Customer Reviews

The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

If you are a Christian layman in the Reformed tradition, say, a member of a PCA,OPC,ARP congregation or some other evangelical calvinist denomination, then you know that the word "covenant" is kicked around an awful lot, yet all the books aimed at persuading laymen of Reformed distinctives are either about predestination or infant baptism. Only these latter actually bother to mention the covenant and then only as a means to an end.

This is one of the most important books that could be written because Shepherd has given us an easily accessible introduction to the covenant. It is about time! And this is a really good book for those outside the Reformed tradition as well. Anyone interested in the controversy over recent attempts by Evangelicals and Roman Catholics to come to a concensus will want to read this book. Anyone struggling for the first time with questions about God's predestination and human resonsibility will also want this.

Also anyone wanting to get past the way Reformed people typically downplay the importance of the church, the sacraments, and God's offer of mercy to all who hear the gospel (because of an unbiblical obsession with predestination, regeneration, and conversion) will find this book a gem.

Finally, a note on various naysayers:

I don't mind people disagreeing with Shepherd, but the shrillness and extreme language is simply unjustified. Anyone can go buy Bullinger's "On the One and Eternal Covenant of God" translated in _Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition_ by Charles S. McCoy, J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, and see plenty of Reformation precedent for what Shepherd is saying. Indeed, Shepherd appears quite tame in comparison. One can read _The Binding of God_ by Peter Lillback and see how Calvin and Bullinger were offering one consistent covenantal theology. One can read Zacharias Ursinus or Francis Turretin on the Covenant or on salvation and see obvious precedent.

Perhaps Shepherd is wrong, but if so, then the entire Reformed Faith was a huge mistake. There is nothing of significant novelty in this book. One can disagree with details of this book, but it is what it claims to be, a helpful introduction to Reformed Covenantal Theology.

This book is for the advanced reader of theology. If you are unfamiliar with covenant theology or you haven't gotten past the 5 points of Calvinism, then this book is not for you. Norman Shepherd, who was the protege of John Murray at Westminster West, is a brilliant man. However, he was drummed out of the seminary by a number of men intent on safeguarding their antinomian views. He wasn't fired from the seminary, he wasn't brought up on charges (the way godly men would have done things), he was just forced out by various nefarious means. All of this is exhaustively documented by the book Trust and Obey by Ian Hewitson (you can buy it on Amazon). This book, The Call of Grace, is an important work about the relation of election to the covenant. Only the most obtuse of Reformed people are unable to see that there are gaps in Reformed theology on this issue. And only a Romish approach to the Westminster Confession of Faith which views it as the highest attainable theology possible is unable to understand the importance of semper reformanda in regards to our theology. But things never change, the medieval Roman church, the modern American Evangelical church (including the Reformed), what's the difference (I mean no insult to Catholicism :-))?

If you are familiar with Reformed Covenant theology, read this book, then go on to read Bavinck, and also Ralph Smith's Eternal Covenant.

Norman Shepherd's book The Call of Grace has aided to the current controversies within the Reformed faith regarding justification. 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.

Norman Shepherd, in the beginning of the book 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 difference 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 types 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 then so the detour aspect comes in to 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?

So 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 (what is known as "active obedience").

Shepherd moves 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 waist 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; based on what God had revealed to us. And God has not revealed to us who the elect are and are not. So 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?

Many Reformed 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. But suffices to say, the doctrine of sanctification and its very reason of existing (see Shepherd p. 62) is very seldom taught or written on in the Reformed world. This lack of knowledge has fueled and even ignited this whole controversy, in my opinion. 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 nights.

Dr. Norman Shepherd is a good theologian and pastor in the denomination in which I serve. We have called upon him more than once to preach the Word in the local church which I serve and his preaching has always been faithful to the Word.

That is why I say that this book is good. And it's good in terms of his emphasis on the promises of God and the responsibility of men in the covenants which God has entered into in the history of redemption.

What is lacking is the word of assurance to the contrite believer. Yes, we are called to faithfulness, of living out our faith in obedience and holiness. There's no doubt about this.

The contrite believer needs to be constantly re-assured of a great truth that does not shine through in this book: Repentance (like faith) is a gift of God. (see Acts 11 & 2 Timothy 2) All the good we do is proof that God is at work within us. (Philippians 2, Hebrews 13).

Believers need to know that even their holiness is not their own. It is the work of God within. This could stand to shine through. Even our holiness is a work of God's grace. This is only glanced at in a reference to Ephesians 2:10 and at the end: "The Christ who was obedient for us is the Christ obedient in us." This should have been developed far more than it was.

It's a good book, but an incomplete one. Three stars.

In this easy to read work, Shepherd explicates the view of the covenant which all Reformed Christians should hold. Shepherd sets forth a clear explanation on why Christians should look at election in terms of covenant rather than the popular belief that one should understand the covenant in terms of election. This book, written on an introductory level, is a useful springboard for discussion on an essential doctrine of the Christian faith--the covenant.

Coming out of a dispensationalist background, and not really knowing what Covenant Theology was about, I obtained this book with the hope of better understanding what has often been described to me as the core of Reformed theology. Instead, this work left me increasingly perplexed, as it seems to pour tension on other reformed doctrines I have long since accepted (the doctrines of grace, justification by faith alone).

The first thing I found baffling is how the book attempts to address evangelism and "view election from the perspective of the covenant." The author does well to point out that the five points are not the exhaustive description of Calvinism, and that the believer has no business in trying to decipher who is elect and who is reprobate. But what is troubling is that though he explicitly denies the Arminian position, his description of election sounds exceedingly corporate and conditional in character. Isn't that exactly what the Arminians affirm and the Calvinists deny?

The second and third points of confusion I found only after re-reading the book (since I didn't understand it the first time around), but trying to digest them, I find them more troubling than the first. The book says, concerning Jesus Christ himself, "His was a living, active, and obedient faith that took him all the way to the cross. This faith was credited to him as righteousness." Okay, I take it back...this isn't confusing, this is a clear statement, but my impression was that this sort of teaching is more at home with modernist innovation than with the historic Reformed faith. Isn't Christ the example to us in all things but faith? Rather, isn't he the object of faith? And isn't his righteousness intrinsic rather than imputed?

Third, and directly related to the second is the impression of how the sinner is justified. "Just as Jesus was faithful..., so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the blessing." It is good that the author insists that a Christian has commandments to live by. But this, like many other statements in the book, muddies the waters. Regardless of what the author is trying to teach, it sounds very much like works. It is frustrating that no clear attempt is made to explain the obedient Christian life in relation to justification by faith alone.

I have since learned more of Reformed theology, and can conclude that this book is not a good introduction to the historic protestant faith. I am somewhat perplexed by the number of clearly Reformed reviewers giving such high marks for the book. I thought that it would be useful that this review be from my reaction as someone new to the systematic. Though many of the statements made in the book I would not disagree with if taken alone, and many others I would heartily endorse, as a unit, the book left me bewildered. Tensions are created rather than resolved, and poor neophytes (like me) are left more confused as to how the Covenant illuminates anything.

The Call of Grace is like a cold glass of water on a hot day, oh so refreshing. Norman Shepherd takes his reader to God's word and shows how important the Biblical doctrine of God's covenant is to the proper understanding of many other important Christian teachings. If the doctrines of election and predestination in their relationship to evangelism, personal holiness, and other practical Christian doctrines have left you with more questions then answers then you need to read this book. By it God has breathed a breath of fresh air into the Reformed community.

Sure this is a great book--if you want to learn how to:

1. Deny the Reformed doctrine of forensic justification (Christ's active and passive obedience which *merits* eternal life and is credited to your account when you believe).

2. Deny God's covenant of works with Adam (found in the Westminster Confession) which is the basis for the second Adam's (Christ) propitiation of our sins because God is Just and must punish sins.

3. Deny the Mediatorship of Christ (also in the Westminster Confession) and learn to think of him as 'the first Christian'.

4. Learn to think that the Gospel is Faith + Works (hereby known as 'covenant-keeping'). Learn that works, which are somehow *not* meritorious, are nevertheless necessary for your justification at the last day. In otherwords, works/personal godliness is *not* merely evidence of a live faith (per James and Paul and the Reformers), but one of the twin grounds of your justification.

5. Learn to say (and believe) that, "the Law is Life!"

6. Learn to deny the Solas of the Reformation.

Or, better yet, actually study what the Reformers taught about the covenant and how we are justified before God...

Shepherd departs from the Reformed tradition when he insists that covenant keeping, i.e., faithful evangelical obedience, is necessary for justification. He de-emphasizes classical Reformed teaching, such as eternal and unconditional election, justification by faith alone (apart from any of the works of faith), and the centrality cross of Jesus Christ in the life and consciousness of the believer. Read this book if you want to explore an innovative and "Arminianish" theology of salvation, but turn elsewhere if you want to understand the classical Reformation view.

For a solid and orthodox articulation of classical Reformed Covenant Theology, I recommend Louis Berkhof's _Systematic Theology_, and for a more thorough treatment, Herman Witsius' _The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man_.

Sure this is a great book--if you want to learn how to:

1. Deny the Reformed doctrine of forensic justification (Christ's active and passive obedience which *merits* eternal life and is credited to your account when you believe).

2. Deny God's covenant of works with Adam (found in the Westminster Confession) which is the basis for the second Adam's (Christ) propitiation of our sins because God is Just and must punish sins.

3. Deny the Mediatorship of Christ (also in the Westminster Confession) and learn to think of him as 'the first Christian'.

4. Learn to think that the Gospel is Faith + Works (hereby known as 'covenant-keeping'). Learn that works, which are somehow *not* meritorious, are nevertheless necessary for your justification at the last day. In otherwords, works/personal godliness is *not* merely evidence of a live faith (per James and Paul and the Reformers), but one of the twin grounds of your justification.

5. Learn to say (and believe) that, "the Law is Life!"

6. Learn to deny the Solas of the Reformation.

Or, better yet, actually study what the Reformers taught about the covenant and how we are justified before God...