Galatians chapter 1, our topic is shepherdism, the doctrine of Norman Shepard. I spoke on the federal vision heresy back in 2003, so it's been a long time, so we're just going to go over some of this for review because I know you young adults were pretty small back then. And I'm going to read Galatians 1, 8 to 9. But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." And the critique of Shepherdism that we're gonna get today also applies to the Federalist and Heresy and they get most of their stuff from Shepherd, Norman Shepherd. One of the most dangerous heresies among those who claim to be within the Reformed wing of Protestantism is the federal vision. This doctrine which denies sola fide, that is faith alone, is really the child or legacy of Norman Shepard, who taught theology at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia from the mid-1960s, I believe 1964, to 1982. and then he was a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church until I think he retired in 1998. Shepard's version of covenant theology perverts the covenant of works with Adam, does not distinguish carefully between faith and works, or justification and sanctification, and denies the imputed righteousness of Christ. It also leads to sacramentalism. We're not gonna get to any sacramentalism today. Maybe I'll do another one on this later. Shepard's unique views were developed in the early 1970s or perhaps even earlier. And they led to a great theological controversy between 1975 and 1982 at Westminster Theological Seminary and in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And this, of course, would lead to the great controversy over the federal vision in 2002, which had a great impact on the PCA and the OPC, and even other churches, the Reformed Episcopal Church and other churches. It's a dangerous heresy that's spread quite widely. Dr. Shepard gave answers at Presbyteries regarding justification. which said that justification was by faith and by works, or the works of faith. And this, of course, is explicitly contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is that faith is the alone instrument of justification. That's 11.2. Now, on the Reformed symbols, the Reformed confessions and creeds, and catechisms, speak of faith as the alone instrument of justification. they're guarding against a few heresies. And so if you don't care about shepherdism or the federal vision, this will be a good review on justification by faith a lot. Classic Arminianism, number one, Classic Arminianism, which holds that faith is an autonomous act of man's will, that is it's a work, that is accepted instead of or in the place of the perfect keeping of the law. Okay, that's Classic Arminianism. and thus they turn faith into a work. You're not saved through faith as a gift, you're saved because of faith, which is your own thing that you develop. So faith is not simply an instrument in their view. Some even speak of faith as a meritorious condition, number two. The Roman Catholic position is that faith justifies only when it is informed and animated by good works of love. They reject the imputation of Christ's righteousness for an infused righteousness. The Holy Spirit is poured within you, and then you cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and you do good works, and you do this, and you do that, and then if you get good enough, then you're justified. Man essentially, the Spirit enables man to justify himself by good works. They blur the biblical distinction between justification and sanctification. And we'll see that the saint shepherd does the same thing. And Martin Luther refutes this damnable heresy in his commentary on Galatians 2.16, and Luther is fantastic on justification. Contrary to what the federal visionists say, he's excellent. And he does not teach antinomianism, contrary to the federal vision heretics. Here's Luther, quote, this is the true meaning of becoming a Christian, even to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law. Here we must stand. not upon the wicked gloss of the schoolmen, which say that faith justifieth when charity and good works are joined with all. With this pestilent gloss, the sophists, the sophisters, have darkened and corrupted us in other like sentences in Paul, wherein he manifestly attributed justification to faith only in Christ. But when a man heareth, that he ought to believe in Christ, and yet notwithstanding, faith justifieth not except it be formed and furnished with charity, that is love. By and by he falleth from faith, and thus he thinketh that faith without charity alone justifieth not, then is faith in vain and unprofitable, and charity alone justifieth. For except faith be formed with charity, it is nothing. Wherefore, we must avoid this gloss as a most deadly and devilish poison, devilish poison, and conclude with Paul that we are justified not by faith furnished with charity, but by faith only and alone." End of quote. The Romanist view has a lot in common with Norman Shepard's doctrine and the federal vision. And then number three, there is Norman Shepard's view, which is the same as the federal vision view, which is that men are justified by faith and faithfulness, or by faith and the works of faith. These heretics argue that they are not advocating salvation by works or merit, because the good works or law keeping done by Christians are not meritorious. Why? Why are they not meritorious? Well, they say that we are unable to do them by the power of the Holy Spirit. Shepherd would say, well, they're not works of the flesh, they're works of the Spirit. So we're justified by works of the Spirit. But that's the identical position of the Roman Catholic Church that Luther refutes so beautifully. And Calvin, and John Owen, and Bannerman, and the Westminster Standards, and the Heidelberg Catechism, although different terminology is used, the Shepherd Federal Vision Heresy is very similar to Romanism. The Federal Vision Heretic simply refused to say good works are meritorious. And this is called mystification. We're just gonna redefine words and say that they, well, you have to do this to be saved, but they're not meritorious, and therefore we're not like Roman Catholics. Well, that's like Bill Clinton who says, well, this is what I'm doing here with Monica Lewinsky. That's not fornication. It's a lie. It's mystification. But if works are a co-instrument of justification, they are meritorious in some sense. You're saved because of your works, not through faith alone as a gift. So this began, the controversy began in 1975. Various students came to the faculty and said, look, this guy's teaching were saved by works, by faith in works. 1975. Some years passed with no action because the general idea was that the students were simply misunderstanding what Shepard was teaching. And that the Westminster Standards insist that justification is always accompanied by all the other saving graces. This Westminster standard, see, we're saved by faith alone. But the faith does not remain alone, but it's attended by all the other saving graces. Once you're justified, then comes sanctification. But this is not what Shepard and the Federal Visionists are teaching. They're not teaching that. Things changed in 1980 when tapes of Dr. Shepard surfaced where it is clear that Shepard is teaching that good works, or the works of faith, play a parallel role to faith in a person's justification. Okay, so tapes were produced of his lecture. And we can go back to November 1978, when the Board of Trustees made a 53-page paper, received a 53-page paper by Shepard to the faculty on discussions 11 months prior, public. So Shepard had produced a paper, 53 pages of his views, and this was made public. And this paper, which is prior to his book, The Call of Grace, the year 2000, is the most detailed presentation of his views. And if you read it, the 1978 paper, and you compare it to his book from the year 2000, his views have not substantially changed at all. And once you understand his use, there's no excuse for believing them or allowing him to be an elder or a teacher in the church. Still, Shepard had many supporters, within and without the OPC, who perhaps due to the lack of clarity and definition in his writings, believed that Shepard was merely fighting against easy-believism and what is called the carnal Christian heresy. Shepard would cite, like the Federal Visionist advocates years later, James, that a man is justified by faith as well as by works, James 2.24. But both Shepard and the Federal Vision Heretics abused James' epistle. which teaches that works prove that faith is genuine, true, or real. James is not saying, oh, you need faith, and then you need to add works onto faith, and then that's how you're justified. That's not what James is saying at all. James is saying if you don't have works, then you don't have real faith to begin with. James does not contradict Paul. He teaches that if someone does not have good works, he never had real faith, as John Calvin says. Quote. that we may not fall into the false reasoning which has deceived the sophists, the Romanists, we must take notice of the twofold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of the righteousness before the tribunal of God, and James the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men as we gather from the preceding words, show me thy faith, et cetera. So according to the Reformers, James does not say that works must be added to faith, or is included in faith as the way by which men receive judicial declaration if their sins are forgiven. In the reformer's understanding, James is not even discussing the way to pardon from guilt as is Paul. To the contrary, James is describing how a man may show his faith to be genuine, James 2.18, and how faith inevitably will bear the fruit of good works. And this is the issue. All's you have to do is ask somebody, Are good works necessary to be justified or are good works a fruit of justification? Now there was a magazine, I believe a Dutch reform magazine, that interviewed, it had Schlissel and Baruch and the heretic from Moscow, Idaho, Doug Wilson, who's apparently, I've heard he's repented of this, I don't know if he has or not, if he has he should publicly repent. And they asked him, well, why not just say that good works are a fruit of faith? And they laughed. How stupid can you be? That stupid formula, because they believe in Shepard's view. Shepard's taped lectures together with his papers and further discussions led to Shepard's dismissal from Westminster Seminary in 1982. By the way, I attended. This was discussed in the OPC, the Presbytery in Philadelphia at Westminster Seminary. And I believe it was 79 or 80. I was there. I got to witness this, because I was going to seminary in Philadelphia. I was going to reform Episcopal. And it was very interesting. Now, in the reasons and specifications supporting the action of the Board of Trustees in removing Professor Shepard, approved by the Executive Committee of the Board, February 26, 1982, they stated that there are, quote, deep inherent problems in the structure and particular formulations of his views," end of quote. And here's where it gets really sad and where we need to learn. It is worth noting that Shepard was not disciplined by the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and he transferred his credentials as a minister in good standing to the Christian Reformed Church and pastored churches in that communion until he retired in 1998. So Shepard could continue to teach his heresy and then eventually put it all in a book, which sad to say was published by Presbyterian and Reformed, that shows you that the men who are running Presbyterian and Reformed are not qualified to be elders, are not qualified to run something that's purportedly Reformed. The modern, what is called conservative Presbyterian communions in the United States are so committed to loose subscriptionism that they could not even bring themselves to publicly and strongly condemn this gross heresy. And consequently, the satanic seeds were allowed to germinate and spread. It could have been nipped in the butt. If the OPC had done its job and Westminster Seminary had done its job, he would have been publicly defrocked as a heretic and excommunicated as a heretic. But they didn't do that. Oh, that would be unloving. The majority of the faculty at Westminster Seminary Philadelphia in April 1978 this is before he was dismissed, came to the conclusion that although Mr. Shepard's, quote, structure of argumentation seems bound to create misunderstanding, end of quote, his formulations fell within tolerable limits or parameters of the Westminster standards. Okay, that's all a quote. So he's not unconfessional. And if you think people learned from this, they didn't learn from this because if you read the book that was put out by, oh, that seminary in Florida, on the federal vision. They were willing to say that there's errors there, but they're not willing to say this is heresy. That would be too unloving. Instead of condemning his heresy and demanding his immediate repentance, they merely recommended that he explain his doctrines in a manner, quote, less open to misunderstanding. And by the way, the same things were said about when the Federal Vision or Auburn Avenue Doctrine came in the scene in 2002, the same things were being said. Oh, you just misunderstand. They're against easy believism. They're against the carnal Christian heresy. They're just saying that works must attend faith. No, no, no, no. They're teaching a completely new and different doctrine of justification by faith alone. We see both incompetence and cowardice. in Westminster seminaries in the OPC's treatment of a man clearly guilty of teaching heresy on a fundamental doctrine of the faith. That's where loose subscription leads you. Now, during the controversy, Dr. O. Palmer Robertson, an Old Testament seminary professor and PCA minister, wrote an excellent critique of Shepard's teaching for Presbyterian. This is the Theological Journal of Covenant Seminary, Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. It was the old seminary of the, remember the old RP, Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod. And then that denomination merged with the PCA, I believe in 1978. Now the article by O. Palmer Robertson, which is fantastic by the way, and it's been republished as a book, by John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation. It initially was approved for publication by the editorial committee, but then was denied publication after many professors read it at the seminary because the material might prove offensive to another respected seminary of the Reformed and Presbyterian family in America. we don't want any critique of Shepard in our in our journal because it would hurt their feelings and it would be not nice to say nice things about that I mean these men are not qualified to be teachers and by the way I had a book against the federal vision called the Auburn Avenue heresy or whatever it was called the Auburn Avenue Auburn Avenue teaching a biblical critique or something. And they were selling like hotcakes in the bookstore at the seminary. This is back in 2005. A seminary professor read it and demanded that they stop selling it because I was critical of John Frame on his views on worship and a few other things. So you're not allowed to say anything negative about a seminary professor if he teaches heresy. And this is considered love. It's the world's concept of love, not the Bible's concept of love. In America, there is political correctness, and in reformed denominations, there is a refusal to treat heresy as heresy, because it is seen as offensive and unloving. Now, strict regulativists, psalm singers, strict regulativists who don't celebrate Christmas, they can be persecuted. Sabbatarians can be persecuted. But don't discipline men who corrupt the worship of God or teach a neo-legalist, neo-Romanist concept of justification. And I know of a situation where a man was denied licensure to preach in the PCA because he was a strict Sabbatarian. And these elders ruled against him saying, he's gonna offend people in the PCA because, basically because they don't keep the Sabbath. They don't believe in the Sabbath. And he's gonna offend people. So we can't license this guy. What is that? That's pragmatism. Now after Shepard retired, 1998, he took his controversial views and he published them in a book. Here's the title. The Call of Grace, How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism. This book, which is anti-confessional and heretical at various points, was published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. and I think that's Phillipsburg, New Jersey, and that's just outrageous if you read the book. Now on the back cover, it is praised and recommended by R.J. Gore, the dean of Erskine Theological Seminary. And if it's the same Gore I'm thinking of, he wrote a whole book against the regular principle of worship and all the reformed symbols on biblical worship. and this guy's a dean at a seminary. He's not qualified to be an elder, let alone a dean or a teacher in a seminary. He is more Episcopalian than Reformed. But we wouldn't want to say anything negative about him, that would be unloving. The book is also praised and recommended by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., who taught at Westminster East for many, many years. Well, let us be all honest with ourselves and admit that most modern seminary professors today would be defrocked by the original faithful Presbyterians of the first and second reformations. They would be. They're not going to tolerate divergent views on the early chapters of Genesis. They're not going to tolerate a doctrine of faith plus works and justification. They're not going to tolerate violations of the second commandment and violations of the fourth commandment, but Modern seminary professors and modern ministering elders tolerate all this stuff in the name of love and compassion. And if you say anything against what they're doing because it's unbiblical, then you're the one who's called unloving. Now this book, The Call of Grace, is a reworking of previous material from a few different conferences. Some material comes from a conference at Geneva College at Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, May 1975. And this material can be found in the New Testament Student in Theology, Presbyterian Reform Publications, 1976. He was popular in the RPCNA because he had a strict view of the regular principle. He was popular with theonomists because he was friendly towards theonomy at a time when most people were not. Now the parts of the book that deal with faith and works and recent discussions, and by recent I mean 1990s, discussions between evangelicals and Romanists, was first presented in April 1999 for the Robinson Lectures at Erskine Theological Seminary. That's the seminary of which R.J. Gore is the dean. And like I said, R.J. Gore He's not qualified to be an elder in a Presbyterian church. That this heresy was presented at a Presbyterian seminary with apparently no objections tells us the sad backslidden state of much of modern Presbyterianism. Now before we analyze Shepard's views, and we're only gonna scratch the surface, we should know three things. First, Shepard's views were developed as early, at least as early as 1975. and have not really changed between then and the publication of this book in the year 2000. That's a period of 25 years. And during this 25 years, there were good critiques written against him. He was criticized by Opama Robertson. He was criticized by people within the OPC. The great commentator, William Hendrickson, criticized him and said, this is not the gospel. This man is not someone who made a few mistakes in his research. He is dogmatic in his heresies. And then number two, and this is where we learn about the state of modern Presbyterianism. The reaction of modern conservative Presbyterian bodies such as the PCA and OPC to this dangerous neo-Romanistic heresy has been unbiblical and pathetic, pathetic. I am not aware of any men being defrocked or disciplined for these views. There may be, I'm just not aware of them. Peter Lightheart, who's a disciple of James Jordan, was not disciplined by the PCA. He's an advocate of this garbage. And he was brought up on charges and the PCA said, oh, he's fine, he's okay. Even though he denies justification by faith alone. He's okay with us. We wouldn't want to be unloving. The OPC overturned the discipline against the heretic Elder Kennard from Michigan. I believe it's Michigan. And this lack of discipline is rooted in the worldly false concept of love. Now, there was a movie from the 70s, Love Story. Love means never having to say you're sorry. Remember that? Well, in modern Presbyterian, loose subscriptionism means love means never having to do discipline when it's deserved. It's okay to hate and be against strict subscriptionists, but heretics, we're going to love them and not do anything to them. And that's not love. The best thing you could do for them is discipline them and tell them they need to repent. The federal vision has made great inroads in the PCA, and the presbytery that has St. Louis the Seminary in it, I've heard, has the majority of elders now are federal visionists. It made great progress in the PCA. And it's not spread hardly at all in the OPC. And I think because of the diligence of various presbyteries as they examine candidates for the ministry. It's still a problem, however. There was a church, Greg Bodson's old church, who had a conference. It was a pro-conference of this heresy. And the pastor and the elders were never disciplined. Number three. The response of some prominent theonomist or Christian reconstructionist leaders to the rise and spread of shepherdism or the federal vision heresy has been an unbiblical disgrace. Now, I believe Rush Duny's a genius. I believe he's, Van Til and Rush Duny are probably the two most important writers of the 20th century. I really believe that. And I believe every minister should read all of Rush Duny's books and they should at least the Institute should be read two or three times because there's so much important stuff there in applying scripture to society. But there's some negative things about the movement that we call Christian Reconstructionism. In 1991, Gary North dedicated his book And it's a good book. Westminster's Confession, The Abandonment of Van Tal's Legacy. He dedicated to Norman Shepard and called him, Norman Shepard, the most accomplished instructor I had at Westminster Seminary. Now, Gary North attended the seminary in the 1960s, so Shepard may not have, may have been totally orthodox at that time. But after the Federal Vision heresy, the controversy broke in 2002, North, I got the email, he said in an email that it was only a misunderstanding about definitive sanctification. What an ignorant and pathetic statement. And don't get me wrong, I have all of Gary North's books, except maybe one or two of the most recent ones. I've read all of his books. I've read many of them twice. They're very useful. Moreover, by 1991, Shepard's heresies were well known. North is an excellent writer. He's great on economics. He's great on history. And many of his books are worth having. But he is unreliable as a theologian. In addition, he holds to an antinomy and dispensational understanding of the Christian Sabbath. Read the appendix of Rush Dooney's Institutes. And I refute that in my book on the Sabbath. I have a book on the Sabbath that came out in 96. James Jordan, Steve Schlissel, Andrew Sandlin, Steve Wilkins, who were all theonomists, have embraced this heresy, and they all oppose the regular principle of worship. Interesting. Followers of Jordan and Lightheart have converted to Roman Catholicism in Eastern Orthodoxy. They're just being consistent. If you're gonna follow this teaching, why not just be a Roman Catholic? Well, they'll say, well, we don't worship a Virgin Mary and we don't have statues. Well, okay, fine. But you still deny justification by faith. And by the way, they're not willing to say that the Roman Catholic Church is heretical. They won't say that. They departed from the Reformation. They departed from Calvin and Luther and John Knox and all those. American Vision under Gary DeMar worked with Doug Wilson. after 2002 when it was very clear that Doug Wilson was advocating heresy. Now maybe he's repentant. I've heard he's repentant of the Federal Vision recently. I don't know. I don't follow Doug Wilson. He's got some nice books in the family, written a long time ago, but his Angels in the Architecture, which is an argument for medieval corrupt Roman Catholic worship, and his books on the Federal Vision are just heretical nonsense. He's very articulate, very intellectual, and very heretical. Well, let us briefly examine Shepard's theology. So I'm, you know, I'm friendly to theonomy. I like Rush Duty. I quote him a lot. But I tell people, you've got to be aware of, you have to know and be solid in the Westminster standards and confessional orthodoxy. and then you can learn. All Rushdenny does is he basically teaches the same thing as the Puritans taught, but he does so epistemologically self-aware. He understands presuppositionalism. He understands culture and society. He understands foundational things, and therefore he writes with clarity and analysis that is absolutely brilliant. But don't just take hook, line, and seeker everything theonomists say because there's a lot of garbage. Well, number one, Shepard's first great error and departure is his rejection of the historic understanding of the covenant with Adam. In historic reform theology, there are two different covenants in history with two different conditions. There is the covenant of works with Adam, you can call it the covenant of creation if you want, with Adam in a state of innocency, and there is a covenant of grace after the fall. In historic reform thought, Adam was promised glorified eternal life, if he fulfilled the conditions of the covenant, which is a perfect obedience. Now, yes, it is true that Adam already possessed life. He didn't have any sin, he didn't have any guilt, but he did not possess glorified life. Now, glorified life, you lose the ability to fall. Glorified life indicates a state of blessedness where the ability to commit sin and fall is forever removed. So you're better off with glorified life than Adam in the garden. And that's what Jesus gives us. He gives us glorified life. Adam had life, but he could still be tempted and he could still fall into sin. It is called the covenant of works because Adam had to obey or fulfill a requirement by personal obedience in order to receive glorified life. Obedience to God, of course, requires faith. Faith is always connected to obedience. I don't deny that. That's a good point. but glorified life could only be achieved by doing, by obeying, and not simply by believing. When you become a Christian, when you're justified by Christ, his work, you don't do anything to do it. You simply believe. Faith is a sole instrument. You lay hold of Christ and you're justified because of his righteousness. You have to regard all of your goodness, all of your righteousness as filthy rags before God to be justified. Well, that's not what Shepherd teaches, and that's not what the Federal Visionists teach. Norman Shepard rejects the classic view of the covenant with Adam because he believes that man can never merit anything before God, even before the fall. Shepard maintains that the alleged antithesis in scripture between works and grace, between law and gospel, is an artificial, unbiblical construct of scholastic Protestant orthodoxy. He believes that even before the fall, man could never merit anything before God. And we will see that Sherpad makes a few critical errors regarding the covenant with Adam before the fall and merit. First, the covenant of works is not that God created Adam and Adam could have acted in a manner that impressed God and forced God's hand. That's not what the covenant of works means. It's not, oh, Adam's created, now I'm gonna impress you, God, and you're gonna give me this. That's not what the Covenant of Works means. The federal vision heretics mischaracterize the reform doctrine. The Covenant of Works does have the concept of merit, but it is not merit in the strict sense of the term. Not in the sense that our own works have intrinsic value before God and thus force God's favor. And here's the critical part. That merit in the sense that God will honor a perfect and perpetual obedience because he has promised to do so. It's not God created Adam and now Adam's gonna gain glorified life by impressing God. God made a promise and God keeps his promises. And if Adam had solid faith, he would have kept the promise. God has obligated himself in the covenant works to reward a perfect and perpetual obedience with glorified life. Christ is the only person who ever lived that perfectly and perpetually obeyed God. And he's called the second Adam for that. That's one reason he's called the second Adam. Thus, according to the terms of the covenant works, Jesus merited glorified life for his people. On the basis of Christ's righteousness, believing sinners are justified. They are not merely forgiven by the Savior's blood, his atoning death on the cross, but declared righteous on the basis of the imputation of our Lord's righteousness to their account. Norman Shepard and the Federal Visionist leave us with half a gospel. They'll say, yeah, you need the blood of Christ, but then you have to do good works. as fruits, not as fruits of faith, but as the faithfulness or the obedience of faith, and that will lead to your justification. Their system is essentially teaching that Jesus' forgiveness plus our own righteousness equals justification and glorified life. Now because the concept of merit is inescapable, The important thing is to define merit biblically and lay hold of the merits of Christ by faith. The federal vision theology adheres to a concept of merit but gives it a different label. See, they say, well, we don't believe in salvation by merit because we deny merit. But the moment you say you've gotta do A, you've gotta perform A or B to be justified, you're acknowledging a system of merit. What they do is they replace the word merit with value. Here's Lusk, he's a disciple of Shepard and a heretic. Quote, here's what Lusk says. In Christ our faithful wrought good works have value before God, but not merit. That is why we can insist that every biblical covenant requires works, yet no covenant is a covenant of works as such. The covenant includes non-meritorious conditions and requires the obedience of faith but never calls for us to earn anything. End of quote. Well, the problem with his view, now they can say that all they want. We don't believe in merit. You don't earn anything. But they teach if you don't have the faithfulness, if you don't have good works, if you don't have the good works that attend faith, you can't be saved. So they teach merit anyway, whatever they want to call it. It's still merit. With biblical Christianity, with Protestantism, with the doctrine of Paul and Jesus and Peter, you don't earn anything because Christ did it all. With the federal vision, Christ does his part and you do your part. Shepherd makes the distinction between works of the flesh which he says people say are meritorious, works of the flesh, and acceptable works of the spirit. He says that works of the flesh do not justify, but works which are the obedience of faith do, along with faith, justify. You see how sneaky that is? You see how deadly that is? Well, let's attempt to analyze this scholarly sounding gibberish. Now, they say that God's plan of salvation requires that we have our own faith-wrought good works. Now, the Westminster Standards and Reform people say that good works are necessary, but not for justification. They accompany justification, because if you're regenerated and you have the Holy Spirit, you're going to do good works, but they don't contribute to your justification. They're part of sanctification. Shepard and the Federal Vision Heretics deny this. In fact, according to Shepard and the Federal Vision, if we do not do these faith-wrought good works, we cannot be justified or declared righteous before God. Sounds like Roman Catholicism. But these works which are absolutely necessary for justification are not a covenant of works that have no merit. That is value. So Shepard and the Federal Vision's mind-bending logic raises a few obvious questions. If we cannot be justified apart from our own good works, and these good works have value, which is another word for merit, by the way, before God, then do they not earn or contribute something to our justification? And the logical answer is yes. If we contribute to our justification, then is not justification a synergistic effort between Jesus and the believing sinner? Once we abandon the Reformation doctrine of sola fide, faith alone, We must also logically abandon the doctrine of solo Christo, Christ alone. And that's what they do. Now, they'll deny that all day long, but read their works. Nothing needs to be added to what Jesus has already done. Faith. Here's the Western Confession of Faith, 11.2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification. Now, does God require good works? Yes, he does, but that's part of sanctification. That's part of covenant faithfulness. It has nothing to do with justification. It is a fruit of justification. It is out of gratitude for the salvation that Christ gives you, but it doesn't earn salvation. It has nothing to do with your justification. It's not a ground of justification, and it's not a co-instrument of justification. Could Satan want anything more out of a new heresy? It is a theological system which repeatedly and emphatically cries out against merit and works in salvation, yet which is through and through a system based on merit. That is the personal righteousness of the believer. And that's why you go back and you read this stuff by Luther and the early reformers on Justification is So Good, because they make a distinction. Christ's righteousness is objective, it's achieved by Christ, it's objective to the sinner. The Romanist view is that it's subjective. And what have the federal visionists done? What has Shepard done? They've made it subjective. Christ does his part, you do your part. Could Shepard or the federal vision heretic say with David, Psalm 143, verse one, do not enter into judgment with your servant. For in your sight, no one living is righteous. And what did Paul say in Philippians chapter three? I regard all of my good works, all of my law keeping as a big stinking pile of excrement before God that I may possess Jesus Christ and his righteousness. Now how do you justify that with what the federal visionaries are teaching? and we could read Romans 2, and you could read Galatians 3. I mean, passage after passage after passage, we're not saved by works, we have nothing to boast of, we're saved solely by faith, but they deny that. Now the federal visionist and shepherd will say that the Bible says nothing about the covenant of works. The reformed theologians will point out that what Christ was required to do to earn glorified life for the elect leads to the very, conclusive inference regarding the first Adam. Remember, he's the second Adam, he's called the second Adam. Adam was tempted in the beautiful garden, full of lush green vegetation and food. Christ was tempted out in the wilderness, out in the desert, where he hadn't eaten anything for 40 days and he was starving. As the second Adam, Christ was faithful, the first Adam was unfaithful. Now think about this truth for a moment. Innocence only tells us that God's moral law has not been transgressed, right? Adam hadn't transgressed the law. Adam was created innocent with no sin, no guilt. The term righteousness, when we speak of the perfect righteousness necessary for glorified life, means that in addition to mere innocence, there has been a perfect, active, positive obedience to the whole moral law. Note the difference? Adam was innocent before the fall, but he did not achieve perfect righteousness yet. He hadn't done it. He failed that test. Now, Jesus Christ, who is called the second Adam, he was innocent. He had no sin. But he eliminated the guilt and penalty of sin by paying the penalty for sin in full at the cross of Calvary. Vicarious atonement. He died in our place. He eliminated the curse of law by paying the price in full. But he also perfectly obeyed the law. He obeyed God as the second Adam, thus fulfilling all righteousness. He obeyed the law in exhaustive detail, faithfully, perfectly, his whole life. Thus the scriptures speak about the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Shepherd denies this. William G.T. Shedd writes, and this is quite excellent. This is from a systematic theology. When a criminal has suffered the penalty affixed to his crime, he has done a part, but he has not done all that the law requires of him. He still owes a perfect obedience to the law in addition to the endurance of the penalty. The law does not say to the transgressor, if you will suffer the penalty, you need not render the obedience. But it says you must both suffer the penalty and render the obedience. Sin is under a double obligation. Holiness is only under a single one. A guilty man owes both penalty and obedience. A holy angel only owes obedience. Consequently, the justification of a sinner must not only deliver him from the penalty due to disobedience, but provide for him an equivalent to personal obedience. Whoever justifies the ungodly must lay a ground both for his delivery from hell and his entrance into heaven." End of quote. And what does Paul say in Romans 5.4? I think it's Romans 5.4. We're justified by Christ. He justifies the ungodly. You couldn't get any more clear that we don't deserve it because of anything we have done. It's solely by Christ. solely because he removes the guilt of sin by his sacrificial death, and solely because his perfect righteousness is imputed to us, reckoned to our account. The Bible speaks of believers being justified by Jesus' blood or death. Romans 3.25 and 5.9, as well as his life or obedience, Romans 5.10 and 19. All the various expressions found in Scripture, the righteousness of God, Romans 1, 17, 3, 5, and 21 and 22, 10, 3, 2 Corinthians 5, 21, Philippians 3, 9. The righteousness of one, Romans 5, 18. The righteousness of Christ, Romans 10, 4. The righteousness of faith, Romans 4, 11 and 13 and 9, 30 and 10, 6. See Galatians 5, 5 and Philippians 3, 9. The obedience of one, Romans 5, 19. The righteousness God imputes apart from works, Romans 4, 6, are all employed with a reference to the same righteousness. The righteousness achieved by Jesus Christ by dying for sin and guilt, eliminating guilt, and obeying the covenant of works or the moral law for his people. The New Testament's very clear about this. There's no ambiguity in the New Testament about this. There's no excuse for people believing in Shepard's heresy and the Federal Vision heresy. There's no excuse for it. And there's no excuse for letting these heretics off the hook and not defrogging them and excommunicating them until they repent. The righteousness achieved by Jesus Christ in dying for sin and obeying the covenant of works, or the moral law for his people, the Federal Vision heretics deny the imputed righteousness of Christ and substitute the faithfulness of the believer in its place. it's closely related to Romanism and classical Arminianism. And just, you know, one fact, even our good works, even the most holy Christian in the world, the Apostle Paul, or somebody like Jonathan Edwards or John Calvin or whoever, every one of their good works is tainted with sin. The Bible teaches that. and they don't even approach the level of perfection that God requires. God requires perfect obedience and thought, even your thoughts, your words, everything. Nobody approaches even close to what God requires. So you're justified by the cross of Christ according to Shepard and the impartial, the very imperfect, the very corrupt works of the believer. And that also is in line with classical Arminianism. In fact, Norman Shepard at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies in a lecture, this is at an OPC church by the way, summer 2003, at the California Worldview Conference argued that the standard reformed distinction between the active and passive obedience of Jesus and the necessity of the imputation of Christ's perfect positive righteousness was unscriptural and was a later addition to reformed theology. And this is simply untrue. Go back and read Luther on Galatians and Romans. Go back and look at the early Lutheran creeds and confessions. Even the Lutherans understood this. The early reformers understood that Christ's personal righteousness was crucial in achieving redemption. They may not have used all the proper terms later associated with covenant theology, but they understood what was going on. Number two. A second major error that links Shepard in the Federal Vision Heretics to Rome is how faith slash repentance and the works of faith are merged together as an instrument of justification. He teaches that good works are not fruits of faith distinguishable from faith as the sole instrument that looks away from self and solely to Christ, relies solely on Christ. Remember Paul, I count all my works as filthy rags, I count all my works as a pile of rubbish. I count all my works as excrement that I may own Christ and his righteousness. He thinks that repentance and works are part of faith itself. He doesn't distinguish them. Consequently, instead of looking at repentance as a consequence of true faith and of justification, repentance is merged with faith as an instrument of justification. Okay, in the Reformed way of looking at things, it's regeneration, faith, justification, repentance, sanctification. In Shepard's view, it is faith, repentance, then justification, you see. Now the biblical reform view is that although the grace of repentance always accompanies the faith that justifies, it is distinct from faith and faith that follows justification, it does not precede or produce justification. Remember that. Obviously, if you don't repent, you can't enter the kingdom of heaven, but your repentance, your personal repentance, your personal change of behavior is not what justifies. Now why is the classic Protestant view correct and the shepherdite, federal vision view heretical? Well, faith is purely instrumental and simply lays hold of Christ and his redemption. Repentance involves personal obedience in the believer over time. If repentance or covenant faithfulness are also instruments of justification, then the Romanists are correct. And justification is by faith and works. Men do not simply believe to be justified, but they also must obey the law and do good works. Now, how does Shepard circumvent the many passages which make it explicit that we contribute absolutely nothing to justification? Well, first, and I noted this earlier, he makes an arbitrary distinction between works of the flesh that do not justify and the works of the flesh which seek salvation by merit, and the works of faith that are necessary to achieve justification. The damnable heretic Richard Lusk, who follows this arbitrary unbiblical nonsense, says that the good works of Christians necessary for justification do not merit anything, but they do have value before God. Value is almost synonymous with merit, but what did Jesus say about good works? Here's Luke 17.10. So likewise you and you have done all those things which are commanded of you. Say we are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do. This is a crucial passage used by the reformers in the debate with Rome during the Reformation. Why is it so important? Because it supports the biblical teaching that even our best works are tainted with sin and thus cannot achieve justification. And then second, Shepherd teaches that justification occurs at the second coming on the basis of God's evaluation of one's good works or covenant faithfulness. Now the Bible does teach an evaluation of our good works of the judgment. But the Christians are not in danger of losing their salvation or being cast into hell. The works they do for Christ are evaluated. The people who are described in Matthew 7 who go to hell as professing Christians were anti-gnomian, and Jesus says, they never knew me. They never knew Jesus Christ. They never had faith to begin with. They never had saving faith. Shepherd and the Federal Vision Heretics follow the papists by confounding justification and sanctification. Reformed theologians. And this is what gets me. There's not a problem among Orthodox Reformed people about easy believism. There's never been a problem with that. That's a dispensational thing. Reformed theologians have never denied the need for covenant faithfulness, good works, and a lifestyle of obedience in the walk of believers. The man who is justified is also sanctified by him. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, this is 11.2, faith thus receiving and resting upon Christ and his righteousness is the alone instrument of justification. Yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all the other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. We are justified by faith alone, apart from good works or covenant faithfulness. But by virtue of our union with Christ in his life, death, and resurrection, the power of sin is broken in our lives, and we are faithful to Christ in our walk. In other words, there's no such thing as a guy who is justified, but who is not sanctified. Faith is always accompanied by repentance. Faith is always, justification is always accompanied by sanctification. But you have to make a distinction between the two. What separates Shepard and his followers from Orthodox Protestantism is they say that works are necessary as a condition of justification, while the Reformed symbols say that good works are the fruit of salvation. Paul says we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, Ephesians 2.10. Now this difference may seem minor to you, but it's the difference between Romanism and Protestantism, heaven and hell, heresy and orthodoxy. It's a crucial difference. That's why Christians need to learn doctrine. And I think one of the reasons that shepherdism and the federal vision heresy made such inroads into churches is that people in congregations don't know doctrine. They don't know the doctrine of justification by faith. And so when they come along and they say, we're against easy believism and we believe in repentance and we believe in good works, that sounds really good until you analyze what they're saying. Third, Shepherd regards Paul's refutation of Pharisaical Judaism as a chief proof text for his position, that we are justified by works of faith. He quotes Romans 10.5. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law. The man who does those things shall live by them. Now this is supposed to teach that Paul wants Christians to perform the law or fulfill the law in their life in order to be justified. And he really believes that. I was at the debate at the OPC Presbytery meeting at Westminster Seminary where he argued this point and his followers argued this point. He says that justification is by obedient faith or faithful obedience. And he writes in a 1976 paper, quote, this is October 1976 proposition or 51. Quote, to ask for obedience is not at all fundamentally different than to ask for faith. Though faith and obedience may be descriptive of a single, total response from different perspectives." End of quote. And now we'll just finish with this. There are a number of things wrong with his use of Romans 10.5 as a proof text. Number one, he completely ignores the immediate context. Now what's Paul debating here? He's debating with pharisaical Judaism. And if you read Romans, he does it throughout the book of Romans. They say that we're justified by works. Paul says, no, no, no, no, by faith alone. Here's the context, Romans 10, I'll just read the first 13 verses. Brother, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness, okay, so you have an objective righteousness versus a subjective righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law. The man who does those things shall live by them. That's his proof text. But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way. Do not say in your heart who will ascend to heaven. That is to bring Christ down from above. Or who will descend into the abyss. That is to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does it say? The word is in your mouth, is near you, is in your mouth and in your heart. That is the word of faith which we preach. So he's contrasting the Jews' view with their view. Then if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For the heart one believes unto righteousness. and with a mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture says, whoever believes on him will not be put to shame. There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is rich over all who call upon him. Whoever calls in the name of the Lord shall be saved. Now here Paul is contrasting the true doctrine of justification with the deadly error of Pharisaical Judaism. He says, the Jews were ignorant of the way of justification before God, because they tried to obtain it by the works of the law. by seeking to establish their own righteousness, they have rejected the righteousness of God. Now Paul emphasizes that one, the righteousness which saves or justifies is for everyone who believes or has faith. We just read that. Faith, belief. He teaches that faith alone justifies. Number two. He says, and I don't know how Shepard can just ignore the context here, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Does this mean that those who believe do not have to obey the moral law once they are justified by Christ? That's not what Paul's saying. No, it means that the keeping of the law has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining justification, nothing. One cannot seek justification by both Christ and works, only Christ justifies and he, is grasped by faith alone. Now Shepard's view completely contradicts the context. It is a damnable heresy, just as wicked as the Pharisaical Judaism or Roman Catholicism. Number three, Paul quotes from the law to the effect that the man who does them, and the implication is he does them perfectly, perfectly, shall be justified. he shall be justified by that perfect obedience. So he's contrasting faith and work salvation and he quotes from Leviticus 18.5 because it was a proof text used by the Jews for justification by law. Now if you go back and you study Leviticus 18 or other passages similar that talk about covenant faithfulness and the abundant life, the life of blessing under God, they're not teaching anything about justification at all. They're talking about if you're sanctified and you're faithful, This is what's gonna happen. You're gonna have the abundant life. Well, the Pharisees took those same passages and they turned them into proof texts for keeping the law to be saved. They completely misunderstood. They do the same thing as Shepherd does. They didn't make a distinction between justification and sanctification. Paul's point is that once you appeal to personal obedience for justification, you must have a perfect obedience and thought, word, and deed. Shepherd's doctrine regarding this verse, which has been adopted by the federal vision, completely destroys Paul's antithesis between a God righteousness and a human righteousness, an objective perfect righteousness and a subjective defective righteousness. The basic error of Israel was a misconception regarding the righteousness needed for justification. And here's what John Stott writes, and I think it's good. Quote, all human beings who know that God is righteous and they are not, since, and this is Romans 3.10, there is none righteous, no, not even one, naturally look around for a righteousness which might make them fit to stand in God's presence. Well, there are only two possible options before us. The first is to attempt to build or establish our own righteousness by our good works. and religious observances. But this is doomed to failure, since in God's sight, even all our righteous acts are like filthy rags, he's quoting Paul. The other way is to submit to God's righteousness by receiving it from him as a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ. In verses five to six, Paul calls the righteousness that is by the law, and the second, the righteousness that is by faith, end of quote. So Shepard and the Federal Visionists completely take that verse out of context. Leviticus 18 doesn't even teach we're saved by keeping the law. Paul is using it because it was a proof text perverted by the Jews. Well, just a quick summary here and we'll end it, wrap this up. Historic Orthodox Protestantism teaches justification is a declaration of righteousness based solely on the righteousness of Christ received solely by faith. Justification is instantaneous and it occurs at the very moment a person believes in Christ. Jesus said, you know, you believe in me, you've passed from death unto life. Shepherdism, the federal vision. Justification is through faith and repentance or the works of the believer. It is Christ and Christ working in man. Justification is a process that is not declared until the second coming. Here's historic Protestantism, orthodoxy. Justification can never be lost because Christ is a righteousness. And I didn't go into this with quotes, but just as what Shepherd teaches in the Federal Vision. Justification can be lost if faithful obedience is not kept up. Historic Protestantism. Promises of the good life and covenant blessings are connected to sanctification, to habitual obedience to the law for sanctification, but it's never a perfect obedience. It's habitual, but not perfect. Here's shepherdism in the federal vision. Promises of life are connected to the obedience of faith or works needed for justification. Historic Protestantism. All of our good works are tainted with sin and thus worthless in God's sight for justification. We must regard all of our good works, the best of works, as filthy rags before God. Here's shepherdism. Our good works do not have any merit before God, but they do have value in God's sight and thus are co-instruments in our justification. Here's historic Protestantism. Good works are the fruit of justification. They flow from it, but are not instruments or partial foundations of it. Shepherdism of the federal vision. Good works are simply an aspect of faith, and thus good works should not be viewed as a mere fruit of justification, but as a co-instrument of justification. Here's historic Protestantism. Christians are vindicated publicly on the day of judgment for following Christ. This has nothing to do with justification, but is an evaluation of sanctification and the fruits of faith. Here's the federal vision of Shepherd. Christians are justified in the day of judgment on the basis of their good works. If one's works are not good enough, they will not go to heaven. And if you don't believe they teach this, go see the lecture. Somebody transcribed the lectures of the heretic Kennard. He says that exact thing. Historic Protestantism, the book of James teaches us that real faith produces good works. A person without good works never had true faith to begin with. Here's shepherdism in the federal vision. The book of James teaches us that real faith must be combined with good works in order to be justified. Now, if you don't believe me, you can read my book, it's online for free, and it's called The Auburn Avenue Theology of Biblical Analysis. It's online for you, you can buy a hard copy, it's only like five bucks or so, where I quote, I quote, quote, quote all these guys. This is what they believe. This is spreading in the PCA as I speak. It's still in the OPC, but the OPC has been better, although they never condemned it as a heresy. which they should have, and they never disciplined anybody who already had taught it. They didn't want to be unloving. This is important. Do you understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Do you understand that Christ's righteousness is objective and our subjective righteousness is only part of sanctification? It's never perfect. So keep that in mind. Let us pray. Father, we thank you that we are justified solely by Christ, received solely through the gift of faith. Oh, Lord, protect this doctrine. Bring revival to the OPC and the PCA and other groups that have embraced this heresy, that men who teach it would be excommunicated and defrocked unless they publicly repent. Lord, have your shepherds teach the truth to protect the sheep from this dangerous, deadly poison.