In reply to:[color:"blue"]19. Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are his disciples, who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God, are in a state of justification and will be justified on the day of judgment; whereas unbelieving, ungodly, unrighteous, and impenitent sinners who are covenant breakers or strangers to the covenant of grace, etc.
ANS: An unbeliever cannot break a covenant that has not been established. This is where Shepherd and his followers begin their journey from the path of truth.
I know what you’re saying, but I would take the term “covenant breaker” as one who participated in the outward administration of the covenant, but did not possess what the covenant contemplates.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]20. The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, "the doers of the Law will be justified," is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25)
ANS: Justification is a judicial/forensic declaration, pronouncement of a sinner's acquittal due to the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is a right standing before God, not a "class".
I think by class, what he means is the set of people who are justified. In this sense, I don’t see that he denies the forensic nature of justification.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]21. The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).
ANS: Notice here that he has moved from a "class" to a tentative "state" of justification. It is here that Shepherd & co., clearly deny Sola Fide and have fallen back into synergism.
I can’t disagree here. His words do seem to suggest that justification is tentative and contingent upon persevering in good works. You are correct, he seems to ignore that justification is legal and objective and not subjective. I would hope that this was a miscommunication and he was trying to convey that the justified must press on to the mark, or become a castaway – though that could never happen.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]22. The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).
ANS: Now, here we have the clearest statement and denial of Sola Fide. For he makes personal godliness, aka: "works" necessary to secure justification. The very nature of justification is changed from a forensic declaration to a "state" or "class" which is dependent upon one's works in addition to the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ.
As I said already, the word “necessary” is a very poor choice of words at best. What brings the greatest reproach on these men is that the WCF unambiguously addresses faith and works in the context of salvation. So why do men feel the need to jettison the church’s Confession(s) for novel terms, if indeed they are truly in agreement with the Reformed tradition?
As for defending Sheperd and the like, I really don’t care to spend my time in this way. As Jason alluded to about S.S. and it may apply here as well, a confusing writer seems to intentionally make his own bed, so I will let this one lie in it or speak for himself. I go to great pains to make my writings clear and have a hard enough time defending what I write half the time…. So I really cannot sympathize too much with those who after repeated questioning leave obvious ambiguities in their writings. Fair enough?
