6 comments

1. Dr. Clark,

   Do one of the links above or a different link explain the influence of Shepherd’s theology on Piper, Wright, Wilson, etc?

   • Yes. Several. Start here:

     https://heidelblog.net/2017/02/forty-three-years-of-federal-vision-theology/

     1. I doubt that Tom Wright has been reading Norman Shepherd.
     2. Piper is the student of Daniel Fuller, who was teaching many of the same things as Shepherd. He has added to Fuller’s system the doctrine of imputation but, in the end, his is the same system of in by grace, finish by works.

     https://heidelblog.net/2014/10/daniel-p-fullers-doctrine-of-justification-antithetical-to-the-reformation/

     https://heidelblog.net/2017/10/background-on-the-current-salvation-controversy/

     https://heidelblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/O.-Palmer-Robertson-Presbuterion-8.1-1982-84-91.pdf

     https://heidelblog.net/2017/10/why-we-remember-the-reformation-part-3/

     https://heidelblog.net/2017/11/one-of-the-root-causes-of-the-current-controversy-over-salvation-sola-fide/

     Wilson and the FV are certainly Shepherd’s spiritual-theological-practical children.

2. Do you have any resources that outline the rationale of the Westminster faculty that supported him? Or from the OPC presbytery that he was a member of? Did the CRC, or one of its classes, ever address the issue formally?

   • Cameron,

     The views of his defenders can be classified thus:

     1. He’s upholding the traditional doctrine.
     2. He’s merely saying that true faith produces fruit of good works.
     3. 3. He has a right to his view.

     Responses:

     1. Manifestly false.
     2. Demonstrably false.
     3. Latitudinarianism never turns out well.

     By way of mitigation, in ’74–81 it was more difficult to understand Shepherd than it is now, all these years later. I have spoken to several who were directly involved and they struggled to understand him. Further, some wanted him to be more orthodox than he was. Some never understood what he saying, partly because he was so unclear and confusing.

     Still, saying “we justified through faith and works” should have been clear enough for anyone with the vaguest knowledge of the Westminster Shorter Catechism to see how false it is. “Justification through faith and works,” or “through faithfulness” is utterly incompatible with WCF 11.

     There was never any controversy over the necessity of good works as fruit and evidence of justification. The Heidelberg Catechism is in three parts: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. It’s not that complicated. Anyone who denies the necessity of good works as fruit and evidence is an antinomian. As a matter of fact, the critics stoutly defended the necessity of good works against Shepherd who (with his defenders) mocked the traditional view as making good works a second blessing.

     The reality is that Shepherd thought that he had made a breakthrough via the doctrine of union with Christ. Works and faith are two co-equal, co-instruments of justification flowing from union said to be wrought in regeneration. That’s why some couldn’t see why there was ever a controversy. They thought that as long as one ascribed everything to God’s sovereign grace they were perfectly orthodox.

     The third approach is just flatly latitudinarian and evidence of how far the P&R churches had drifted from confessional orthodoxy by the 1970s. Too man either did not know or care what Shepherd was saying.

     He was received into Classic Hackensack as a “conservative” by other conservatives. He was received by colloquium doctum which limited the opportunity for questioning. He was asked whether he agreed with Belgic art. 24, that we are justified before we ever do good works, and he said he agreed. Nothing he wrote or after that moment, however, squares with that answer.

     The Presbytery trial was, to say the least, a disappointment. His 34 Theses, which I’ve discussed at length on the HB, were quite clear and utterly contradictory of the the Word of God as confessed in the Standards. Charges were about to be laid before the presbytery again when he was dismissed to Classis Hackensack.

     If you’re asking, how could so many have gotten it so wrong at the time? It’s a good question. The hard answer is that they did but we must not make the same mistake again. We must be prepared to take Shepherd at his word and not to try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

   • Thanks for the reply, it was helpful.

3. Do not forget that Vol. 13 No. 4 (2009) of the Nicotine Theological Journal published Ken Myers transcription of W. Robert Godfrey’s November 1978 remarks about Dr. Shepherd’s theses – titled “Godfrey on Shepherd”. That particular issue of the journal is not currently available online, but it is another valuable piece.

Comments are closed.