Editor’s Preface During the controversy at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia), not only did faculty devote meetings to the highly objectionable views of Norman Shepherd, but they also wrote articles for the seminary’s theological journal and even used class lectures to counter arguments from . . . Continue reading →
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 →
My first interaction with the 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 . . . 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 →
Do Reformed Christians ignore the Epistle of James? Particularly, have those who confess the Reformed theology, piety, and practice been guilty of ignoring James’ teaching in 2:14–17. Whether James has been ignored in recent years is a difficult assessment to make. How . . . Continue reading →
He even talks of eschatological justification and regards it as something that is not complete until the judgment…He does not recognize that justification is entirely God’s forensic act of declaring we are just because he has imputed to us Christ righteousness. The result is no one could ever bring against Shepherd the charge brought against Paul in Rom. 6:1—Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Continue reading →
His teaching is a subtle form of legalism and eventually is “another gospel”. —D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Continue reading →
Shepard affirms that from a covenantal perspective a person may pass from an elected and justified status to a non-elect and non-justified status. This transition does not mean simply that a person is first treated as though he were elected and justified . . . Continue reading →
It is not proper, therefore, to set up a dichotomy whereby according to God’s secret will, election or justification cannot be lost, but according to our covenant perspective they may be lost. The statements cited show a tendency to use typically Calvinistic . . . Continue reading →
“Shepherd is undoubtedly driven by a biblicistic concern to limit modern theological vocabulary strictly to the biblical incidences of those words.”—Guy Prentiss Waters. Continue reading →
While he speaks in a number of places of faith alone (unhyphenated) as the instrument by which we appropriate justification, he also insists that works must go with it, so closely related that justifying faith and works are almost identical…. This apparently . . . Continue reading →
it would be in my opinion and feeling that Norman Shepard, if he should logically continue to expand the position as set forth in all of his documents, would ultimately come to a position like that of Osiander and perhaps even close . . . Continue reading →
1. Regretfully I share the view that matters of substance, not merely of terminology are involved…. 2. I am unhappy with the way in which Mr Shepherd represents the historical theology behind the reformed doctrine of justification as stated in the Westminster . . . Continue reading →
As one who has been trained in, and has taught the classic systematic theology with the biblical theological basis of Professor John Murray’s approach, I find Mr. Shepherd’s original paper, and also his later statements, quite confusing and disturbing. For example, he . . . Continue reading →
Thesis #23 illustrates the problem: “…good works…though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification.” This thesis is replete with the confusion of formulation that I’ve already mentioned. The good works are . . . Continue reading →
In attempting to claim a fundamental cleavage between Reformed thought and Lutheranism, evangelicalism and other movements on the point of justification, Shepherd appears to abandon the traditional view that there is substantive agreement among all evangelical Protestants concerning this topic. The fact . . . Continue reading →
Shepherd, as I see it, is going into an extreme…when I started to read what he said about j(ustification) by faith, I was hoping that he mean that this faith must be more than a merely abstract acceptance of a proposition; in other . . . Continue reading →
Shepherd in effect reinvented the neonomianism of Richard Baxter in the 17th century—and from the same motive—recoil from the practical antinomianism that surrounded him, and a desire to state the gospel as to make perfectly obvious that persevering holiness is enjoined on . . . Continue reading →