As you know, I believe and have defended with great vigor that the covenant is established solely with Christ and in Him the elect. I do allow, however, for people to speak in terms of the covenant administration, which includes conscious hypocrites and non-elect infants. Accordingly, I will allow for the label of "covenant breaker", if by the term what is being referred to are those who have gone out from us, but were not truly of us. Such partake of the covenant signs and seals, but never improve upon their baptism as it were.
As for Romans 2:13, I do trust that you would not say that Sheperd believes that those who are justified will keep the law perfectly. I believe this is key. Obviously, if Sheperd agreed with your rendering of the passage, he would not use it as a proof-text for his position. In other words, I think you are saying that the apostle Paul is speaking of the hypothetical situation that those who keep the law perfectly will be saved. This, I believe you would say, is setting the reader up for the doctrine of an alien righteousness apart from law-works, since nobody can keep the law perfectly. However, when Sheperd says that “those who keep the law will be justified”, I don’t think it is fair to import your interpretation of the passage (even if it were the correct one) back into Sheperd’s argument. In other words, as I see it, Sheperd, having a different interpretation of the passage, is saying that those who keep the law (though imperfectly) are the ones that God justifies (but not because of their law keeping). That’s all I’m saying. Again, unless you think that Sheperd believes that perfect law-keeping is necessary for salvation, I don’t think that your interpretation of Romans 2:13 can be used to hang him with; even if your interpretation is the correct one. I hope that makes sense. It's late and I'm going to bed.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/doze.gif" alt="doze" title="doze[/img]
