Continuing on in the first article of Norman Shepherd in A Faith That Is Never Alone (and finishing that article), we come to this question: when Paul is talking about faith versus works, is Paul excluding all works from justification, or only some works? From Norman Shepherd’s own pen, we can see that his definition of faith does not exclude faith itself as being a work. He approves of Godfrey’s translation of Romans 1:5 of the phrase “the obedience of faith,” but then completely misunderstands the direction in which Godfrey takes that translation. This is what Godfrey understands it to say: “Paul was not suggesting that believing is the one work God rewards, but rather was ironically teaching that faith looks away from itself and rests in the obedience of another” (emphasis added, pg. 279 of CJPM). Shepherd says this: “This interpretation (the correct translation of Romans 1:5) has the advantage of rightly defining faith as itself an act of obedience, and therefore as a work” (pg. 65). This is clearly not Godfrey’s interpretation of the phrase “the obedience of faith.” So, whatever “this interpretation” is, it certainly was not Godfrey’s. It is entirely misleading for Shepherd to suggest that it is.
Shepherd clearly confuses justification and sanctification on page 66, when he says this:
We are not justified by dead faith (faith without works) and we are not justified by dead works (works without faith). We are justified by living and active faith. This is the kind of faith Paul calls for in chapter 6 when he tells us not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies, and not to offer the parts of our bodies to sin.
In other words, Shepherd is saying that we are justified by a living and active faith that works. Works is therefore a constituent member of justifying faith. They have to be Spirit-filled works, of course. My question is this: how is this one iota different from Trent? Trent would be more than happy with this formulation. I go with Calvin, who resolutely adheres to the exclusive particle in the phrase “justification by faith alone.” By the way, it is clear that Shepherd does not agree with Luther and Calvin in their interpretation of Romans 3:28 (pg. 65). He sets up the traditional straw man that Godfrey and others are advocating a dead faith justifying.
To return to our original question: what works does Paul exclude from justification? They are any and all works. But Shepherd does not think so. He outright denies this position on page 67, when he says,
Now we have to ask, what are these “works of the law?” They are not simply any and all good works, as Godfrey and many others thing, nor are they simply the ceremonial aspects of the law without the moral aspects…By ”works of the law” Paul is referring to the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant delivered to Israel on Mount Sinai, summarizing the promises and obligations under which Israel lived from the time of the Exodus to the advent of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant.
In other words, not all works are excluded from justification itself! Calvin says this (commentary on Romans 3:21): “But that the Apostle includes all works without exception, even those which the Lord produces in his own people, is evident from the context. For no doubt Abraham was regenerated and led by the Spirit of God at the time when he denies that he was justified by works. Hence he excluded from man’s justification not only works morally good, as they commonly call them, and such as are done by the impulse of nature, but also all those which even the faithful can perform” (pp. 134-135). It is to this passage in the commentary that Calvin refers, when he says later on 3:28 “Why he names the works of the law, I have already explained; and I have also proved that it is quite absurd to confine them to ceremonies. Frigid also is the gloss, that works are to be taken for those which are outward, and done without the Spirit of Christ. On the contrary, the word law that is added, means the same as though he called them meritorious; for what is referred to is the reward promised in the law” (pp. 148-149).
Furthermore, in reconciling James and Paul, Shepherd advocates the very position that Calvin calls a ”gross sophistry.” Calvin says that the term “justify” is used differently in James than in Paul (pg. 149 of the Romans commentary). Calvin says that the term “justify” and the term “faith” is used in two different senses. It is useless for Shepherd to appeal to Machen on this score, since Machen did not address the question of whether “to justify” means something different in James versus Paul. Shepherd says that the position that “justify” is used differently is “exegetically untenable” (pg. 64). This is bare assertion without any proof or argumentation.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
greenbaggins said,
May 9, 2008 at 11:24 am
You are completely overlooking the grammatical question (which must be decided by individual contexts) of whether “the faith of Jesus Christ” is an objective genitive (having Jesus Christ as the object), or subjective genitive (Jesus is the subject of the faith). One CANNOT simply import the exegetical decisions of one passage’s genitive into another passage.
magma2 said,
May 9, 2008 at 11:47 am
I’d say it’s not different in the least. But, my question is: how is Shepherd’s view of faith one iota different from Wilson’s or that of the JFVS?
jared said,
May 9, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Lane,
Are you suggesting that we aren’t “justified by a living and active faith”? I agree with you that works are not a part of justification, Shepherd is clearly mistaken; but how does that also eliminate works (or obedience) as a necessary part of genuine faith? This is different from Trent in that it is the faith (which must be living and active) which justifies while the works (which must accompany a living and active faith) do nothing but demonstrate that one, in fact, has a living and active faith. In other words, Trent says that works are necessary for justification where as Westminster says that works are necessary for faith (which, in turn, is the only thing necessary for justification). Trent says faith and works while Westminster says faith with works (or a faith that works, if you prefer). A diagram could be helpful:
Faith —> Justification and Salvation and Sanctification —> Works
Faith and Works —> Justification and Sanctification —> Salvation
Can you guess which is which? Of course these are crude and simplistic but the fundamental difference(s) between the two should be clear. While Shepherd may fit in the latter (in some form or fashion), I think FV largely fits in the former.
greenbaggins said,
May 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm
You know, I find it absolutely fascinating that every time one of the critics says something like “No works of any kind are any part of justification,” we are immediately accused of advocating a justification by dead faith. The faith that justifies is always a living faith. But this must be qualified by saying that the only part of faith that is operative ***in justification itself*** is the fact that it receives and applies Christ and his righteousness. See WLC 73 for an excellent and balanced statement on this. Faith does not justify because it is alive. Faith justifies because it lays hold of Christ. The faith that lays hold of Christ is always alive. Do you see where I’m going with this?
Roger Mann said,
May 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm
3: Sean wrote,
Welcome back Sean! :-) And great question! But, my question to Lane is: why do you continue to allow Rey to promote blatant heresy on your blog? By the way, I thought the “Gracious Covenant of Works” thread was just getting interesting when you decided to shut it down — I hope you’ll reconsider opening it.
RBerman said,
May 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Jared, none of your choices in #5 represents the Reformed view, which is:
Salvation: Election -> Regeneration, Election, Adoption, Justification -> Faith and works
greenbaggins said,
May 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I didn’t technically allow Sean back, actually. I won’t delete the comment, though.
The thread that was shut down was shut down because of condescension on the part of people, who seem to think that because I do not wish to discuss certain matters, that therefore I am ignorant of them.
RBerman said,
May 9, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Bah, ignore the second “election” in my diagram, in case that wasn’t obvious. My fingers got away from me.
Jeff Cagle said,
May 9, 2008 at 3:09 pm
LK:
You know, I find it absolutely fascinating that every time one of the critics says something like “No works of any kind are any part of justification,” we are immediately accused of advocating a justification by dead faith.
I do too. It clearly represents a disconnect in the communication. Somehow and somewhere, someone has framed the issue as a false dilemma: Either works of some kind are involved in justification, or else justifying faith can be dead.
Since we all deny the latter, it must be the former … except that the Reformers to a man disavowed this dilemma.
So I don’t know whether the solution is better communication or else a request for fairer representation, but something has to give here.
Jared:
Are you suggesting that we aren’t “justified by a living and active faith”? I agree with you that works are not a part of justification, Shepherd is clearly mistaken; but how does that also eliminate works (or obedience) as a necessary part of genuine faith?
The other option is that works are a necessary consequence of genuine faith because of the work of the Spirit in the lives of genuine believers.
Faith unites us to Christ and causes the Spirit to indwell us; the indwelling Spirit wars against the desires of the flesh and produces the fruit of the Spirit; works are therefore necessarily produced as a result of genuine faith, but NOT produced by genuine faith as an autonomous cause.
In other words, if we follow Paul and examine the mechanism by which works are produced, it is the Spirit, and not our faith directly, that produces them (Rom 6, 8). But if we step outside the mechanism and consider the believer externally, we get James’ perspective: a living faith always produces works.
mroe discussion
Jeff Cagle
magma2 said,
May 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm
My bad. I’ll keep my comments here for my “sewer blog.”
jared said,
May 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Lane,
I wasn’t trying to accuse, honestly. But it seems that whenever FV’ers want to include works in/with/along side faith they also get accused of wanting to include works in/with/alongside justification; I do not think that is necessarily the case.
You say,
Faith does not justify because it is alive. Faith justifies because it lays hold of Christ. The faith that lays hold of Christ is always alive. Do you see where I’m going with this?
I see exactly where you are going, and I agree. The cause of justification is God alone through a given faith which is alive (by grace). If it’s not alive then, obviously, it can’t lay hold of Christ.. However,it isn’t the fact that the faith is alive which justifies, rather it is the fact that it lays hold of Christ.
RBerman,
I wasn’t attempting to lay out the entire ordo, just demonstrating the difference between Trent and Westminster as far as works and faith are concerned. My father-in-law has a good series of posts on his blog which details the ordo and, as best as I can tell, the way you present it here is actually less Reformed than the small portion I used (and, I noted, crudely). You can check out the posts here if you want to, but I can present it more condensed here:
Foreknown -> Predestined -> Called -> Regeneration -> Repentance -> Faith -> Justification, Adoption, Definitive Sanctification -> Progressive Sanctification and Perseverance (works would fit in here) -> Glorification
That, as I understand, is the traditional ordo. Of course, this isn’t strictly chronological but you can see that my model isn’t exactly un-Reformed and it definitely isn’t Roman Catholic. I realize I shouldn’t have put “Salvation” in between faith and works because, in truth, salvation is sort of all-inclusive. At any rate, my point was made and addressed.
jared said,
May 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Jeff,
That is, essentially, what I am saying.
greenbaggins said,
May 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Right, but the problem here is that Shepherd *never* says that *all* works are excluded from justification. He cannot affirm and never says that it is faith *alone* that justifies. He will not keep justification and sanctification distinct.
jared said,
May 9, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Lane,
And would you impute Shepherd’s view upon the FV as a whole? I mean, the joint FV state says as much as you and I have said, which is in stark contrast with what Shepherd seems to be saying.
RBerman said,
May 9, 2008 at 8:50 pm
#13 Jared,
Thanks for the clarification. My main point was that regeneration precedes faith and works in the Reformed scheme. Your diagram in #13 is more complete than my hasty one. Would you say that it would be fair to put Union with Christ immediately after faith and before justification, adoption, and definitive sanctification? Or does it not occupy a separate conceptual slot in the scheme, or is it synonymous with elements already in the scheme?
Jeff Cagle said,
May 9, 2008 at 9:54 pm
But it seems that whenever FV’ers want to include works in/with/along side faith they also get accused of wanting to include works in/with/alongside justification; I do not think that is necessarily the case.
Yeah, this is the strange part about it.
On the one hand, the FV folk I’ve interacted with are pretty definite that works do not make a meritorious contribution to justification.
But they also wish to make works a part of the definition of genuine faith.
So that if one then says, “Works are a necessary consequence of being saved, but we are justified by faith apart from works”, then the objections start coming on: “Hey, are you saying that we can be saved by a dead faith?”
It’s very odd.
jared said,
May 9, 2008 at 10:00 pm
RBerman,
I definitely think faith precedes union since it is by faith that we, then, share in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I suppose that one could replace “justification, adoption and definitive sanctification” with the singular phrase “union with Christ” since there is an indistinguishable amount of time between their respective occurrences such that one could represent them as a singular event. I don’t know that I would put Union as separate and distinct from those three things as far as the ordo is concerned and, in fact, you could probably lump everything after “Faith” in with the phrase as well.
But in this same vein I think the phrase is vague and ambiguous, especially given the FV controversy. From a strictly covenantal viewpoint it seems that there is no way to separate at least a visible union with Christ from the physical rite of baptism. The problem, of course, is that not all who are physically baptized are, likewise, spiritually baptized and then the question arises whether or not one can be united to Christ in any way at all without being spiritually baptized (that is, can one be united to Christ in a non-saving manner). This, in turn, calls into question the legitimacy of declaring our baptized children covenant members because the descriptor “covenant member” seems to imply some relationship with/to the covenant Head, a relationship that, to my knowledge, can only be had via union. So the FV’ist ends up arguing that there can be saved and unsaved individuals who are united to Christ just as there are saved and unsaved members of the visible Church. The argument, naturally, rubs the critics the wrong way because, for whatever reason, there is no room for the theological notion of a non-saving union to Jesus even though the FV critic will allow for unsaved covenant members.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to get off on a tangent. I hope I’ve answered your questions. I agree with you that regeneration precedes faith and works. If the notion of union does (or should) occupy a separate conceptual slot in the scheme then I think it could be properly placed between faith and justification. However, like the notion of salvation, I think union is implicit in the scheme as it is even though it isn’t actually represented as its own category.
Mark C. said,
May 11, 2008 at 5:47 am
The thread that was shut down was shut down because of condescension on the part of people, who seem to think that because I do not wish to discuss certain matters, that therefore I am ignorant of them.
http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com
once more with feeling » Justifying Faith said,
May 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm
[...] This entry contains interpretations of Calvin that are, I think, tedentious and questionable. I won’t engage them but I will recommend that readers consult Peter Lillback’s The Binding of God: Calvins Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought) for some more relevant evidence about Calvin’s views. [...]