What do you think?
Rate this book
Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism
Draws on the covenant to shed light on evangelism and the way of salvation. Explains where and how human responsibility enters into salvation.
- GenresTheology
120 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
February 3, 2009
Really good.
August 4, 2020
This short book offers many great discussion points on covenant and election. Shepherd offers a "third way" beyond the antinomian and legalistic interpretations of faith and obedience. There are more questions left unasked and unanswered, but it is a worthwhile read. It is not without controversy, but an important perspective on viewing election through the lens of covenant rather than the other way around.
February 20, 2012
While doubtful that this work "started" the Federal Vision controversy, I think we can view it as indicative of forces stirring in Calvindom for the last forty years, only to explode at Auburn Avenue. For whatever else the critics may say, this book is remarkably *clear.* Each chapter reads quickly and builds upon previous chapters. In the first part, which isn't controversial by anyone's standards, Shepherd summarizes the essence of Reformed teaching on the covenant.
When people criticize this book, it is the second half of the book they have in mind. In the second half Shepherd gives a very pastoral account of how to view both covenant and election. While some defenders of Shepherd disagree with me on this, I think Shepherd is viewing election in terms of the covenant--and I think he is correct to do so. The advantage to this viewing is that since the covenant is visible, election should be seen as visible. This means--and this is where Shepherd's supporters have not fully fleshed out the problem--that election should not be seen as the pre-temporal decrees of God, but as God acting in history to save his people. Of course, for anyone who has read N. T. Wright, this is exactly what he is saying. Admittedly, though, this reading strains the Reformed tradition.
Shepherd writes, "The gospel would hardly appear to be good news to the reprobate, and since no one knows for sure who the elect are, no word of encouragement, comfort, or assurance can be addressed directly to them as such. As a result, we tend to proclaim the gospel in the third person, talking in terms of what Christ has done for “his own.” But the question remains: What good news can a pastor give to this or than particular person? (p. 68)" This is the essence of what one may call "The Reformed Psychology of Election." I can't know if I am elect. What do I do? With Shepherd's reading, this question is moot (and quite frankly, spiritually dangerous. For an example, consult Perry Miller's work on the American Puritans).
Problems:
Even if one can make an argument that some 300 year old dead Dutch theologian with an unpronounceable last name believed in something like what Shepherd believed, few seriously take Shepherd's view as normative of most recognizable Reformed positions. If you view election in terms of the covenant (the latter, please note, is always temporal), then there really is no point in talking about "the eternal decrees." Indeed, if Shepherd's argument holds, it might even be dangerous to do so.
Unfortunately, given the last ten years in Calvindom, holding Shepherd's views will make you anathema. Another problem is Confessionalism. While the Confession is open to different interpretations, the only ones that matter are the interpretations officially sanctioned by certain NAPARC presbyteries. Shepherd supporters are literally out of a job.
For my money, though, Shepherd's reading is a wise, sane, and correct reading of the covenant.
When people criticize this book, it is the second half of the book they have in mind. In the second half Shepherd gives a very pastoral account of how to view both covenant and election. While some defenders of Shepherd disagree with me on this, I think Shepherd is viewing election in terms of the covenant--and I think he is correct to do so. The advantage to this viewing is that since the covenant is visible, election should be seen as visible. This means--and this is where Shepherd's supporters have not fully fleshed out the problem--that election should not be seen as the pre-temporal decrees of God, but as God acting in history to save his people. Of course, for anyone who has read N. T. Wright, this is exactly what he is saying. Admittedly, though, this reading strains the Reformed tradition.
Shepherd writes, "The gospel would hardly appear to be good news to the reprobate, and since no one knows for sure who the elect are, no word of encouragement, comfort, or assurance can be addressed directly to them as such. As a result, we tend to proclaim the gospel in the third person, talking in terms of what Christ has done for “his own.” But the question remains: What good news can a pastor give to this or than particular person? (p. 68)" This is the essence of what one may call "The Reformed Psychology of Election." I can't know if I am elect. What do I do? With Shepherd's reading, this question is moot (and quite frankly, spiritually dangerous. For an example, consult Perry Miller's work on the American Puritans).
Problems:
Even if one can make an argument that some 300 year old dead Dutch theologian with an unpronounceable last name believed in something like what Shepherd believed, few seriously take Shepherd's view as normative of most recognizable Reformed positions. If you view election in terms of the covenant (the latter, please note, is always temporal), then there really is no point in talking about "the eternal decrees." Indeed, if Shepherd's argument holds, it might even be dangerous to do so.
Unfortunately, given the last ten years in Calvindom, holding Shepherd's views will make you anathema. Another problem is Confessionalism. While the Confession is open to different interpretations, the only ones that matter are the interpretations officially sanctioned by certain NAPARC presbyteries. Shepherd supporters are literally out of a job.
For my money, though, Shepherd's reading is a wise, sane, and correct reading of the covenant.
December 9, 2025
Absolutely fantastic read. Shepherd points out the necessity to have a covenantal view that is upholding doctrines such as election, regeneration, etc. and not the other way around.
Also, he does some incredible work to show that every major covenant throughout scripture has promises and stipulations, he demonstrates this by looking at the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. Highly recommend this book.
Also, he does some incredible work to show that every major covenant throughout scripture has promises and stipulations, he demonstrates this by looking at the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. Highly recommend this book.
July 1, 2023
Good stuff, a worthwhile read.
August 10, 2023
A really helpful short presentation on how covenant theology should apply in space-time redemptive history.
“Salvation is both by grace and through faith. These are the two parts of the covenant: grace and faith, promise and obligation. Grace is not without conditions, and a living and active faith is not meeritorious achievement. It is the biblical doctrine of covenant that enables us to sail safely between the Scylla of legalism and the Charybdis of antinomianism” (page 63).
I echo Richard Gaffin Jr.’s endorsement on the back of this book:
“This lucid and highly readable study provides valuable instruction on what it means to live in covenant with God. God's covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all-embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people. The Call of Grace should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.” - Richard Gaffin, Jr.
“Salvation is both by grace and through faith. These are the two parts of the covenant: grace and faith, promise and obligation. Grace is not without conditions, and a living and active faith is not meeritorious achievement. It is the biblical doctrine of covenant that enables us to sail safely between the Scylla of legalism and the Charybdis of antinomianism” (page 63).
I echo Richard Gaffin Jr.’s endorsement on the back of this book:
“This lucid and highly readable study provides valuable instruction on what it means to live in covenant with God. God's covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all-embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people. The Call of Grace should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.” - Richard Gaffin, Jr.
February 12, 2023
Really good. I have just finished it a second time on 2/11/23 and I find that after several months of wrestling with these ideas suddenly they make much more sense to me than the first time I read it.
November 21, 2025
Thought provoking. Highly recommended.
May 12, 2012
This is a great book for a introduction to covenant theology, and what it means to be a Christian. I sincerely do not know what all the fuss is about. This book and the current Federal Vision theology have introduced another way of looking at faith and works and to me it makes sense. You can't have faith without good works and you can't have good works without faith. The Reformed Church needs a kick in the pants, and this may be it. For me it has made understanding what being a Christian is all about. I highly recommend this book for anyone wanting a solid and easy to understand introduction to living and spreading the Christian faith.
July 13, 2021
A help for those struggling with understanding the connection between faith and good works. This book encouraged me in the way of active faith rooted in the covenant. It especially spoke to me because most of my teen years I lived a life consisting of dead faith.
The law is good and a blessing from above. After reading this book I can say with David that I love God’s law and strive to keep it, rather than hating it because I cannot keep it fully. If you are part of God’s covenant community you too may delight in the law without even thinking of moral acceptance with God, as it was never intended for this purpose.
Thank you Mr. Shepherd!
The law is good and a blessing from above. After reading this book I can say with David that I love God’s law and strive to keep it, rather than hating it because I cannot keep it fully. If you are part of God’s covenant community you too may delight in the law without even thinking of moral acceptance with God, as it was never intended for this purpose.
Thank you Mr. Shepherd!
September 11, 2011
Controversial book that ultimately got Shepherd kicked out of Westminster, rightly or wrongly. But, it was one of the predecessors to much of the current controversy surrounding justification, N.T. Wright and the Federal Vision. Anyone interested in those topics should check this book out.
July 20, 2015
Read it twice, still wonderful.
January 28, 2019
It was okay. It helped me understand the FV connection for sure, even though no one cares about that anymore.
May 2, 2022
An important book to understand the 1970s-1980s controversy over Norman Shepherd, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminister Seminary Philadelphia, who was eventually dismissed for his teachings on the doctrine of justification.
I want to focus on the content of the book for this review and let Shepherd speak for himself with some brief comments. This book would have a more accurate tile if it was called:
The Call of Works: How your covenant obedience maintains your covenantal blessing
This books is written in response to the Lordship salvation debate, specifically arguing that we must view the Gospel from the lense of covenant and reject both "easy-believism" and legalism. Shepherd rejects the law/Gospel distinction and works/merit understanding of the Gospel and Law as "Lutheran" and not Reformed nor Biblical.
"There have been long-standing differences between adherents of the historic Lutheran and Reformed confessions. That is evident especially in their different attitudes toward the law. The law can serve to reveal and convince us of our sin, but Lutherans fear that making the commandments a rule for Christian living will confuse law and gospel. They fear that it will confuse salvation by grace with salvation by works." (Pg. 5)
"We want to ward off the clear danger of legalism, but in doing so, we gravitate towards antinomianism. Then, in order to ward off antinomianism, we are compelled to induce a measure of legalism. After all, good works, if they are truely good, are meritorious. This is the dilemma that has plagued evangelicalism even to our day, as evidenced by the lordship salvation controversy and the more recent discussion surrounding The Gift of Salvation and the Appeal to Fellow Evangelicals" (pg. 62)
Shepherd later on makes similar comments addressing the doctrine of Rome and how we can reconcile our differences if we focus on the covenant rather than justification sola fide. Shepherd's definition of faith is synonymous with obedience or covenant faithfulness/covenant loyalty.
"But on a deeper level, what must be challenged in the Roman Catholic doctrine is the very idea of merit itself. God does not, and never did, relate to his people on the basis of a works/merit principle. The biblical texts to which Rome appeals must be read in the light of the covenant. Then the biblical demands for repentance and obedience, can be seen for what they are." (pg. 60-61)
Salvation is both by grace and though faith. These are the two parts of the covenant: grace and faith, promise and obligation. Grace is not without conditions, and a living and active faith is not meritorious achievement. It is the biblical doctrine of the covenant that enables us to sail safely between the Scylla of legalism and the Charybdis of antinomianism" (pg. 63).
The main problem with Shepherd's covenantal paradigm is that it is at odds with historical reformed theology and he clearly conflates faith and obedience, which is very confusing at best and results in a conditional covenant status, where a true believer must persevere in their "covenant obedience/faithfulness" to remain in the covenant.
commenting on the Mosaic covenant, which Shepherd views as a covenant of grace, he makes these observations:
"There is both promise and obligation. In the Abrahamic covenant, promise is in the foreground, which is to say that sovereign grace is in the foreground. But the promise is not unconditional. The promise comes to fulfillment in the lives of God's people in the way of covenantal loyalty and obedience."(Pg. 23)
"The obedience required of Israel is not the obedience of merit, but the obedience of faith. It is the fullness of faith. Obedience is simply faithfulness to the Lord; it is the righteousness of faith (compare Rom. 9:23)." (pg. 39)
"Note that Paul can take an example from life under the Mosaic covenant and apply it to those who live under the new covenant. This shows that the principle operative under both covenants are the same. There is promise and there is obligation. The land promised to the wilderness generation was the Promised Land. It was an unearned and unmerited gift of grace. Yet the first generation did not inherit the land because of their unbelief and disobedience. This is the point made in Hebrews 3:18-19. Similarly for us, eternal life is an undeserved gift of grace; we enter into it by way of a living, active, and obedient faith" (pg. 51)
Shepherd's view of faith and obedience is very clear in this quote from his discussion of the Mosaic covenant:
"For Israel, the promises came wrapped in the garment of the Mosaic law. That is why faith in these promises also entailed faithfulness with respect to the commandments. Obedience is simply and expression of faith in the promises of God, not an alternative to faith." (pg. 32)
Shepherd starts with the Abrahamic covenant and never addresses the covenant of works in his book, but he does allude to it at some points, which show a very weak foundation in this area of his theology:
"Scripture shows that the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works embodying a works/merit principle at its core. It is not a republication of an original covenant of works. (We must leave aside for the moment the question whether the relationship into which God entered with Adam ought to be described as a covenant of works.)" (pg. 26-27)
"Nothing demonstrates the conditional character of the Abrahamic covenant more clearly than the way in which the promises of that covenant are ultimately fulfilled. They are fulfilled through the covenantal loyalty and obedience of Jesus Christ. But just as Jesus was faithful in order to guarantee the blessing, so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the blessing. According to the Great Commission, to be followers of Jesus we must learn to obey everything that he has commanded. We must become not only believers, but disciples! Or, to put it another way, to be a true believer is to be an obedient disciple." (pg. 19)
Here Shepherd is making a parallel between Christ and believers that is illegitimate. Christ fulfilled the covenant of works through his perfect life unto death obedience as the last Adam and federal head of believers. We as believers cannot fulfill the covenant of works since we are fallen in Adam and cannot obtain the perfect requirements that the law demands. Shepherd is conflating faith and works and fails to distinguish that works come as a result of having been justified through faith in Christ. Works are a part of our sanctification, but not our justification as Shepherd is arguing.
I will conclude with Shepherd's interpretation of John 15:1-8:
"Jesus is clearly and unambiguously saying in this passage that he is the vine and that his hearers are branches abiding in him. He exhorts them all to continue abiding in him by bearing fruit, and that means by persevering in faith and obedience. If they do, the Father will see to it that they bear even more fruit. They are at no point cast upon their own resources, because as branches they get their vitality at every point from the vine. On the other hand, if certain branches do not abide in Christ, but deny him and become disobedient, the Father will cut them off and destroy them. The passage is a grand exhortation to covenant faithfulness, enveloped in the overflowing grace of Christ." (pg. 89)
Shepherd then continues his explanation of the passage and directly criticizes the interpretation that the cut of branches were "outwardly" part of the covenant. He argues that they were inwardly part of the covenant and united to Christ, but were cut off from the covenant and Christ. Shepherd views the warning as illegitimate unless it is an actual threat that someone can be cut off from the covenant:
"The questions is then resolved by distinguishing between two kinds of branches. Some branches are not really in Christ in a saving way. They are in him only "outwardly," and whatever fruit there is, is not genuine. These branches are eventually cut off and destroyed. Other branches are truly branches. They are in Christ "inwardly," or savingly. They bear more and more fruit as they are pruned and cultivated by the Father. If this distinction is in the text, it is difficult to see what the point of the warning is." (pg. 90).
I want to focus on the content of the book for this review and let Shepherd speak for himself with some brief comments. This book would have a more accurate tile if it was called:
The Call of Works: How your covenant obedience maintains your covenantal blessing
This books is written in response to the Lordship salvation debate, specifically arguing that we must view the Gospel from the lense of covenant and reject both "easy-believism" and legalism. Shepherd rejects the law/Gospel distinction and works/merit understanding of the Gospel and Law as "Lutheran" and not Reformed nor Biblical.
"There have been long-standing differences between adherents of the historic Lutheran and Reformed confessions. That is evident especially in their different attitudes toward the law. The law can serve to reveal and convince us of our sin, but Lutherans fear that making the commandments a rule for Christian living will confuse law and gospel. They fear that it will confuse salvation by grace with salvation by works." (Pg. 5)
"We want to ward off the clear danger of legalism, but in doing so, we gravitate towards antinomianism. Then, in order to ward off antinomianism, we are compelled to induce a measure of legalism. After all, good works, if they are truely good, are meritorious. This is the dilemma that has plagued evangelicalism even to our day, as evidenced by the lordship salvation controversy and the more recent discussion surrounding The Gift of Salvation and the Appeal to Fellow Evangelicals" (pg. 62)
Shepherd later on makes similar comments addressing the doctrine of Rome and how we can reconcile our differences if we focus on the covenant rather than justification sola fide. Shepherd's definition of faith is synonymous with obedience or covenant faithfulness/covenant loyalty.
"But on a deeper level, what must be challenged in the Roman Catholic doctrine is the very idea of merit itself. God does not, and never did, relate to his people on the basis of a works/merit principle. The biblical texts to which Rome appeals must be read in the light of the covenant. Then the biblical demands for repentance and obedience, can be seen for what they are." (pg. 60-61)
Salvation is both by grace and though faith. These are the two parts of the covenant: grace and faith, promise and obligation. Grace is not without conditions, and a living and active faith is not meritorious achievement. It is the biblical doctrine of the covenant that enables us to sail safely between the Scylla of legalism and the Charybdis of antinomianism" (pg. 63).
The main problem with Shepherd's covenantal paradigm is that it is at odds with historical reformed theology and he clearly conflates faith and obedience, which is very confusing at best and results in a conditional covenant status, where a true believer must persevere in their "covenant obedience/faithfulness" to remain in the covenant.
commenting on the Mosaic covenant, which Shepherd views as a covenant of grace, he makes these observations:
"There is both promise and obligation. In the Abrahamic covenant, promise is in the foreground, which is to say that sovereign grace is in the foreground. But the promise is not unconditional. The promise comes to fulfillment in the lives of God's people in the way of covenantal loyalty and obedience."(Pg. 23)
"The obedience required of Israel is not the obedience of merit, but the obedience of faith. It is the fullness of faith. Obedience is simply faithfulness to the Lord; it is the righteousness of faith (compare Rom. 9:23)." (pg. 39)
"Note that Paul can take an example from life under the Mosaic covenant and apply it to those who live under the new covenant. This shows that the principle operative under both covenants are the same. There is promise and there is obligation. The land promised to the wilderness generation was the Promised Land. It was an unearned and unmerited gift of grace. Yet the first generation did not inherit the land because of their unbelief and disobedience. This is the point made in Hebrews 3:18-19. Similarly for us, eternal life is an undeserved gift of grace; we enter into it by way of a living, active, and obedient faith" (pg. 51)
Shepherd's view of faith and obedience is very clear in this quote from his discussion of the Mosaic covenant:
"For Israel, the promises came wrapped in the garment of the Mosaic law. That is why faith in these promises also entailed faithfulness with respect to the commandments. Obedience is simply and expression of faith in the promises of God, not an alternative to faith." (pg. 32)
Shepherd starts with the Abrahamic covenant and never addresses the covenant of works in his book, but he does allude to it at some points, which show a very weak foundation in this area of his theology:
"Scripture shows that the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works embodying a works/merit principle at its core. It is not a republication of an original covenant of works. (We must leave aside for the moment the question whether the relationship into which God entered with Adam ought to be described as a covenant of works.)" (pg. 26-27)
"Nothing demonstrates the conditional character of the Abrahamic covenant more clearly than the way in which the promises of that covenant are ultimately fulfilled. They are fulfilled through the covenantal loyalty and obedience of Jesus Christ. But just as Jesus was faithful in order to guarantee the blessing, so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the blessing. According to the Great Commission, to be followers of Jesus we must learn to obey everything that he has commanded. We must become not only believers, but disciples! Or, to put it another way, to be a true believer is to be an obedient disciple." (pg. 19)
Here Shepherd is making a parallel between Christ and believers that is illegitimate. Christ fulfilled the covenant of works through his perfect life unto death obedience as the last Adam and federal head of believers. We as believers cannot fulfill the covenant of works since we are fallen in Adam and cannot obtain the perfect requirements that the law demands. Shepherd is conflating faith and works and fails to distinguish that works come as a result of having been justified through faith in Christ. Works are a part of our sanctification, but not our justification as Shepherd is arguing.
I will conclude with Shepherd's interpretation of John 15:1-8:
"Jesus is clearly and unambiguously saying in this passage that he is the vine and that his hearers are branches abiding in him. He exhorts them all to continue abiding in him by bearing fruit, and that means by persevering in faith and obedience. If they do, the Father will see to it that they bear even more fruit. They are at no point cast upon their own resources, because as branches they get their vitality at every point from the vine. On the other hand, if certain branches do not abide in Christ, but deny him and become disobedient, the Father will cut them off and destroy them. The passage is a grand exhortation to covenant faithfulness, enveloped in the overflowing grace of Christ." (pg. 89)
Shepherd then continues his explanation of the passage and directly criticizes the interpretation that the cut of branches were "outwardly" part of the covenant. He argues that they were inwardly part of the covenant and united to Christ, but were cut off from the covenant and Christ. Shepherd views the warning as illegitimate unless it is an actual threat that someone can be cut off from the covenant:
"The questions is then resolved by distinguishing between two kinds of branches. Some branches are not really in Christ in a saving way. They are in him only "outwardly," and whatever fruit there is, is not genuine. These branches are eventually cut off and destroyed. Other branches are truly branches. They are in Christ "inwardly," or savingly. They bear more and more fruit as they are pruned and cultivated by the Father. If this distinction is in the text, it is difficult to see what the point of the warning is." (pg. 90).
August 18, 2025
Very helpful
April 7, 2011
Boy, where do I start? I generally like this book and am attracted to the view Shepherd presents, but it makes me uncomfortable, too. My discomfort is related to the following:
- The book deals with a very touchy, controversial, and mysterious topic in just over one hundred pages. I think Shepherd does himself a disservice in this regard. Because it is such a brief treatment, concepts that beg for clarification tend to get left a little vague, at least in my opinion.
- Where are the footnotes?! If you're gonna deal with a topic as sensitive as this, you have to show how your view is historical by quoting others. He doesn't reference a single author who might back up what he is trying to prove.
- I am confused about what he means by "faith." In some passages it seems like he equates faith with obedience, and in other passages he seems to think of faith as trust. I think that needs to be developed a lot more. Is faith just something I believe, or is it something I do? Or is it a mixture of belief and obedience? If so, how does that work?
- These are really old essays. Has he developed these ideas further since he wrote them all those decades ago? I wish he'd expand and clarify.
The strengths of the book are the following:
- While what I wrote above is true, I'm kind of glad to be able to read a whole book in a couple of days. This is a great introduction to a scary topic. I just wish he'd have given a bibliography to do some further reading.
- The second half of the book dealing with evangelism is brilliant. I really like how he challenges evangelism from the perspective of election vs. the perspective of Arminianism. The covenantal approach to evangelism is the way to go. It gave me a lot to think about, even with the areas that need some further clarification.
- The book deals with a very touchy, controversial, and mysterious topic in just over one hundred pages. I think Shepherd does himself a disservice in this regard. Because it is such a brief treatment, concepts that beg for clarification tend to get left a little vague, at least in my opinion.
- Where are the footnotes?! If you're gonna deal with a topic as sensitive as this, you have to show how your view is historical by quoting others. He doesn't reference a single author who might back up what he is trying to prove.
- I am confused about what he means by "faith." In some passages it seems like he equates faith with obedience, and in other passages he seems to think of faith as trust. I think that needs to be developed a lot more. Is faith just something I believe, or is it something I do? Or is it a mixture of belief and obedience? If so, how does that work?
- These are really old essays. Has he developed these ideas further since he wrote them all those decades ago? I wish he'd expand and clarify.
The strengths of the book are the following:
- While what I wrote above is true, I'm kind of glad to be able to read a whole book in a couple of days. This is a great introduction to a scary topic. I just wish he'd have given a bibliography to do some further reading.
- The second half of the book dealing with evangelism is brilliant. I really like how he challenges evangelism from the perspective of election vs. the perspective of Arminianism. The covenantal approach to evangelism is the way to go. It gave me a lot to think about, even with the areas that need some further clarification.
May 6, 2014
I don't know how you can talk about the Abrahamic covenant so forcefully and ignore the fact that God was the great king and the lesser king in the covenant. Abraham never was made part to any covenant, he was given the blessings of the covenant God took upon himself. God alone cut a covenant with God; he passed through the pieces alone. If someone breaks the covenant, God shall be ripped apart as the animals, not the law breaker. And Shepherd ignores this. He then calls faith grace obedience (Abrahamic) and obedience grace (Mosaic). When you do that you can create an obedience based system out of a grace based system.
May 21, 2012
for me, this book was extremely broadening. I know that some people are concerned with Shepherd's view on justification. However, he leads you into a way of understanding the Bible that is very important and safeguards from legalism. It is also an understanding of the Bible that I can pass on to my children with full confidence. They'll still be okay with the nuances of justification.
August 15, 2009
One of the Federal Vision controversy-starters, decades ago. Look at election through the covenant; don't look at the covenant through election. Deut 29:29. Deal with people according to their profession and fruit, not trying to read the tea leaves of their soul.
March 21, 2014
Second time through this one - very good insight with regards to Reformed attempts at evangelizing.
July 26, 2016
This was helpful. Shepherd seeks to shed some light on how covenantal theology should drive our evangelistic efforts.
January 23, 2009
Really liked it! Had to read several portions more than once...
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews