by Wes White
[Editor's note: This article was originally posted at Johannes Weslianus, the former site of PCA Pastor Wes White. Reprinted with permission]
The simple answer that Protestants have always given over
against Rome , Socinianism, and some
Arminianism is, “No.” The Protestant doctrine is that sinners are justified by
faith looking to Christ and not by faith plus obedience.
For years, Norman Shepherd and his Federal Visionist
grandchildren have been saying, “Yes.” We are justified by an obedient faith.
For a long time, I did not see the problem with saying that
we are justified by an obedient faith for two reasons.
1. Faith is obedience to a command of God, even though that
fact has nothing to do with why faith justifies.
2. True faith always issues forth in obedience. As the
Westminster Confession of Faith says, “It is never alone in the person
justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead
faith, but worketh by love” (11.2).
So, what’s the problem?
The problem is that faith is one thing, and faithfulness is
another. Faith is one thing, and obedience to God’s other commands is another.
Faith is one thing, and penitence is another. Faith is one thing, and love is
another.
Faith is something distinct from these other virtues. It is
knowledge, assent, and trust. It receives and accepts. Love gives. These two
things must be carefully distinguished, and love must be excluded from all
efficacy in our justification.
In the matter of justification we are justified by faith.
Period. “We conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of
the law” (Rom. 3:28 ).
To say that in the matter of justification before God, we
are justified by an obedient faith is to deny the Apostles’ teachings. It is
faith in Christ plus nothing that effects justification.
To say that our justification is effected by a living,
active, obedient, penitent faith is to add works into our justification. It is
to say that our works can effect our justification. It is a salvation by
obedience. It is to make the promise of no effect. It is to eliminate the
gracious and free nature of our justification (Rom. 4:16 ).
What the Federal Visionists Teach
For a long time, I wanted to believe that Norman Shepherd and the Federal
Visionists meant “justified by an obedient faith” in the good senses mentioned
above. However, the evidence compels me to think otherwise. We must be ready to
receive others charitably, but we must also be on guard against allowing heresy
to spread.
The Federal Visionists wrote a reply to Westminster West’s
book Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (I do
recommend the West book). It is called A Faith that is Never Alone. In this
book, Norman Shepherd states as clearly as he possibly could:
We must not set faith and faithfulness over against each
other as antithetical and mutually exclusive principles of gospel and law when
it comes to the justification of a sinner before almighty God. (p. 72)
Faithfulness should not be excluded from faith in the matter
of the justification of a sinner before God, says Shepherd. Thus, for Shepherd,
we are not justified by faith alone. We are justified by faith and
faithfulness, faith plus works, man’s work plus Christ’s. How could we have a
clearer denial of the sola fide of the Bible and the Reformation?
Now, I have already had someone say on this blog that I’m
wrongfully imputing to the Federal Visionists the views of Norman Shepherd.
Well, John Armstrong, Don Garlington, Mark Horne, Peter Leithart, Rich Lusk,
and P. Andrew Sandlin all wrote articles in that book. If any of them would
like to say that Shepherd is wrong, then I’ll gladly open my blog for them to
do so.
However, there’s more. P. Andrew Sandlin does the same
thing. He includes obedience in faith’s justifying work. In responding to
Horton (who I actually think perhaps goes too far to meet them), he summarizes
Horton’s view this way:
The faith that justifies is “living, active, and obedient,”
but when it actually does justify (instrumentally), it is not “living, active,
and obedient” but “passive trust in the finished work of Christ.” (p. 218).
You might think that Sandlin would respond by saying,
“Thanks, Michael. That’s a fair way to get at these issues.” Instead, he says:
This tangled terminology is an effect of a tangled
soteriology. It is inconceivable that the Biblical authors — take as just one
example the writer of Hebrews 11 — could have posited contrasting definitions
of faith — “justifying faith” versus “the faith that justifies” or have
isolated that aspect of faith that comprises ‘passive trust in the finished
work of Christ’ from the aspect of faith which is “living, active, and
obedient.” (Ibid.)
This is a plain denial of faith alone by redefining faith to
include obedience.
The blog De Regno Christi hosted a discussion on FV a few years
back. They were asked the following question by William Chellis, “Does the FV
distinguish between the narrow instrumental/receptive nature of justifying
faith from the broader concept of obedient faithfulness?”
Here was Peter Liethart’s enthusiastic affirmation of faith
alone:
Questions back to you:
What kind of distinction are you suggesting?
A temporal one? As in, for one moment, faith is alone in the person justified
but later isn’t? A logical one? What would that mean?
What is the nature of justifying faith? Is it active, living faith? Is it
trust, assent, knowledge?
Peter, I think the answer that you were looking for to
William Chellis’ question is, “No. The FV does not distinguish.”
Consider also P. Andrew Sandlin’s comment on the same post:
Hebrews 11 convinced me. Obviously the “resting/passive”
element is there in the first few verses, but this faith is everywhere
vigorous, obedient, active not merely as an effect of that faith but
constitutive of that faith itself.
This would comport well with the Racovian Catechism, which teaches that obedience is
included in faith. It says:
You include then in that faith to which alone and in reality
salvation is ascribed, not only trust, but obedience also ? I do so . . . it is
necessary that the faith to which alone and in reality salvation is ascribed,
or which alone is necessarily followed by salvation, should comprehend
[include] obedience.
In contrast the Reformed Confessions teach that faith
justifies “only as an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and
his righteousness” (WLC Q. 73).
This brings us finally to the Joint Federal Vision Statement. This is the Federal
Vision Statement written by Douglas Wilson and signed by PCA Pastor Jeff
Meyers. It says:
We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of
justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith
which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith.
Now, notice that last phrase, “personally loyal faith.”
Here’s how dictionary.com defines
loyalty:
The state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to
commitments or obligations.
Faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader,
cause, etc.
They tried to slip one past us by using the word “loyal”
instead of “faithful,” but it means basically the same thing. Faithfulness to
commitments and faithful adherence, according to the Federal Visionists, is
included in the “sole instrument of justification.” This is justification by
faithfulness, justification by obedience, and justification by works. This is a
rejection of the sola fide of the Reformation.
Conclusion
Now, let’s go back to the book A Faith that is Never Alone. In Shepherd’s
article “Faith and Faithfulness,” his criticism of Godfrey is that he believes
that Godfrey holds to a faith that really is alone. If this means that Shepherd
believes that Godfrey does not believe in sanctification, then I think the
attack is absurd. However, if Shepherd means that Godfrey holds to a faith that
is alone and excludes obedience in justification, then his criticism is
correct. However, his criticism is not only a criticism of Godfrey. It is a
criticism of the entire Protestant Reformation.
The trouble with books like this one is that men like Douglas Green, Professor of Old Testament at Westminster in Philadelphia actually recommend books like this. This is what does even more damage. He says that this is “a stimulating reflection on the relationship of faith and good works.” He says that this book is “a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate over justification” (back-cover blurb). What ongoing debate is he talking about? The debate against the Protestant Reformation? Does the spirit of Norman Shepherd still haunt the halls that Machen built?
This book is not a valuable contribution. It is an awful
attack on the Protestant Reformation. When they say faith that is never alone,
they mean it. For the Federal Visionists, faith alone does not justify.
Faithfulness justifies. Obedience justifies. Loyalty justifies.
Those who hold to the Biblical faith against the Federal
Visionists need to stand up and reject this for the denial of sola fide that
it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment