# Shepherd, Gaffin, and Karlberg



## DMcFadden (Jun 16, 2010)

Mark Karlberg asserts that the "root of the Shepherd-Gaffin error is denial of the traditional Reformed doctrine of the Covenant of Works . . . In this neoorthodox formulation there is no antithesis between law and grace, law and gospel."

Can one of our Westminster boys please unpack this statement a bit. I am aware of the connection between the Shepherd controversy three decades ago and the FV. I am looking for a little more insight into Karlberg (three degrees from Westminster) and his critique of Gaffin.

Thanks!


----------



## chbrooking (Jun 17, 2010)

As I mentioned some time ago (in another post), it saddens me that Gaffin is being associated with the heretical views of Shepherd. The controversy itself predated my days at WTS, but from what I understand, Gaffin merely tried (as we are all commanded to do by the 9th commandment) to construe Shepherd in the most positive way possible. That he recognized some good emphases in Shepherd and tried to highlight those is no reason to assume that Gaffin agreed with Shepherd in every respect.

As for whether Gaffin denies the traditional reformed doctrine of the covenant of works, I can say without any reservation whatsoever that he does not. He spent a great deal of time in his Doctrine of Christ class, e.g., exegeting Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 to demonstrate the nature of Christ's federal (i.e. covenantal) work vis-a-vis Adam's. The principal problem with Shepherd and FV is the denial of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. They want to take the forensic out of the equation. Gaffin does no such thing. 

I don't know what more to say. Karlberg is wrong. Bear in mind, too, that while charges were pending against Shepherd when he transferred his credentials, charges were not filed against Gaffin. Gaffin has written and spoken against the problems of FV and the NPP. So I am baffled as to why some are determined to soil his good name. Gaffin is being vilified because he was obedient to the 9th commandment. I would suggest that those doing the vilification could learn a thing or two from his actions.

I have notes from WTS that are virtually word for word. I can back up my claim that Karlberg is wrong. If anyone would like to see demonstrated from Gaffin's lectures that he does indeed hold to the traditional view concerning the covenant of works, PM me and I'll show you.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 17, 2010)

Thank you Pastor Brooking.

I am married to a WTS grad, go to church with a WTS pastor, and the first time they met the two of them spent half an hour talking about their great conversations with Gaffin, and the great times in his classes.

The vilification and slander of Gaffin is mindboggling. 

It may be that Karlberg was influenced by the late John Robbins? My hub has his CD about how Shepherd was off and Gaffin was off and Gerhardus Vos was off and Van Til was off. It would be almost funny if not so arrogant beyond belief. Some people seem to think that they and they alone truly grasp justification by faith.

I understand that in the discussion about what is "living faith" and "dead faith" in James, there is a doctrinal line that gets crossed where justification by faith is denied. I know that when we try to understand and teach commands to obedience there needs to be a very clear presentation of sola fide. But Gaffin? Vos? Van Til? It goes into the realm of the absurd.

I don't know why these people are not disciplined for slander and literally excommunicated for divisiveness if they don't repent. It certainly is a disillusioning blot on the entire Reformed community.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2010)

It is currently fashionable in some Reformed circles to use G.B.A. reasoning to defeat the views of competing ideas. This attempt to tie people to Shepherd because they refused to burn him at the stake without trial in the late 70's/early 80's has been used repeatedly by some to defame Greg Bahnsen. Not surprising those disagreeing with Gaffin's emphasis on Union have done the same thing.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 17, 2010)

I agree with Clark. Gaffin does not deny the CoW in any way, shape, or form. He was kind to a fault to his friend Shepherd, and I stress that word friend. Over time, Gaffin came to see the problems in Shepherd's formulations, especially through his involvement in the OPC study committee. Some men I deeply respect still do not trust Gaffin, and I can actually understand that. However, having sat through 5 of Gaffin's classes, I can most definitely affirm his orthodoxy. I believe Karlberg has hit with a shotgun, not with a rifle, thereby hitting more than that at which he should have aimed.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 17, 2010)

Thanks folks! I have appreciated Karlberg's collection of essays on the covenant but wondered if some of his rhetorical flourishes were a bit overkill.

He also took aim at one of my former professors, Moses Silva, and a dear friend with whom I am in STRONG disagreement, Dan Fuller. Since it has been almost four decades since taking Silva (then newly minted PhD from Manchester), he may have changed views. And, I know the theological issues with Dan. However, Karlberg's canon shoots huge projectiles.


----------



## Theogenes (Jun 20, 2010)

Will someone please comment on Gaffin's endorsement on the back of Shepherd's book, The Call of Grace.
Thanks


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 21, 2010)

I talked with Dr. Gaffin about that. He was not convinced at the time of Dr. Shepherd's danger. It was after that, that Dr. Gaffin came to realize how imbalanced Shepherd's position was.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 21, 2010)

Theogenes, etc....

Back when the mess started, Shepherd was a greatly beloved prof who was seen as the successor to John Murray. His teaching, if you listen to the tapes from the classes back then, was orthodox. He tried to articulate what it means to have living faith instead of a dead faith, and to resist a subtle antinomianism that appeared to be propagated at WTS by a few men, where justification by faith was somehow separated from obedience in a way that was unbiblical ( and not confessional either). He wanted students to be able to put it all together in their minds, and I would guess that he himself was doing a lot of deep thinking about justification, obedience, living and dead faith, and antinomianism.

When the whole thing blew up, both the faculty and the board voted in his favor. Now you can say "big deal, the faculty voted in Enns favor too", but in Enns case it was (from our insider sources accounts) because the board denied him due process and disregarded the rules that should have given Enns a hearing. With NS, it was a vote that he was orthodox. At the time, it seemed that his two big opponents ( who both went off to WSC If I recall correctly, one is still there) were preaching a distinct antinomianism, a justification that seemed to stand by itself, without a union with Christ that leads to good works. All that is the subject of endless diatribes and defenses about who is really truly Reformed and who is not, and WSC does their thing about how they are not into antinomianism, and the war never ends and they all fight and accuse until you get sick. Except NS and Gaffin, who far as I know managed to hold themselves above the ugliness.

It was not until maybe the last decade that Gaffin finally said Shepherd was vague and had made vague comments that can be taken either way ( FVish or orthodox). For a teacher of future pastors, obviously vague is not good enough, you must be precise and clear. But vague does not make you a heretic. Even now there are numerous quotes in his book about how NO MERIT AT ALL OF OUR OWN gains you anything with God. 

At any rate, you asked about Gaffin at the start. Gaffin tried to be righteous and fair in the face of vitriolic accusation flying around, and he is to be commended for believeing the best of a possibly confusing presentation of justification and obedience. He is certainly not FV, and neither is NS. NS may be sort of in the middle, but he isn't a Doug Wilson.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 21, 2010)

It took him 30 years to relize that Shepherd's teachings are "imbalanced." Wow!


----------



## py3ak (Jun 21, 2010)

As I recall, Dr. Lloyd-Jones sent a letter to WTS encouraging them to take some action with regard to Shepherd: evidently the issues were clear enough that British evangelicals could spot them.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 21, 2010)

It is also said that LLoyd-Jones was sent a one sided and distorted perspective. I am sure that if you preached on obedience, or being created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance for us to do, that plenty of antinomians could jump all over you as distorting justification.

I find any slurs that Gaffin is in error, or not discerning, or too slow to get it, as positively disgusting, and I hope the people who want to tarnish his reputation repent.

When the entire faculty and board of Westminster Seminary vote and find a man to be within the bounds of orthodoxy, as was the case many years ago ( might be different now), I think its rather arrogant of cyberbloggers to go smearing that entire group's conclusion at that time.......


----------



## py3ak (Jun 21, 2010)

Dr. Lloyd-Jones may have been many things, but a cyber-blogger was not one of them! You're not really exemplifying your case with your own rhetoric.


----------



## Wayne (Jun 21, 2010)

Lynnie:

May I quietly and respectfully ask exactly *who* says that DMLJ was "sent a one sided and distorted perspective"? 

For the historical record, approximately one dozen men were mailed information packets, each of which totaled about 170 pages of single-spaced typescript [as per Fred Klooster's estimate in his letter of response, dated 9 November 1979].

With a bit of work I could probably put together a full list of what was sent. One of those titles is listed below.

In the letter accompanying the information packet, four questions were asked of these men:
1. "Whether a significant doctrinal error may be involved in Mr. Shepherd's formulations?"
2. "Whether his formulations on justification could seriously mislead the church?"
3. "Suggestions you might offer as to how a resolution of the problem might be achieved?"
4. Lastly, do "the subsequent papers of Mr. Shepherd represent a significant departure from the formulations of the October 1976 paper....? 
[that would have been a reference to Shepherd's paper dated 1 October 1976 and titled _The Relation of Good Works to Justification in the Westminster Standards_. This was a paper presented to the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, 53pp. in length.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 21, 2010)

py3ak said:


> As I recall, Dr. Lloyd-Jones sent a letter to WTS encouraging them to take some action with regard to Shepherd: evidently the issues were clear enough that British evangelicals could spot them.


 
According to the book _W. Stanford Reid: an evangelical Calvinist in the academy_ by A. Donald MacLeod (see p. 269), Lloyd-Jones was one of several prominent evangelicals approached by O. Palmer Robertson, et al to weigh-in on the Shepherd controversy. It’s not clear that Lloyd-Jones would have acted on his own initiative in this matter.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 21, 2010)

Loyd Jones was negative about the NS materials he saw. I am not aware that he was critical about Gaffin.

_evidently the issues were clear enough that British evangelicals could spot them._ 

and evidently the issues were unclear enough that Gaffin and a whole lot of other confessional people at WTS voted that NS was within orthodoxy.

The thread began with a reference to the "Shepherd-Gaffin error". Enough posters have already asserted that Gaffin does not deserve such a reference, that hopefully my rhetorical failures don't matter. Carry on. I still say Karlberg is slandering.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

Wayne...you can ask. But I ain't naming names 

WTS grads, at least one on staff.

I really appreciate the history though!!! So what did the other 11 guys think? And why the WTS faculty and board vote that he was within orthodoxy, if it was so clear as some people seem to think?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

and Wayne...just out of curiosity.....are you personally going so far as to say you implicate Gaffin as part of the Shepherd-Gaffin error?


----------



## Wayne (Jun 21, 2010)

Lynnie:

There is no mention of Gaffin in the DLMJ letter. I would expect the same of the other letters, though I haven't examined them to confirm.

Of the other letters, per my poor memory, all of the others were of similar conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not making any conclusion here or elsewhere regarding Dr. Gaffin. I'm just the archivist; not my job to offer such conclusions. 

I would counsel, "don't latch on to the title of the thread with its hyphenated name" You could inadvertently start something that way.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jun 21, 2010)

To clear up a possible red herring, Lynnie may not have intended "cyberbloggers" to refer to Lloyd-Jones but to participants in this thread.

***********

Lynnie, it is not necessarily to their discredit that even great theologians may only slowly come to understand an important issue. Luther had a bit of a struggle to accept the canonicity of James for example. When Dr. Gaffin is now saying that he was slow to appreciate the significance of some details in Shepherd's theology, it is not disgusting to agree with him. 

The one account of the Shepherd controversy I have seen is O. Palmer Robertson's "The Current Justification Controversy", Trinity Foundation 2003. Upon reading it, one discovers that there is good evidence that concern over Shepherd's doctrinal orthodoxy was felt by at least some on the board. Certainly, when the board statement announcing Shepherd's dismissal gives as a reason for dismissal the "deep inherent problems in the structure and particular formulations" of his views, it is clear that his views were not easily pigeonholed within the bounds of orthodoxy. And the fundamental reason the board gave for his dismissal was that the Board had "become convinced that . . . [his teaching] on justification . . . and related themes is not clearly in accord with the teaching of the Scripture as it is summarized in the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards."

Certainly his presbytery had some problems with his views. Even though he transferred to the CRC, that transfer could have been blocked had the charges which had been filed, been admitted against him before the motion to approve his dismissal. Even before these final charges were filed, Rev. Shepherd had been the subject of charges for the previous four years and his Presbytery had faild to approve a motion finding his "Thirty Four theses," a paper distilling his teaching on the matter, in accord with Scripture and the Confession.

The outside experts who were consulted at the tme by a committee of the Seminary included Lloyd-Jones, R. C. Sproul, Roger Nicole, William Hendriksen, Morton H. Smith, Ian Murray, C. Gregg Singer and others. All the men named agreed with Lloyd-Jones' assessment of Shepherd's theology. And Wayne is correct that at least one of the items sent to these experts was one of Shepherd's own position papers. In fact, at least two documents by Shepherd seem to have been included in the packet sent to these men; the October 1976 letter that Wayne named and his 1978 paper "The grace of jjustification." 

To be fair: not all the experts consulted agreed. At least 3, Fred Klooster, G. I. Williamson and Pierre Courthial (who qualified his response to the one document by Shepherd that could be translated in the time available) did not find Shepherd out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Yet it is noteworthy that Williamson urged Shepherd to find "less provocative language and different means of argument, less open to misunderstanding," something Shepherd has, to the present date, been unable to do.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 21, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Loyd Jones was negative about the NS materials he saw. I am not aware that he was critical about Gaffin.


No one _here_ said he was. If Gaffin admitted he didn't see something that was there, I don't see what the issue is with saying, "Things were as clear as they needed to be." The things you mention as mitigating factors might actually be aggravating factors. Perhaps Norm Shepherd _shouldn't_ have been perceived as a successor to John Murray, and perhaps being perceived that way shouldn't have earned him any extra slack.

Look, I can sympathise with people like Dr. Venema who were friends with Norm Shepherd, but ultimately castigated him. I can also sympathise with Theodoret who thought Nestorius was within the bounds of orthodoxy; but Theodoret did repudiate the views Nestorius was charged with holding, even if he didn't think Nestorius held them. But if that kind of charity can be required, so can the charity of realizing that those who do clearly see the grave problems are going to be a little impatient with those who don't, since even with the best will in the world those people do wind up enabling error to some degree.

There is no red herring: whatever other people can be tarred with the cyberblogger brush, Dr. Lloyd-Jones is not one of them. Thanks for the informative breakdown, though.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 21, 2010)

Lynnie,

Whoa! I was not trying to put a cyberblogger hit on Gaffin, or anyone else. My question was an honest one. Reading Karlberg's book of essays on Covenant Theology and noting that he not only holds three Westminster degrees but also publishes in WTJ, JETS, etc. made me wonder about the allegations of neo-orthodoxy and "guilt by association" condemnation against Gaffin by putting him into a hyphenated connection with NS. I figured that the Westminsterians (e.g., Greenbaggins) could provide some context for understanding the Karlberg lines. In context, the chapter (originally given at the 47th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1995) was even more critical than the words I cited. Actually, the whole paper is replete with criticism of numerous evangelical teachers over several pages.



> The root of the Shepherd-Gaffin error is denial of the traditional Reformed doctrine of the Covenant of Works. Shepherd and Gaffin contend that the reward of communion with God (including life eternal) under the first covenant between God and Adam would have been purely a matter of gratuitous promise (or divine beneficence), not Adam's meritorious accomplishment of a divinely appointed task (what Paul in Romans 5:8 identifies as the "one act of righteousness"). There is, they insist, no earning of reward on the part of the creature, whether in the covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace. In this neoorthodox formulation there is no antithesis between law and grace, law and gospel. Just as blessing is conditioned upon obedience in the first covenant, in the same way (according to this position) blessing is conditioned upon obedience in the Covenant of Grace. Having jettisoned the law/gospel contrast, these revisionists assure us that the works done by the righteous (those who are in a right relationship with God) are nonmeritorious, whether under the first Covenant of Creation or the subsequent Covenant of Redemption.



I was just trying to gather some perspective on what was going on and where Karlberg was coming from theologically.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 21, 2010)

DMc, I never for one second thought you were trying to criticise anybody. It was obvious you were asking a question about something you read, and my negative remarks were not meant towards you, but to Karlberg and guys like the late John Robbins who seem to find guilt by association a rather easy thing to do. I am so sorry if I appeared to be criticizing you. I assumed your Karlberg comments were found online, and my cyberblog crack was irrelvant and I apologize...although the blogs out there can get pretty slanderous sometimes so it is an easy wrong assumption to make. But you were reading a book, so sorry!

Timmo, what a great post and it has info I hadn't seen, and I really appreciate it. I will pass it on if the subject comes up, which after all these years it still occasionally does.


Ruben, for what it is worth, which may not be much at all, it was a problem on both sides. _those who do clearly see the grave problems are going to be a little impatient with those who don't, since even with the best will in the world those people do wind up enabling error to some degree._ I don't have links now to back up what I am about to say, so take it or leave it, but I know what I've heard from decent WTS people, and that is that some of the NS opponents did not respond by clearly presenting a true articulation of the correct view of justification and works, but instead were spouting antinomianism. And you cannot have a gospel that separates justification from union with Christ and good works following. I grant you this might be the hardest theological thing in the world to try and explain to Seminary students, but plenty of folks at the time thought that the NS opponents were botching it just as bad in the other direction. To this very day WSC feels the need to do their occasional defense about why they are not into antinomianism. And I don't think they are, I never thought any of them actually were, I am just saying that some of the staunch defenders of justification by faith in NS controversy days did as shoddy a presentation as Norm may have done, on the opposite antinomian sounding side .

Hum, actually the one guy I think who writes about this really well is Greenbaggins/Lane K. He manages to state it short and sweet and well put together, with justification and works and living faith and how it all fits. Too bad he wasn't writing on the internet back in the 70s, might have had some impact. 

Anyway, how did we get so far off Gaffin, did I do that? To go back to Gaffin, he is a good guy and was never, ever into FV. To even imply he was FV is a terrible slander.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 21, 2010)

Of course in general that's true Lynnie (I can't comment on the specifics of this controversy); but it's often some among the defenders of orthodoxy in one conflict who wind up being the heretics in the next go-round. Apollinarius opposed the Arians, but has given his name to a heresy equally execrable, if less popular. Given that the Church has known that for a long time, everyone involved in controversy should be alert against the danger of a party spirit. Just because the other guy is wrong doesn't mean I'm right. So to speak to the point at hand, you don't have to choose between antinomianism and legalism of some kind; it's possible to reject Shepherd without embracing all of his opponents.


----------



## Wayne (Jun 21, 2010)

Checking further in the files, here is the list of the thirteen documents that made up the information packet mailed out on 9 October 1979:

1. Shepherd, Norman, _The Relation of Good Works to Justification in the Westminster Standards_, a paper presented to the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, 53pp.
2. Reid, W. Stanford, _Faith and Justification: A Consideration of the Views of Norman Shepherd_, 4 pp.
3. Shepherd, Norman, _A Further Response to a Special Report of the Faculty to the Board on the Discussion of Faith and Justification_, 5 pp.
4. Robertson, O. Palmer, _Nineteen Erroneous Or Misleading Statements in Norman Shepherd's October, 1976 paper on "The Relation of Good Works to Justification in the Westminster Standards"_, 10 pp.
5. Godfrey, Robert, _Letter to the Board of Trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary_, 5pp., including appendix A.
6. Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, Report of the Faculty to the Board on Faith and Justification, 4pp.
7. Hughes, Philip E. - _Some Reasons for Dissenting from the Majority Report of 21 April 1978_ [11 pp.] 
8. Gaffin, Richard B., _Reply to the Dissent of Dr. Hughes_, 16pp.
9. Shepherd, Norman, _Thirty-Four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works_, 8 pp.
10. Kuschke, Arthur W., _Bringing the Issue into Focus_, 4 pp.
11. Shepherd, Norman, _The Grace of Justification_, 22 pp.
12. Poythress, Vern S., _Systematic Theologizing in the Justification Controversy_, 18pp. 
13. Robertson, O. Palmer, _Genesis 15:6 -- New Covenant Expositions of an Old Covenant Text_, 42pp.

By my count:
Shepherd - 88 pp. of content
Middle-of-the-road guys [Gaffin & Poythress] - 34 pp.
Opponents - 76 pp. [Godfrey, Robertson, Hughes, Reid]

From that count, I would say that the information packet was remarkably even-handed.

All of the above and a lot more is preserved here in the Historical Center, if anyone wants to come work on their dissertation. [hint]


----------



## lynnie (Jun 21, 2010)

Great post Wayne. Obviously I was misinformed about what was sent to Lloyd Jones.

You have a really nice job.......


----------



## Wayne (Jun 21, 2010)

> You have a really nice job.......



shhh... don't tell anyone.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 22, 2010)

Dick Gaffin did support the substance of what Norm Shepherd was teaching in the first round of this controversy. He wrote two papers (as I recall) defending not only Shepherd's right to his view (which was Ed Clowney's view until about 6-12 mos before Shepherd was dismissed) but the particulars of Shepherd's views. I have one or two of the original papers (from Bob Godfrey's files -- Bob was on faculty in Phila during the first phase, '74-81). 

It seems to me that Dick's views have evolved. The OPC Justification Report marks a watershed. His views can be categorized BR and AR (before report/after report). He defended the report on the floor of GA.

Yes, Mark K's rhetoric is over-the-top but it's also true that the denial of the covenant of works is problematic. It's probably a symptom more than a cause.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 22, 2010)

I expect to be lambasted for this post but here it goes...

I first alerted Pastor Clark Brooking to this thread. I do not believe Dr. Gaffin is out of bounds. Part of the reason is because I have known some to be labeled when they shouldn't have been. BTW, it hasn't been 30 years. Despite what some say. It has taken a long time to learn the terminology and distinguishing marks. It has for me. It took me a long time to learn the fine distinguishing marks between New Covenant Theology and Covenant Theology from a Covenantal perspective in the Reformed Baptist Tradition. Maybe 15 years. And I am still learning it. So I expect it would take a while to learn the marks of NPP / Federal Vision in Presbyterian areas since they are even closer in my estimation. I am speaking from an ecclesiastical stance. ie....Who do I administer this stuff to and who do I not, and for what reason?

Duh, I know the Presbyterian response on both sides. So let's not argue it here. I was the moderator on the RFSH remember? 

I had a friend who went through this process in a RB Church years ago. I was asked a lot of questions on what I believed because I discipled this guy. I erred on the side of love. I didn't know he had changed his view on Justification. And even if he did I wouldn't have been able to see it necessarily. It is so disguised by other stuff I wouldn't have seen it. The one thing that alerted me to it was that he said he no longer held to Goodwin's or Owen's view. I wasn't sure what that meant. Especially in light of the new antinomian **** I was dealing with. Believe me this story is longer than you want to know about. 


So, maybe Gaffin and I have some similar experience. This is a friend and maybe he is defending the good works that result because of the gospel? I don't want to put myself on Dr. Gaffin's level. He is a much better man than me and way more learned. I am so ignorant. 

I defended this person (my disciple who was now a Pastor), just thinking that this guy I discipled was combating antinomian thought. Maybe Dr. Gaffin and I were both wrong maybe. Maybe they both (our friends) got caught up in the Roman doctrine of Justification. Guess what? We didn't see it. We didn't search words they said but heard them. And we might have seen warning signs but erred on the side of love for our friends. That is not unjustifiable. I hope you guys would err on my side first and question me and find me out. I did. I renounce my disciple's doctrine. I would do it daily. But give me some time to really find it out. It took me a few years. I would suspect it took Dr. Gaffin longer. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 22, 2010)

Great overall thread and great last post Randy.

I've had a Pastor who flirted with FV, went in, came back out, and is now something completely different. I used to cringe at things he said but I loved the man. I still do. He was my Pastor and he had (and still has) some very excellent qualities.

I make it a habit to be supportive and loving for my Pastors. Anyone who has been the subject of gossip in ministry knows how destructive the small back-chatter can be in a Church.

I've sat under Pastors that, in retrospect, were horrible but, at the time, they were my overseers and I really felt the weight of the command to make it a joy to be in a congregation.

Now, I understand that a theology professor is a bit different as is a peer relationship but I think Pastor Brooking makes a good point about the 9th Commandment. I'm not saying that the men who saw the errors more rapidly violated the Law but we need to at least try to understand how hard it is to honor our peers by assuming the best construction out of something even when some things they say make us cringe. That's not to say that we just give up but I'm just trying to ensure we don't trivialize the difficulty.

The Lord knows this is hard. I think one of the additional reasons why teachers are held to a stricter judgment is because it is never a trivial matter to remove a leader once in place. If this thread teaches me anything it gives me fresh appreciation to Paul's injunction not to lay hands too hastily on any man.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Jun 22, 2010)

lynnie said:


> He tried to articulate what it means to have living faith instead of a dead faith, and to resist a subtle antinomianism that appeared to be propagated at WTS by a few men, where justification by faith was somehow separated from obedience in a way that was unbiblical ( and not confessional either).



Lynnie,

I was just wondering who were the men who appeared to be propagating a subtle antinomianism at WTS and did Shepherd ever mention them by name?

Thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 22, 2010)

There weren't any antinomians at WTS when Norm was there. That's just the point. The fellows who opposed him were all solidly orthodox (including Bob Godfrey, R C Sproul, MLJ, J I Packer, W. Stanford Reid, and many others). In Norm's view anyone who denied his formulation of justification through "faith and works" (his original language in '74) and "faithfulnness" (his revised language post '74) was "antinomian." This, of course, makes everyone but Richard Baxter into an antinomian.

Norm believes to this day that he made biblical-theological breakthrough in Reformed theology. This notion is hard to reconcile with is frequent claim that he's holding the true, historic view. 

It's theoretically possible for someone to make such a breakthrough but virtually no one today, including Dick Gaffin, is convinced that Norm has made such a breakthrough. Further, there's no historical evidence whatever that Norm's teaching agrees with the tradition. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. 

David VanDrunen wrote on this some years ago:

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Here's a discussion with FVist John Barach (before the FV movement had a name besides "Shepherdism"):

Norman Shepherd / New Perspective on Paul

See this book:

The Bookstore at WSC: Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry by Clark, R. Scott

The Bookstore at WSC: Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace by Clark, R. Scott

See this resource page:

Westminster Seminary California clark

See also Guy Waters' critique of Shepherd. Link on the resource page.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 22, 2010)

Not entirely on point (but pretty close), I just finished the exchange between D. Patrick Ramsey on Kline and Karlberg's view of the Mosaic Covenant (_WTJ_ 66:2 (Fall 2004)) and Brenton Ferry's response (_WTJ_ 67:1 (Spring 2005)). Also, Jeong Koo Jeon's PhD dissertation, _Covenant Theology: John Murray's and Meredith G. Kline's Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought_ looks VERY good for helping me get the behind the behind the surface story of the Murray-Kline differences, so that is in the mail now. (An article by Tim J.R. Trumper reviewing Jeon's book in _WTJ _64:2 is what tipped me off to the value of it.) The Google books preview confirmed that it is quite good and accessible for comparing and contrasting the Murray vs. Kline views.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 22, 2010)

Irish Presbyterian said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > He tried to articulate what it means to have living faith instead of a dead faith, and to resist a subtle antinomianism that appeared to be propagated at WTS by a few men, where justification by faith was somehow separated from obedience in a way that was unbiblical ( and not confessional either).
> ...



Keith......I could name names, and I could name OPC pastors who would tell you that some refutations of Shepherd back then were clear antinomianism. But it was 30 years ago, and the men are in positions now such that I don't want to dredge it up in public online. 30 years ago I said things I regret now too!! I don't think any of them actually were antinomian, they were just frustrated and trying to fight something, and as Ruben said, this is a typical problem. Swing too far the other way in a fight.


PC, I appreciated your comments. I don't know how much people realize how loved NS was. All these college kids saved in the great revival of the late 60s and 70s end up at WTS, and they've read Hal Lindsey about the rapture and everybody went witnessing where you pray this little prayer and get saved...no need to go to church or do anything. And they end up with NS who was the WTS guy on Covenantal theology, and they get introduced to Covenantal theology, and he was a fabulous teacher using great text books, and he was sooo loved. And he talks about living faith and being in covenant, and it all fits together, and we are not just justified, but adopted and in union with Christ and all the rest, and seminary classes are like a worship service. You don't just automatically say "oh gee, this is error" when somebody starts picking at a phrase here and there. Love is very powerful, thank God for that, and it is a good thing when people are merciful and patient and slow to rebuke. It may have to be done, but at the time it seemed like some were hasty and contentious and preaching too far the other way into a faith with no fruit. Like I said it was 30+ years ago and we've all hopefully grown up a bit. At any rate, I appreciate your kind words for Gaffin. He too was so loved by students.


----------



## Theogenes (Jun 24, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> I talked with Dr. Gaffin about that. He was not convinced at the time of Dr. Shepherd's danger. It was after that, that Dr. Gaffin came to realize how imbalanced Shepherd's position was.


 
Lane,
If Gaffin has changed his mind about these things wouldn't it be prudent to write a book of retractions and let the world know?
Jim


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 24, 2010)

Theogenes said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > I talked with Dr. Gaffin about that. He was not convinced at the time of Dr. Shepherd's danger. It was after that, that Dr. Gaffin came to realize how imbalanced Shepherd's position was.
> ...


 
That would no doubt be wise. He probably thought that his defense of the OPC report coupled with his recent book on Paul would let the world know sufficiently well where he stood.


----------



## chbrooking (Jun 24, 2010)

His defense of the OPC report and his recent book on Paul SHOULD be sufficient -- especially for so studied a crowd as the PB purports to be. I, for one, am not sure that it would be wise to dredge up the matter once again. He's made it clear where he stands. That should be sufficient.


----------



## Theogenes (Jun 24, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> Theogenes said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...


 
Lane, Which OPC report and what's the title of his book on Paul?
Thanks,
Jim


----------

