I have begun revisiting Norman Shepherd. He is the theological father of the federal vision movement that has swept through every Reformed and Presbyterian denomination in North America, if not the world. His theological starting point is the covenant theology of Klaas Schilder and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated). Basic to that theology is a general, conditional promise to all the baptized children of believers. That promise comes to fulfillment through the faith and covenantal obedience of the child to whom the promise was made. Thus that promise can be shipwrecked on the unbelief and covenantal apostasy of the child to whom the promise was made. Election does not control the covenant promise, but the promise is given wider than election and is contingent on the child’s fulfillment of the obligations of faith and obedience by grace.

Shepherd’s Doctrine of Justification

Central to the covenant theology of Norman Shepherd is his doctrine of justification.

Justification is central to the doctrine of the covenant. So central is justification to the doctrine of the covenant that if one’s doctrine of justification is faith and works, then one’s doctrine of the covenant is conditional. By contrast, if one’s doctrine of justification is by faith alone without works, then one’s doctrine of the covenant is unconditional.

I noted in the last article the sound of Norman Shepherd’s doctrine of justification and gave some of its characteristics. In this series I am interested in the sound of federal vision theology. That sound is important. The importance is that, whether or not the word condition or contingent is used in preaching and writing, the theology of the federal vision can be detected and condemned by its sound, its words and phrases, and its emphasis.

In his book The Way of Righteousness,¹ Shepherd clearly sets forth his doctrine of justification and applies it to the doctrine of the covenant. Shepherd teaches that justification is not on the basis of works or by the merit of works, but by faith in Jesus Christ on the basis of his atoning death. The believer is justified for Christ’s sake and by faith in Christ. The faith that justifies is always fruitful in repentance, obedience, and perseverance. The faith that justifies is a penitent, obedient, active faith. The faith that justifies does not justify now and does not justify in the final judgment apart from God’s consideration of faith’s penitence, obedience, and activity. Now and in the final judgment, God sees the fruits of faith as the evidence that faith is genuine faith in Jesus Christ, and then God will justify the believer. Summarizing and defending his theology of justification, Shepherd writes,

All of this has nothing to do with justification or salvation on the ground of the merit of good works. Faith receives what is promised. Living, active, penitent, and obedient faith can only receive what is promised, and what is promised is of pure grace. Jesus died and rose again to take away the guilt of sin and to destroy its power. He recreates us in his own image so that we can bring glory to God on the earth by reflecting his righteousness and holiness. In this way God saves us and leads us into possession of eternal life. We are saved by grace through faith. (63)

Justification and salvation are thus by a living, active, obedient faith. This is subtle, soul destroying, and terrifying. It is in essence the old doctrine of justification by faith and works. God now and in the final judgment takes into account in justification as evidence of the believer’s union with Christ the works that the believer does by faith.

God does!

For justification!

In the final judgment God will hear the words and see the works of the believer that proceed from true faith!

God will see from those words and works that faith is true faith!

God will justify the believer through his penitent, active, obedient faith!

Shepherd’s Doctrine of Justification Serves His Covenant Doctrine

Norman Shepherd’s doctrine of justification serves his covenant doctrine. In my analysis of that covenant doctrine, it must be remembered that my approach will again be to demonstrate what federal vision theology sounds like.

Federal vision theology truly and freely speaks of conditions and contingency in salvation and in the covenant. Yet that theology does not need to use those words. That theology covers itself by appeals to divine grace, to Christ’s atoning death, to the work of Christ in the believer to renew him in Christ’s image, and by saying, “We are saved by grace through faith.” It is not enough for one simply to say, “Of course, this is all by grace. Of course, this is for Christ’s sake, and this is by faith,” after having taught faith and works. The federal vision theology constantly talks about salvation and justification being for Christ’s sake, by grace, and through faith. But it so mingles faith and the works of faith that faith does not avail for anything apart from the consideration of its works. Federal vision theology cannot say, “Faith alone! By faith alone we are justified. By faith alone we have the assurance and experience of justification. By faith alone we are justified now and have everlasting righteousness, salvation, and eternal life. By faith alone we enter into life now and will enter into life in heaven.” This theology is terrified of the gospel of faith alone! It does not preach and teach it. It is always faith and the works of faith. It is always an obedient, penitent, active faith—a faith that is confirmed, propped up, and assured by works, a faith that saves, justifies, and assures with its works.

The position of many is that unless a speaker or writer uses the word condition, he cannot be guilty of federal vision theology. The same attitude is held regarding federal vision’s main tenets, such as a general covenant promise to all the baptized children, a promise contingent on the response of faith and faithfulness, not viewing the covenant in light of election, and other tenets. The thinking goes that unless one explicitly teaches or preaches these main doctrines, one cannot be guilty of federal vision theology.

My position is different: one can be guilty of teaching federal vision theology in essence while carefully avoiding using the more offensive terms and teaching the main tenets. If covenant teaching is not explicitly rooted in and controlled by election; if the promises of God are not fulfilled until one responds in faith and faithfulness; if works prop up the assurance of faith; if the entire presentation of the covenant is simply one of promise and obligation, promise and required response, God’s grace and man’s responsibility set side by side; if believers are being taught that they will enter the final judgment so that God can see their works and hear their words as evidences of their faith in Christ, then one has federal vision theology, although all of its more offensive words and phrases and main tenets are carefully avoided. That kind of teaching has a certain sound and a certain emphasis.

I will review Shepherd’s covenant doctrine from his book The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism.² He begins with the covenant with Abraham, moves to the covenant at Sinai, and finishes with the new covenant of grace. I will focus on his treatment of the covenant of God with Abraham. The covenant of God with Abraham was one form of the one, eternal covenant of grace that God establishes with his people in Jesus Christ. The covenant of God with Abraham was fulfilled in the covenant of grace in the New Testament. Whatever one says about the covenant of God with Abraham, one says about the covenant of grace, also in the New Testament.

Shepherd defines the covenant as

a divinely established relationship of union and communion between God and his people in the bonds of mutual love and faithfulness…In the Abrahamic covenant, God entered into union and communion with Abraham and his children, promising them his steadfast love and requiring the same response from them. (12)

Thus the covenant for Shepherd is a relationship of union and communion consisting of promised grace on God’s part and the fulfillment of man’s obligation on his part. Norman Shepherd is honest in his teaching that the covenant with Abraham was conditional:

But now we ought to ask whether the covenant that God made with Abraham really was, in fact, unconditional. Would the promises be fulfilled irrespective of any response on the part of Abraham and his children? The biblical record shows that conditions were, indeed, attached to the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. (14)

What Shepherd means is that there were no conditions for union. God established the covenant without conditions. There were, however, conditions for communion, that is, for the maintenance of the covenant. He then explains six considerations that show that the covenant with Abraham was conditional.

1. There was the requirement of circumcision. God required Abraham and his children to keep the covenant by practicing circumcision…When God required circumcision as a condition in the Abrahamic covenant, his concern was not merely with an outward ceremony…In requiring circumcision, God was requiring the full scope of covenantal loyalty and obedience all along the line…Just as circumcision obliged Israel to obey God under the old covenant, so also baptism obliges believers to obey him under the new covenant. (14–15)

2. The Abrahamic covenant required faith. It belongs to the very nature of promises that they cry out to be believed. Thus, the promises made to Abraham had to be believed if they were to be fulfilled. (15)

3. The faith that was credited to Abraham as righteousness was a living and obedient faith…His faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. (15–16)

4. Abraham was commanded to walk before the Lord and be blameless…The covenant and its promises are confirmed to Abraham, who demonstrates covenant faith and loyalty. He fulfills the obligations of the covenant…Also worth noting in this connection is Genesis 18:19. The Lord is speaking about Abraham. “For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” In this verse, the Lord affirms that his electing purpose for Abraham and his children will be fulfilled. It will be fulfilled in the way of covenant keeping. Abraham must teach his children to do what is right and just in the eyes of the Lord so that the Lord will do what he has promised to do. (16–17)

5. The history of Israel demonstrates that the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled only as the conditions of the covenant were met…It was in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant that God brought Israel out of Egypt into the Promised Land…If the promises of the Abrahamic covenant had been unconditional, the Israelites would have been able to march right into the Promised Land regardless of their behavior. That did not happen. It was a new and different generation that inherited what was promised. It was a generation that believed God and moved forward at his command. (17–18)

6. Nothing demonstrates the conditional character of the Abrahamic covenant more clearly than the way in which the promises of that covenant are ultimately fulfilled. They are fulfilled through the covenantal loyalty and obedience of Jesus Christ. But just as Jesus was faithful in order to guarantee the blessing, so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the blessing…We must become not only believers, but disciples…to be a true believer is to be an obedient disciple. (19)

According to Shepherd, the covenant of God with Abraham has two parts: promise and obligation. Using other words, the covenant consists in divine promise and human responsibility. The promise does not come into effect until the obligation is met. The fulfillment of the promise is the result of two factors: God’s gracious promise and man’s responsibility meeting the obligations of the promise by grace. So Shepherd writes, “Abraham and his seed are obliged to demonstrate new obedience. They must walk before the Lord in the paths of faith, repentance, and obedience. In this way, the promises of the covenant are fulfilled” (20).

He continues by giving the importance of such a presentation: “The Abrahamic covenant offers no comfort to antinomians. The promises are not unconditional. The promise will not be fulfilled irrespective of any response on the part of Abraham and his children” (20).

Defending this presentation of the covenant against the charge of legalism, Shepherd writes, “Fulfilling the obligations of the Abrahamic covenant is never represented as meritorious achievement. The Abrahamic covenant gives no comfort to legalists, just as it gives none to antinomians. There are at least two ways to demonstrate this point” (20).

First, he brings up the whole matter of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael.

Hagar and Ishmael are symbolic of human effort to achieve blessing. They are symbolic of the merit of works. This is not how the promises are realized. When God, therefore, calls for faith that is living and active, and for a blameless walk through life, he is not asking for what Abraham tried to accomplish with Hagar and Ishmael. The obedience that leads to the fulfillment of the promise is totally different. It is the expression of faith and trust in the Lord, not expression of confidence in human effort. (21)

Second, he points to the nation of Israel’s entrance into the promised land as the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise to Abraham.

This triumphal entry was in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, but it happened in the way of faith and obedience…What is of importance here is the warning that Moses gave to the Israelites just as they were about to enter…“Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people” [Deut. 9:6]. Moses was saying in the clearest possible way that the inheritance does not come because of human achievement or merit. Israel had not made herself worthy of receiving what was promised to Abraham. The land was a free gift of God’s grace, but it could be received only by a living and active faith. (21–22)

According to Shepherd, the obligation to faith as response to the divine promise and the obligation to the obedience of faith as response to the divine command are not meritorious conditions because the obedience of faith is an obedience that arises out of trust and is so different from the obedience that arises out of confidence in human efforts.

Summarizing his position on the covenant of God with Abraham, Norman Shepherd writes,

The Abrahamic covenant cannot give comfort to the antinomians, but neither can it give comfort to the legalists. The Abrahamic covenant was not unconditional, but neither were its conditions meritorious…In the Abrahamic covenant, there are promises and obligations. The blessings of the covenant are the gifts of God’s free grace, and they are received by way of a living and active faith. Salvation is by grace through faith. By grace and through faith! (22)

 

Shepherd’s Covenant Doctrine Analyzed

How are we to analyze this? Notice that there is a vigorous denial of merit and human achievement. There is the insistence that all responding, believing, obeying, and fulfilling obligations is by grace. But the sum of it all is this: the covenant promise is realized in the way of responding, believing, obeying, and fulfilling obligations.

It is true that the covenant includes God’s gracious promise. He gives his elect people the covenant by promise. There is also the truth that in all covenants there are two parts and that the second part of the covenant is an obligation. However, the relationship between these two parts is not that divine initiative or divine promise is brought into effect by human response or human obligation. The relationship is not that divine promise and human obligation are simply laid side by side.

The rejection of Shepherd’s covenant doctrine is not simply about rejecting a promise wider than election or rejecting the use of the word condition or contingent. For much of his presentation of the covenant, he simply leaves the whole subject of election and reprobation out of view. He speaks strictly of the promise and the obligation. And then when speaking of the promise, Norman Shepherd does not always use the word condition. For instance, in The Call of Grace, he writes concerning the covenant promise, “The promise [of the covenant] comes to fulfillment in the lives of God’s people in the way of covenantal loyalty and obedience” (23).

How many would reject this? 

It must be rejected. The covenant promise of God does not come to fulfillment in the lives of God’s people in the way of obedience.

Rather, as the Protestant Reformed Churches pointed out in their controversy with Liberated Reformed covenant theology in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the relationship between the promise and obedience is that obedience is the fruit of the fulfillment of the promise.

We maintain:

1. That God surely and infallibly fulfills His promise to the elect.

2. The sure promise of God which He realizes in us as rational and moral creatures not only makes it impossible that we should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness but also confronts us with the obligation of love, to walk in a new and holy life, and constantly to watch unto prayer. (Declaration of Principles of the Protestant Reformed Churches, in Confessions and Church Order, 426)

The infallible and sure realization of the promise of God in the elect is the source of their obedience and confronts them with their obligations.

This truth stands over against the idea that their obedience is the way to the fulfillment of the covenant promise.

The language used by Shepherd is important to recognize. He masks the conditional character of the covenant promise and teaches conditions in the realization of that promise without ever using the word condition or contingent or mentioning to whom the promise is given. He teaches a conditional promise because he says that the realization of the promise is by means of an obedient faith—faith and its obedience. Faith itself is man’s obligation. Faith is that which a man must do to be saved. The obedience of faith is man’s obligation in response to divine command. Without faith and faith’s obedience, the covenant promise is not realized. All the emphasis is on what a man must do. He must do faith, and he must do obedience, and in the way of faith and obedience, trusting and obeying, God graciously realizes and fulfills his promise.

It must be noted that Shepherd uses the phrase in the way of interchangeably with the word condition. They are the same for him. It is not enough, therefore, simply to use the phrase in the way of as an acceptable alternative to the word condition.

Especially since that phrase was used in the recent doctrinal controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches both to mask and to defend false doctrine about the way of salvation—the perfect sufficiency of the work of Christ for salvation, justification, and the covenant of grace—that phrase must not be used as though its mere use is a defense of the theology in question. The phrase must be used in its proper sense, namely, that the sovereign God in his salvation of his elect people in the covenant saves them as rational, moral creatures who are responsible to God in the covenant of grace. But never may the impression be left, never may the phrase be so used, that the rational, moral activity of the child of God is that upon which the efficacy, the fulfillment, or the reception of the promise of God depends. That is federal vision, whether the word condition is used or not.

It is important as well to note Shepherd’s caricature of the unconditional promise. According to him an unconditional promise would be fulfilled irrespective of a response—obedient faith—in those to whom it has been given. Such a view he writes off as inherently antinomian. But this very caricature of the unconditional covenant promise proceeds from the viewpoint of Shepherd’s false doctrine that the promise of God is fulfilled through the response of those to whom it was given. It is a caricature, really, of divine sovereignty in salvation. 

In salvation God is absolutely sovereign. His promise depends for its fulfillment upon nothing in man and upon nothing that man does, not fulfilling his obligations or his responsibilities. Rather, man’s obligations to new obedience, the second part of the baptism form, is the fruit of the infallible realization of God’s promise in his elect people, and that infallible realization of God’s promise in his elect people confronts them also with that obligation.

Shepherd’s Reasons for His Covenant Doctrine

I believe it is also necessary to highlight Norman Shepherd’s explanation for the development of his covenant doctrine.

His first concern was to find a solution to the supposed two ditches of antinomianism and legalism. He mentions this throughout his treatment of the doctrine of the covenant. His doctrine gives no refuge for antinomians and no comfort to legalists. He states the problem of the gospel and thus of the covenant this way: 

How do you preach grace without suggesting that it makes no difference what your lifestyle is like? In other words, how do you preach grace without being antinomian? On the other hand, how do you preach repentance without calling into question salvation by grace apart from works? How do you insist on obedience without being legalistic? (8–9)

The answer is his doctrine of the covenant:

We can find the answers to these questions in the light of the biblical doctrine of the covenant…Divine grace and human responsibility are not antithetical to one another. They are the two sides, or the two parts, of the covenant that God has made with us and with our children. (9)

Shepherd creates his own conundrum. His real issue, put crudely, is, how do you get people to obey? How do you prompt godliness? How do you make God’s people thankful? The answer of Shepherd, when you strip away all the extra verbal baggage and uncover the nakedness of his error, is to hinge their salvation or some blessing on obedience. 

The answer of scripture is, preach the gospel to them. Preach the pure gospel of salvation by God’s sovereign grace alone, especially justification by faith alone without the works of the law. Preach what justification grants: life, the Holy Spirit, everlasting righteousness, salvation, eternal life. Justifying faith is always fruitful, and justifying faith can be instructed in all the ways of God’s law out of thankfulness. Preach the sovereign and infallible realization of God’s covenant promise that also confronts God’s people with their obligation to live a holy life. 

Do not preach that you obey and then you get God’s blessing. Do not preach that works confirm or assure justifying faith. That is federal vision.

Second, Shepherd’s doctrine was to provide a way forward in ecumenism, especially with evangelicals and Rome. He writes, 

On the threshold of a new century and a new millennium, we are painfully aware of the challenge of secularization…Many believe that we are living in a post-Christian era. In the face of this, Christians sense the need to band together to offer resistance. (3)

His doctrine of the covenant is a way for Christians of every denomination to unite together to confront a broad range of social issues.

He is right. The one doctrine that distinguishes and separates more than any other is the doctrine of the unconditional covenant and with it all the doctrines of unconditional salvation as found in the Canons of Dordt.

If the Protestant Reformed Churches adopt the thinking, the language, the emphasis, and thus de facto the theology of the federal vision, they will have no reason to remain separate from any other Reformed churches and, ultimately, will have no reason to remain separate from Rome herself.