In a recent foreword to a book advocating Norman Shepherd’s peculiar brand of covenant theology, John Frame attacks some of Shepherd’s critics as “stupid, irresponsible and divisive.” Apparently, someone complained about Frame’s lack of civility so he issued an apology that the . . . Continue reading →
Resources Explaining the Errors in the Theology of Norman Shepherd and in the So-Called Federal Vision Movement Continue reading →
Let us define our terms. A Baptist is someone who believes that baptism is only validly administered to professing believers. He denies that the infant children of believers are the proper subjects of baptism. A Federal Visionist is someone who, among other . . . Continue reading →
It was good to talk with Paul Flynn of Megiddo Radio today about the ongoing controversy over justification and salvation. It was a wide-ranging discussion. Paul and his family are members of Loughbrickland Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland. Click on the link . . . Continue reading →
My first interaction with theology of Norman Shepherd probably came in seminary. He was dismissed from his position as a professor in a Reformed and Presbyterian seminary, where he taught the course on the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) in 1981. I began . . . Continue reading →
“[T]his double justification doctrine (initial justification by faith alone, followed by a second justification according to works in the eschatological judgment) is re-emerging as a “consensus position” among today’s leading evangelical and Reformed biblical theologians. Rich Lusk, “The Reformed Doctrine of Justification . . . Continue reading →
HB reader Keith asks, Succinctly, what is covenant theology on the following: Predestination Security of the believer? Hi Keith, The short answer is that the covenant theology that we confess does not fundamentally change our doctrine of predestination, which says that all . . . Continue reading →
Here and there in some Reformed theologians a conception intrudes that appears to function at the boundary of the orthodox system, so that one may doubt that it may still be called Reformed. There have been those who posit a kind of . . . Continue reading →
One of the distinctive errors of the self-described Federal Vision theology is the doctrine that, in baptism, all the benefits of the covenant of grace are conferred temporarily and conditionally.1 Thus, they claim, there is such a thing as a “covenantal” (temporary, . . . Continue reading →
On this date in 1546 Martin Luther completed his Christian pilgrimage on this earth. This year we are celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation (October 31, 1517). It’s appropriate then, that confessional Protestants do in our time what Luther did in . . . Continue reading →
…Dr. Shepherd makes no attempt to define his concept of covenant, and yet it is imperative, in view of its centrality to scripture, theology , and history, that this term should be defined, and used with the utmost precision. …He assumes that . . . Continue reading →
XII. Faith is not true because it perseveres, but it perseveres because it is true. Thus perseverance is not the cause of the verity of faith, but the consequent and the effect—for because it has solidity and a deep root in the . . . Continue reading →
The self-described “Federal Vision” has been with us, in its most recent incarnation, since about 1974, when Norman Shepherd began to teach that we are justified through faith and works. That’s right. A professor of theology, in an ostensibly confessional school, openly . . . Continue reading →
It was a good to spend an hour with the Regular Reformed Guys talking about the Federal Vision theology. We spend a little time talking Nebraska football, so that’s always good. We even wandered into the revival of the “King James Only” . . . Continue reading →
4. Justification by the Instrument of an “Obedient Faith” In the writings of FV authors, however, faith, even in respect to its instrumentality for justification, is defined differently. Norman Shepherd, for example, persistently speaks of the instrument of justification as a “living,” . . . Continue reading →
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations: The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which . . . Continue reading →
SOURCE
The danger that I see in this is that many people who do not share Doug Wilson’s views on theology, history, slavery, patriarchy, marriage, sex, etc. may be allowing him to teach his views to their children without being aware of it. . . . Continue reading →