Norman Shepherd’s book The Call of Grace, has aided to the current justification controversies within the Reformed faith. It is provocative to many Reformed, in my opinion, not because it is unbiblical, but because it ceases to be a part of any one particular camp. It really is a book that seeks to be both orthodox and ecumenical. It teaches covenant theology from a more rational and corporate perspective, rather than the individualistic and rhetorical perspectives that many teach through today.
In the beginning of the book, Norman Shepherd mentions how “there have been long standing differences between adherents of the historic Lutheran and Reformed confessions.” He goes on to say that there are significant differences in the doctrine of the law. No problem there, right? Reformed pastors teach the moral law to be valid after conversion, but Lutheran believe in a more “spiritual” law, or a law that is not still mandated by the Old Testament.
These type of disagreements have caused many to teach a law-gospel dichotomy; that the law is a type of detour sign that shows us the gospel. The law is said to be part of a “covenant of works” that no man could tackle and so the detour aspect comes into play to show “grace” to the recipient. Then, after conversion, depending on your denomination, a type of new law comes in to help guide the Christian.
But Norman Shepherd proposes something different, he says that the Abrahamic covenant was a covenant of grace (with conditions of obedience) and the Mosaic covenant was also a covenant of grace (with conditions of obedience).
Many Reformed teach that there was a covenant of works with Adam (Westminster Confession mentions this term but does not say it is a “meritorious” covenant). And yet some Reformed even teach, as the dispensationals do, that the Mosaic covenant was yet another covenant of works. This then leads to that law-gospel dichotomy; that the law was completely separate from grace, and that only the new covenant was a covenant of grace.
If the covenants of old were covenants of works then, at best, they were covenants of grace disguised as covenants of works. In other words, God would have had to be deceiving the people since, according to Paul, even the OT saints were saved the same way we were (Romans 4). Why would God lie? Or, why would Moses propose a false promise?
Shepherd goes on to say that the OT covenants were full of promise and grace. This then leads to the proposition that Christ did not come to morally earn a covenant of works, as many men teach. They call this Christ’s “active obedience.”
The author continues to move on through this little book to teach us that we should view election through covenant, rather than viewing covenant through election. He says that when we view covenant through election we attempt to become “as God.”(p.83)
Please allow me to comment a bit more: Ever since I became a pastor I have believed that we should teach election through covenant. To me it was the only way out of being tried as one who is judgmental. The accusations against Calvinists have been that they do not evangelize because they believe it is a waste of time to preach to reprobate, and that God will draw the elect. But we do not know who the elect are, as Shepherd proposes, and so we make a covenant assumption when evangelizing, hoping that all who we come in contact with are God’s elect. Subliminally we know this is likely not true, since God has told us there are people going to hell. But we don’t presuppose things based on what God knows, but based on what we know, on what God has revealed to us. And God has not revealed to us who the elect are and are not. The debate narrows to that epistemological question: Do we act on what God knows or what we know? Which is reality to us on earth: the invisible or the visible? Covenant or election? I believe it is covenant!
Many Protestants do not understand the implications of epistemology and polemics within theology. The study of knowledge and the art of debate have come a long way since the Reformation. We certainly need to learn how to apply the great doctrines of grace in a more concise and logical way to where God’s righteousness and God’s mercy (law and grace) do not oppose one another to create the confusion of today’s many divided camps. We need to know when the more platonic philosophy is important and when the Aristotelian philosophy is important (two camps that have created harsh and unreasonable dichotomies).
The new covenant, as Shepherd teaches, brings clarity. It is based on the same promises in the old covenants, but with that final fulfillment of the cross and resurrection. Christ is that living sacrifice that lives out His mercy and righteousness in our lives. Christ is obedient in us (p. 104); which is probably one of his harder statements to swallow if you are a modern Reformed - even though this is what Augustine taught. But suffices to say, the doctrine of sanctification and its very reason of existing (see Shepherd p. 62) is very seldom taught or written about in the Reformed world. In my opinion, this lack of knowledge has fueled and even ignited this whole controversy. Certainly Christ’s works are not infused like the Roman Catholics teach, but His works must indeed have an eschatological outcome of some sort.
The Call of Grace is packed with clear teaching if you are willing to break down the walls of today’s theological reductivism. And at only 105 pages, you should be able to read it in only a few days/nights.