Dancer’s Notes and Quotes

Mark Horne’s Review of The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation & Evangelism

The Call of grace is an excellent introduction to Covenant Theology. Most often it appears in the PCA as a part of a rationale for infant baptism, but little else.

The book cuts the Gordian knot between legalism and antinomianism.

The book assumes much - doctrine of the decrees, prevenient and invincible grace, and justification by faith alone.

There are many shrill slanders against this book. But he is completely in accord with the standards.

Shepherd wants pastors to be able to assure congregations that they are members of Christ, as Paul (1 Cor.1:4-9; 12:27). But Paul has warnings: (10:14-22; 15:2).

The standards show the necessity of 1) faith 2) repentance 3) the right use of the means (word, baptism, supper).

Categories: HorneM, ShepherdN, TheCall

Barry Hofstetter’s second note in response to Norman Shepherd.

Norman Shepherd has not interacted with the breadth of reformed theology on this matter. The CoW can be argued from Genesis 1-3. The picture is one of two traitors in rebellion against God, the penalty for which was death. The structure of obedience–> life, disobedience –> death is covenantal. So the CoW is consistent with the text and the cultural background. Without interaction with other writers he is effectively presenting a straw man.

Hofstetter argues that the death and resurrection mean something because of the perfect life. The temptation narratives show the reversal of the fall of Adam. The holiness of Christ means that those in Christ are made holy. Of course by his death and resurrection we obtain life.

The Heidelberg catechism Q60 asserts the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the crucifixion. There is no dichotomy.

Shepherd says that we inherit guilt and corruption, but he fails to say how. Murray shows that it is by imputation.

The disagreement is not over whether benefits are applied in union with Christ, but how.

The sacraments memorialise (an more) the death of Christ in all its aspects, including the active obedience of Christ.

Categories: HostetterB, ShepherdN, TheCall

Copy of Norman Shepherd’s response to Barry Hofstetter’s original post.

The CoW and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness imply one another. Shepherd criticises both because neither have strong exegetical foundations.

The effect of CoW is that the cross retreats to into the background. But the death and resurrection of Christ are on every page of the NT. But the imputation of active obedience has weak evidence. The death and resurrection of Christ dealt with both problems that Adam’s sin left us with: the guilt and power of sin.

The parallel between Adam and Christ lies not in a CoW but in that one act of sin caused death to enter human experience, but one act of righteousness caused righteousness and life entered human experience.

There is no sacrifice to memorialise active obedience of Christ.

Categories: ShepherdN, TheCall, HofstetterB

Barry Hofstetter’s article, Non-Meritorious Works where he looks at the implications of Shepherd’s assertion in The Call of Grace that works are always non-meritorious.

The implication is that Christ cannot have merited salvation for us. Christ earned our salvation through God’s grace, not law. The problem is that no amount of covenant faithfulness can win back what was lost. There is a need for a Messiah-Saviour.

Christ is the second Adam. Since the sin of adam was imputed, so alo must the righteousness of Christ be imputed to those united with him. Otherwise how can God be just and the justifier of the believer in Christ?

Not only does Shepherd’s view overturn the CoW but also the CoG.

Categories: HofstetterB, ShepherdN, TheCall

Notes from this review by Cornelius Venema.

Summary of the Book
Shepherd makes a case for a view of the covenant which resolves some of the problems of Reformed theology. The continuing problem of resolving antinomianism and legalism is the downside of the legacy of the reformation. It raises the question that only the biblical doctrine of covenant satisfactorily answers — “how do you preach grace without being antinomian? … [H]ow do you preach repentance without calling into question salvation by grace apart from works?” (pp. 8-9)

Shepherd reviews the CoG in its A, M and N covenant adminitrations, showing the two parts - promise and demand. It is incorrect to se the AC as grace, and the MC as law. Both have promise and demand. The MC shows the same pattern as AC and should not be interpreted as a republication of the CoW.

Shepherd does not see works as meritorious. Thus Paul’s contrast of law and faith (Rom 10:5,6 Gal. 3:12) is ad hominem against Judaisers who misused the MC.

The NC has promise in Christ and obligations of faith and repentance. These are not meritorious either. The MC fails not because of inability to keep the commands, but because it does no longer operate. The newness of the NC is not grace but the person of Christ who gives power to obey.

The proble, acc. shepherd, with RC or evangelical theology is the concept of merit. RC: believers merit salvation. Evangelcal: Christ merits salvation for us. Covenant gets rid of this.

The reformed pastor needs covenant-evangelism, not election/regeneration evangelism. The CG is the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. The preacher extends the gospel to covenant breakers in adam. Therefore to say “Christ died for you” is OK.

Eph 1:1-14 is covenantal language. Baptism is the point of regeneration.

Critique of the Book
Shepherd recognises the unity of the covenants. He rightly insists upon mutuality and conditionality of the covenant relationship. Therefore it is unconditional in its initiation by God, but conditional in its administration. Shepherd rightly opposes the view of the MC as a ‘covenant of law’. The covenant establishes human responsibility. Otherwise, seen from the point of view of election, it is difficult to accommodate the scriptural emphasis on human responsibility.

The GC is rightly seen as the fulfilment of the AC promise and ensures that evangelism is not simply plucking brands from a fire, but establishing the kingdom of God.

Shepherd asserts that the preacher cannot approach the sinner with gospel promises because he remains unsure about whether the sinner is elect or not. There then ensues a hunt for evidences of regeneration. Shepherd helpfully reminds us to approach lost sinners with the gospel of grace in Christ, making judgements in terms of the covenant’s administration.

But there are troublesome features of Shepherd’s treatment:

1. Given the reformulation he proposes, it is surprising that there is almost no quotation from previous authors. Nor does he quote the confessions. The burden of proof is still upon his shoulders.
2. The administration of pre- and post-fall covenants is almost identical. The fall itself has no effect. Therefore the receipt of the inheritance depends on faithful covenant-keeping.
3. The flattening out of the pre- and post-fall covenants means implications for how we view the respective ‘work’ of Adam and Christ. Shepherd argues that merit has no place in the relationship between a father and child. The consequence of this is that Christ is seen as little more than a model believer. In ignoring the pre- and post-fall administrations, there is little room for Christ’s uniquness as mediator whose work was sufficient.
4. This all raises questions about Shepherd’s doctrine of justification. Followers must be like Christ in obedience in order to inherit eternal life. It appears there are additional grounds for the believer’s acceptance before God that Christ’s work.
5. Shepherd rejects the idea of merit, even from the work of Christ. But this requires a revision of his role as Mediator. The merit of his work provides satisfaction. Grace and justice, mercy and satisfaction are not at odds.
6. The problem with seeing election through the eyes of covenant is that all baptised are considered elect, but may lose their salvation, thus imperiling assurance of salvation. Need to distinguish between the covenant in its administration and the covenant in its fruition. Shepherd’s view sounds like conditional election.

These views raise more problems than those in the formulations that he seeks to correct.

Categories: VenemaC, ShepherdN, TheCall

Reformed evangelism which is oriented to election is oriented to regeneration, which comes before faith.

However, when viewed from the point of covenant, baptism becomes the point of conversion and salvation. This is not the point of transition from death to life - that is a matter for the Spirit. OTOH we hear a profession and see a baptism. This is the point of union with Christ.

The pastor must make a two-fold application of his message, one to the regenerate, one to the non-regenerate. Personal judgements are made. This rightly belongs in the hands of God. However, once the evangelist makes the judgement he seeks to lead the person to the point of regeneration. He will do so by showing the impossibility of perfect obedience to the law. He will urge the person to cry out for a new heart to believe and repent. This then leads to baptism.

Problem: is this method not encroaching on the work of the Spirit? It is difficult to see how a method which calls for a new heart and holds Christ at a distance can be good news when he is told that he cannot do anything.

Works in the regenerated person are prized for their evidential value. However, the ‘new obedience’ is often presented as minimal. Sin is dominant. Therefore assurance is difficult. Attention is then given to the experience of others as a pattern. Baptism is discounted as the transition point.

Paul’s conversion - does not say that he was regenerated - only that he was baptised. Paul refers the Romans to their baptism in urging obedience (Rom 6:1-11). Baptism marks the transition from death to life. It is the sacramental side of the total renewal.

The good news is often misunderstood in terms of meritorious works righteousness. But the answer is not to turn it inside out and to wait passively for regeneration. Matthew and Luke do not call for faith, only repentance and obedience.

Discipline does not begin with mental excummunication and then neglect. It begins with teaching and encouragement. If sin is persistent then there follows excommunication. Evangelism proceeds not because some have a native ability to believe. Rather because Jesus is the only saviour.

Categories: ShepherdN, TheCall

Arminianism is a reaction to Calvinism which asserts that people are free to respond to the gospel. The offer can be addressed in the 2nd person so it is heard to be ‘good’. But it is not good because salvation depends on some act of the hearer.

The five points control calvinist evangelism. ‘Unfortunately’ the preacher must preach to all since he does not know who are elect. The pastor hesitates to say for sure what Christ has done for anyone, inside or outside the church, because he cannot be sure he is speaking to the elect. Application is often in the 3rd person with the exception of the T, since all have sinned. Hence reformed preaching gets the reputation of emphasising sin and therefore seems to be light on grace. At best all the reformed pastor can do is wait for revival.

The answer is the covenant. The bible speaks of the predestinating grace of God, yet the angel came with good news for all people. (Lk 2:10) Election must be looked at from the perspective of covenant. Only as there is faithful obedience can election be understood. Evangelism addresses people as covenant breakers. The call is to faithfulness with the assurance that Jesus receives those who call.

Jn 3:16: the arminian hedges on the sufficiency of the atonement, the calvinist hedges on the extent of the world. This verse must be allowed to say “Christ died for you” [does it say that?] The call to believe is not made on the assumption of election, but because God has made a way possible through his Son. W call because only by believing can sinners gain eternal life. Then we know the electing love of God.

Eph. 1:1-14. Is it covenant in the light of election or election in the light of covenant? When he “elected us”, who is the “us”? Are they those who would be eternally elect?
Every member, knowing that they are all elect? Not likely.
Only the elect within the roll? How would they know who is being addressed?
All on the roll, on the basis of their visible faith and sanctity. Some will fall into apostasy and he will then treat them as non-elect. Therefore there are warnings. But there is nothing about having to address all in the congregation.

Jn15:1-8. The vine (Christ) feeds both the fruitful and unfruitful. The normal response is that the unproductive branches are not savingly connected. The productive ones are connected savingly. The distinction is made between outward and inward to resolve the problem. This is often invoked when the text is viewed from the point of view of election not covenant.

Deut 29:29 does not mean that we do not know who the elect are. It means that we cannot conduct our affairs as God does, from the pov of election.

Categories: ShepherdN, TheCall

The great commission arises from the Abrahamic covenant.

The promises of the AC are a people and land. The people are all nations, the land the earth. The heart of the privilege is union and communion with God.

Only with the coming of Jesus, the seed, can the promises be fulfilled. The spread to all nations occurs with the coming of the HS.

There is also responsibility - obedience. Both for Abraham and for the disciples (Mt 28:20). The people of God are to seek righteousness. The gospel of the kingdom is the sermon on the mount.

Baptism is the replacement for circumcision.

Thus the methodology of the great commission must a covenant methodology.

Categories: ShepherdN, TheCall

Covenant Light on Evangelism [Intro to part 2]

Arminian churches seem to be the ones overflowing while reformed churches seem to be small. The more pure in doctrine the smaller they are.

Is the problem particularism? i.e only for the elect. So the gospel is not good news for the reprobate?

The place of the law. The evangelist must require repentance. But how does this fit with the fact that salvation is not a matter of the will?

There are those who have sought to resolve the apparent paradox. However the questions remain.

Viewing evangelism from a covenant perspective rather than an election perspective would solve the problems.

Categories: ShepherdN, TheCall

Catholics believe in salvation by grace through faith. However, the council of trent makes clear that salvation is by merit of good works. Grace comes through the help of the church which is received by faith. This is faulty at 2 levels: first, a place is given to merit. However this allows boasting. But second, the idea of merit at all. The biblical demands for repentance and obedience cannot be seen as an invitation to salvation by merit, but rather as a call to covenant faithfulness. RC should move from works/merit to covenant.

Evangelical Protestants reject merit as a means of salvation but do not reject the idea of merit itself. Therefore the existence of good works seems to present a threat to salvation by grace.

The answer is the covenantal view with promise and obligation: salvation by grace through faith.

Categories: ShepherdN, TheCall