, repenting and obeying; or you are a heathen dead in sin (v. 14). If your man who is in some sense first is first without the Spirit, your man is dead and lost and cannot obey God (v. 7). And if your man is first, having the Spirit, that man is not first; God is first, leading that man to obey by the Spirit (v. 5).

Any originating or doing of anything good by man apart from the Spirit’s leading and empowering is Pelagianism (Rom. 7:14, 18)! And once again the Pelagians went too far. They were supposed to just get man’s toe in the room; but as in 1618–19 at the Synod of Dordt, they got man’s nose caught in the door. They insinuated that anyone who said “Noah didn’t build the ark, God did” had to be discredited as a radical because that truth would foil their game. But they foolishly exposed themselves by that ploy because it implied that Paul was a radical too for saying the same thing. Paul was a hyper-Calvinist for saying, “I didn’t preach in Corinth, God did.” This whole thing would be laughable, that Shepherd’s minions got their noses caught in the door, if it were not so sad and so serious for so many.

But God is not even second to him who is lost. God is controlling that lump of clay, enduring it with much long-suffering, while fitting that man for destruction (Rom. 9:22).

Tell me, were Jacob’s brothers first and God second when they plotted against their brother? Not according to Genesis 50:20. Was Sihon of Heshbon first and God second when God hardened Sihon’s heart against Israel, and he would not let the Israelites pass through his land? Not according to Deuteronomy 2:30. Was Rehoboam first and God second when Rehoboam decided to listen to the counsel of the young men and not lighten the people’s burden? Not according to 1 Kings 12:15. Was Cyrus first when he decided to build a house for the Lord in Jerusalem? Not according 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Isaiah 45:5–6, 13. Was Darius first when he decided to strengthen the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem? Not according to Ezra 6:22. Was the king of Assyria first when he decided “to destroy and cut off nations not a few”? Not according to Isaiah 10:5–7. And was Judas Iscariot first and God second when Judas decided to betray Jesus? Not according to John 13:18–19 and John 17:12.

Man in no sense is ever first and God second. God is first with regenerated man. God is first with unregenerated man. God is first even with the birds! Jesus said that a bird cannot fall to the ground apart from the will of God (Matt. 10:29). Can you not see what fools you make of yourselves in following Shepherd? Do you really think that the clay could say to the potter, “I’m first”? You are not Calvinists, you are Laodiceans: blind and naked; but you can’t see it because God’s judgment is upon you. By casting off your first love, the truth is hidden from your eyes, and you serve an idol.

This is my final effort: a careful look at the Philippian jailor of Acts 16:22–34. I hope some will finally see that this whole man-is-first epidemic is just smoke and mirrors to conceal the introduction of conditions into the covenant. These are the facts:

1. God’s providence put Paul and Silas in that specific jailor’s prison.

2. God caused the prisoners to hear the gospel in song and prayer in such a way that they did not run away when the strange earthquake set them free.

3. God’s earthquake could have crashed the whole building. Or an angel could have opened the doors quietly, as in Peter’s prison escapes (Acts 5:19; 12:7–11).

4. God could have loosed only Paul and Silas and set them free, as he had done with Peter. God didn’t because he had his elect jailor and the jailor’s family that he would save.

5. Rather than crashing the whole building, the earthquake specifically opened the doors.

6. The jailor awoke, saw all the doors open, and attempted to kill himself. Why did Paul stop him? Calvin says that God directed Paul’s mind to perceive that the earthquake was for others, and therefore Paul did not run away.¹²

7. The Holy Spirit restrained the jailor by Paul’s command not to harm himself and also caused the jailor to realize that none of the prisoners had run away. All of this was God’s sovereign intervention for his eternal purpose: the jailor was one of God’s elect being drawn to Christ.

8. Trembling, the jailor fell at Paul’s feet. Calvin says that the miracle brought the jailor down from his pride and made him submit to God. Calvin says that the jailor was seriously touched by the word, that it was genuine fear of God, reminding us that God’s power makes the wicked worse, but it makes the elect submissive, desirous of the word, and ready to obey.¹³

9. Hence the jailor’s question came from a heart opened by God, and the jailor said what God’s Spirit led him to say (1 Cor. 2:14; 12:3).

Now, if you can’t see, because the jailor was one of God’s elect (remember he was later baptized with his whole house), that in all his experience God was drawing the jailor to Christ, you are no Calvinist. The jailor’s heart was being opened and faith was being formed in him by the Holy Spirit, just as with Lydia in Acts 16:14. God’s sovereign will, providence, intervention, and particular saving grace were first. The jailor’s question was second. “What must I do to be saved?” was spoken by the Holy Spirit’s influence. Calvin reminds us that no reprobate would humbly ask such a thing.

“What must I do to be saved?” was the jailor’s childlike recognition of his need of Christ, God’s Spirit producing in him regeneration, the hearing of faith, and specifically those words of humble submission. “Nothing happens in this world without His appointment” (Belgic Confession 13, in Confessions and Church Order, 35–36; see also Heidelberg Catechism LD 10; Canons of Dordt 3-4.10–11, 14). If you deny that, you don’t belong in a Reformed church. If you are an elder in a Reformed church and you deny that, you have violated your oath of subscription to the three forms of unity given before God and his people.

I conclude: God’s word has exposed Norman Shepherd’s “vain imaginations” and “dashed them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Only the willfully blind will follow him now and debate with the devil. May they see their folly. We part with you because we want nothing of your gospel, which is the gospel of thieves and robbers. Jesus told us to flee from you (John 10:5). For us Christ is the end of the law, the end of doing for righteousness for everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4). We need nothing more, nor do we desire anything more, than Christ our righteousness. “In Christ’s coach they sweetly sing, as they to glory ride therein.”