# Van Til & Shepherd



## Poimen (Apr 9, 2005)

I have heard many people say that Van Til vigorously supported Shepherd when he was being 'tried' at Westminster East. Does anyone have any thing more than rumors to share so we are able to deny or affirm this?


----------



## JOwen (Apr 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> I have heard many people say that Van Til vigorously supported Shepherd when he was being 'tried' at Westminster East. Does anyone have any thing more than rumors to share so we are able to deny or affirm this?



Hello Daniel,

Here is an interesting link sent to me by Randy Booth, a known supporter of Shephers.
http://www.cmfnow.com/AAPC/controversy.html

For those who do not wish to read the complete article, here is the relivant portion.

" Cornelius Van Til
Shepherd's main opponents at the seminary included Palmer Robertson, Robert Godfrey--who studied theology with the Baptist Roger Nicole and church history with the Lutheran Lewis Spitz at Stanford, Jack Miller--now controversial in his own right for his "Sonship" program--Arthur Kuschke, the librarian, and Robert Knudsen, the Dooyeweerdian Apologetics professor. On the other hand, Van Til was, from the beginning and all the way through the Shepherd controversy, an unashamed supporter of Norman Shepherd, as was the majority of the Westminster faculty including Richard Gaffin and John Frame. Lines seemed to be drawn among the faculty between those from the Dutch Reformed tradition (who understood what Shepherd was getting at) and those from the Southern Presbyterian tradition who had a harder time. Commenting on Shepherd's formulation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, Frame declared, "Van Til and others, including myself, believed that Shepherd's formulations were orthodox." Frame further emphasizes the fact that Professor Shepherd "was never declared to be unorthodox, despite many discussions and votes of faculty, board and presbytery."5

As Van Til vigorously and publicly supported Shepherd, he refuted the errors of those who opposed him, arguing that those opposing Shepherd were attempting to separate faith and works. Van Til maintained that faith and works (while distinguished) go together and cannot be pulled apart or abstracted. Shepherd's opponents, Van Til believed, were maintaining what sounded like a faith which is itself alone--which is itself not an act of obedience--a faith which is not a repenting from former suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness.

Below is a transcription of a speech by Cornelius Van Til at the Justification Controversy meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the OPC Philadelphia Presbytery:

Van Til: I think that when we begin with the idea of faith, we have to think first of all that the devils also believe and tremble. Now we have faith by which we need not to tremble because Christ on the cross said, "My God My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?" so that His people might not be forsaken. It is finished! It was finished, once for all. Now that is, I think, beautifully expressed in this word of our Lord [discussion of John 6:22ff].

When the multitudes wanted to make Him king because He had given them bread, and they thought it would be easy to have a handout, Jesus said, when they found the other side, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus said, "truly I say to you, ye seek Me not because ye see signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled." Now then comes the crucial point. "Do not work for food which perishes but for food which endures to eternal life which the Son of Man shall give to you, for of Him the father even God has been sealed." They therefore said, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye may believe on Him Whom He hath sent."

Here faith and works are identical. Not similar but identical. The work is faith; faith is work. We believe in Jesus Christ and in His salvation, that's why we do not tremble. He died for us, in our place, and the Scotsmen would say "in our room and stead," for that substitutionary atonement, on the basis of which we are forensically righteous with God and are now righteous in His sight and shall inherit the kingdom of heaven in which only the righteous shall dwell. And I'm going to ask John Frame if he will quote the Greek of this particular passage. [Frame works through it reading both the Greek and English.]

Van Til: I thank you. Well now, you see faith alone is not alone. Faith is not alone. Faith always has an object. The faith, your act of believing, is pointed definitely to God in Jesus Christ, and by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, and conversion. It's all one. It's not a janus face proposition, but it is not possible to give exhaustive statements in human words, human concepts. And that's why we have to be satisfied merely to do what the Scriptures and confessions of faith say that they [i.e. we] ought to do, and that then we are on the way, and I think that Norman Shepherd is certainly in the line of direct descent6 of [i.e. on] faith. Thank you. [Emphases noted are Van Til's.] "

Hope this helps brother. We are praying for you in the OCRC as you fae some difficult days leading up to and including your Synod. 

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2005)

> Frame declared, "Van Til and others, including myself, believed that Shepherd's formulations were orthodox."



That is not entirely true. Go to the PaulPerspective page and find where Frame takes issue with Shepherd. I have read CVT's comments on him and wish that he were here today to clarify. After reading Defense of the Faith I have no doubts concerning his commitment to Calvinism.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > Frame declared, "Van Til and others, including myself, believed that Shepherd's formulations were orthodox."
> ...



We should also remember that Van Til is not off limits either. He was an apologist first not a systematition. Booth's quote of Van Til should make most of us stop in our tracks and wonder if Van Til had it right? Booth's article reprots not only Van Til's error in supporting Shephers, but Bahnsen, Frame, and Rushdoony as well. - Where angels fear to tread- 

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 9, 2005)

You also have to remember that Shepard was much more elusive back then than he is now. He's much more blatant and open in his views now. He supposedly is a very freindly guy. Make that combination and you could see why some may be deceived into thinking he was orthodox back then.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> You also have to remember that Shepard was much more elusive back then than he is now. He's much more blatant and open in his views now. He supposedly is a very freindly guy. Make that combination and you could see why some may be deceived into thinking he was orthodox back then.



yep.


----------



## Peter (Apr 9, 2005)

I know a RE who was a friend of Shepherd's and who consistently voted in his favor during his heresy trials. After reading his newer book though he questions whether he did the right thing. It seems Shepherd's views were unclear when they first sprouted. Like most heretics Shepherd probably concealed the extent of his error until the time arose it could inflict the most damage upon the church. 

Samuel Miller:
It may be truly said , however, to be the stereotyped history of the commencement of every heresy which has arisen in Christian church. When heresy rises in an evangelical body it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking and assuming a disguise. Its advocates when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the "old dead orthodoxy," and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they "differ from it _only in words_"...Thus it was with Arius in the 4th century, Pelagius in the 5th, Arminius and company in the 17th, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards and the unitarians in Massachuesetts...

Oh what fitting description of Shepherd, Sanders, Sandlin, Wilson, Wilkins, etc.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> Samuel Miller:
> It may be truly said , however, to be the stereotyped history of the commencement of every heresy which has arisen in Christian church. When heresy rises in an evangelical body it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking and assuming a disguise. Its advocates when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the "old dead orthodoxy," and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they "differ from it _only in words_"...Thus it was with Arius in the 4th century, Pelagius in the 5th, Arminius and company in the 17th, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards and the unitarians in Massachuesetts...
> ...



Wow. Where did you find this gem?

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## Peter (Apr 9, 2005)

Its from an intro to a book on the Canons of the Synod of Dort published by Sprinkle Publications, probably available at http://www.heritagebooks.org/. The book and the intro are great except Miller mixes in some anticonfessional American Presbyterian views on the civil magistrate and Calvin v. Servetus.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 9, 2005)

thx


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2005)

I am not willing to take isolated, unclear statements--statements that stand in contradiction from larger, more systematized statements from elsewhere in their career-- from men who are dead and are being quoted by men who clearly have an agenda to push; I am not willing to say such men are heretics. They are dead and have done FAR, FAR MORE for the kingdom than I ever will. Secondly, I will not slander my heroes. If I am wrong, may God be the judge. Thirdly--and I do not have _By This Standard_ on me--Bahnsen clearly and unequivocally affirmed the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Fourthly, Van Til wrote a book defending the Synod of Dort and almost implied Arminianism to be the second largest deviation from the gospel.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I am not willing to take isolated, unclear statements--statements that stand in contradiction from larger, more systematized statements from elsewhere in their career-- from men who are dead and are being quoted by men who clearly have an agenda to push; I am not willing to say such men are heretics. They are dead and have done FAR, FAR MORE for the kingdom than I ever will. Secondly, I will not slander my heroes. If I am wrong, may God be the judge. Thirdly--and I do not have _By This Standard_ on me--Bahnsen clearly and unequivocally affirmed the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Fourthly, Van Til wrote a book defending the Synod of Dort and almost implied Arminianism to be the second largest deviation from the gospel.




Ah, but Booth, a unabashed Van Tillian and Shepherdite, places Van Til right in the midst of the controversy, claiming that Van Til was with Shepherd in his formulations (and the historical data at Westminster, plus his own recorded testimony at Presbytery demonstrate this). The agenda was Rev. Booth's in the above mentioned essay (perhaps this is what you meant?), and his point is well taken. Bahnsen on the other hand, clearly and unequivocally affirmed the imputed righteousness of Christ *in places*, but as his systematic theology lectures demonstrate, he quickly took away with one hand what he gave with the other (as Booth's article indicates).

We need to realize that our hero's are flesh and blood (or were), and are subject to the same sinful maladies as every other man. We must keep in mind that while Van Til, Frame, and other strong minds supported Shepherd, men like Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, R.C Sproul stood firmly against him. Van Til, like the rest of us, was not aware of his blind spots. It appears that they are now coming to the fore in our day.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> Ah, but Booth, a unabashed Van Tillian and Shepherdite, places Van Til right in the midst of the controversy, claiming that Van Til was with Shepherd in his formulations (and the historical data at Westminster, plus his own recorded testimony at Presbytery demonstrate this). The agenda was Rev. Booth's in the above mentioned essay (perhaps this is what you meant?), and his point is well taken.



And as a Van Tillian I must put weight on who was writing (Booth). If a man like Booth is desperately trying to justify his position in the Reformed world, having Van Til on his side helps. Therefore, knowing the context--unguarded statements from a man long dead--puts this into a different perspective.



> Bahnsen on the other hand, clearly and unequivocally affirmed the imputed righteousness of Christ *in places*, but as his systematic theology lectures demonstrate, he quickly took away with one hand what he gave with the other (as Booth's article indicates).



Was one of the most brilliant theologians of our day confused about the imputation of Christ's righteouness? I have read Booth's article on Covenant Media and in the _Standard Bearer_--unless this is a new article that I haven't read, Bahnsen is wrestling with apparent problems in traditional Reformed formulations. What Booth does make clear is that at the end of the day Bahnsen comes to the same position as Calvin on Justification. Also, can you give proof from Bahnsen that he took Rome's and the Arminian position on Imputation? I don't doubt you but I am working through his systematics at the moment.



> We need to realize that our hero's are flesh and blood (or were), and are subject to the same sinful maladies as every other man.



Forgive my annoyance and discontent at the moment, but you mean my heroes? Sproul, Murray and Lloyd-Jones (charismatic gifts, anyone?) don't count, do they?



> We must keep in mind that while Van Til, Frame, and other strong minds supported Shepherd, men like Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, R.C Sproul stood firmly against him. Van Til, like the rest of us, was not aware of his blind spots. It appears that they are now coming to the fore in our day.



Before I answer this--if I need to-- Peter wrote:


> I know a RE who was a friend of Shepherd's and who consistently voted in his favor during his heresy trials. After reading his newer book though he questions whether he did the right thing. It seems Shepherd's views were unclear when they first sprouted. Like most heretics Shepherd probably concealed the extent of his error until the time arose it could inflict the most damage upon the church.



To which I must say: Precisely! Let us assume for the moment that had Van Til read _Call of Grace_ he might have thought differently? Granted, it is a moot question, but let us extend the same courtesy to a dead warrior, perhaps one of the greatest of all time, that we do a living RE, with all due respect to the RE.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2005)

Let's also bash Gaffin while we are at it. I mean, he endorsed Call of Grace on the back of the book! Is Gaffin (and WTS, too) among the heretics? I speak as a fool. BTW, where are all the VanTillians? It is the nature of VanTillians to rush to the defense of such a great man. Paul Manata, Puritanboard hath need of thee!

[Edited on 4--10-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2005)

*I have Re-read the article again*
I didn't read the article a few minutes ago because I was pressed for time. The computer lab wasn't officially opened and I was trying to avoid security. Anyway,

Roger Wagner speaking of Greg Bahnsen:


> His work on the covenant and justification were not as developed (or public) at that time, but in later years (after the controversy erupted) when Greg and I talked about "Shepherd's position" on these matters, he was always very favorable to Shepherd's concerns and formulations (*while perhaps none of us would endorse every jot and tittle of his published writings*).



However, the below statement must be qualified:


> I'm absolutely sure if Greg were still with us, he'd be squarely on the "Shepherd side" of this issue (if I may use that shorthand in a "non-partisan" sense), and trying to get Joe M. and others of his opinion to erase the "line in the sand" they've drawn among the confessionally Reformed Reconstructionists



Listening to Bahnsen's material would show that he is trying to get Reconstructionists not to shoot their own wounded. At the very least, one would note that he is doing Shepherd the favor that the Reformed world did not do him: read his work and seriously interact with it.



> All characterizing of Norm Shepherd's teachings aside, it was my own father who publicly and privately embraced such a Biblical reality. Even apart from his personal comments to me throughout my life about Professor Shepherd being one of his all-time favorite seminary instructors, his own sermons and writings uphold the very same need for an obedient salvation, and a living faith. If some have left the Auburn Avenue conference saying, "those men are really getting carried away with the human response part of the covenant," I feel I can confidently declare that my father would NOT have been one of them. On the contrary, their choice of emphases and their desire for paradigm shift is the crying need of the hour, in today's culture and today's church.



Even granting Davie Bahnsen his position--which I don't, all that this shows is that Bahnsen would see, if he were alive, that some had overreacted. What it does not show is Bahnsen had denied sola fide and the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

*Getting to the point

Booth:



None of this proves that Norman Shepherd's or the AAPC's teaching is true, and that was not our intent. It does, however, demand that those who respected Van Til, Rushdoony, Bahnsen and others exercise extreme caution before labeling the teaching heretical.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2005)

BTW,
I am a huge fan of Lloyd-Jones and Murray.


----------



## AdamM (Apr 11, 2005)

Dr. Godfrey, who was on faculty at WTS at the time addressed this question during the Q&A portion at their FV/NPP conference last year and noted a couple things:

1. At the time of the Shepherd controversy Van Til was quite elderly and no longer actively taught at the seminary. Van Til did not take part in the faculty discussions and debates about Shepherd controversy. 

2. Van Til was getting his information about the controversy from Dr. Gaffin who strongly supported Shepherd. 

Of course Van Til may have thought the same about the Shepherd controversy when he was younger and there is nothing wrong with him getting his information from Dr. Gaffin, but I think in all these situations the context ought to be considered.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 11, 2005)

The problem is, we ought to worry less about whether Van Til supported Shepherd (to make a point either pro or contra Shepherd's theology) and more about whether Shepherd's formulations are Biblical. If they are not, having Van Til "on his side" does not help; if they are, having Van Til against him does not hurt.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The problem is, we ought to worry less about whether Van Til supported Shepherd (to make a point either pro or contra Shepherd's theology) and more about whether Shepherd's formulations are Biblical. If they are not, having Van Til "on his side" does not help; if they are, having Van Til against him does not hurt.



Agreed.  I have read Call of Grace and found it very problematic. I have also read Van Til and found a robust Calvinism.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 11, 2005)

Greg Bahnsen: By This Standard pg. 86 from the website http://www.freebooks.com where the book in its entirety is available in html- the actual page number in the book is: 59-60. (Actually the whole chapter 7 The Son's Model Righteousness nails the coffin shut...) 

*Imitating Christ * 

Christians should therefore be the last people to think or maintain that they are free from the righteous requirements of God's commandments. Those who have been saved were in need of that salvation precisely because God's law could not be ignored as they transgressed it. For them to be saved, it was necessary for Christ to live and die by all of the law's stipulations. *Although our own obedience to the law is flawed and thus cannot be used as a way of justification before God, we are saved by the imputed obedience of the Savior (1 Cor, 1:30; Phil. 3 :9). Our justification is rooted in His obedience (Rem. 5:17-19). By a righteousness which is alien to ourselves "” the perfect righteousness of Christ according to the law "” we are made just in the sight of God. * "He made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5: 21). 

It turns out, then, that Christ's advent and atoning work do not relax the validity of the law of God and its demand for 
righteousness; rather they accentuate it. Salvation does not cancel the laws demand but simply the law's curse: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3 :13). He removed our guilt and the condemning aspect of the law toward us, but Christ did not revoke the law's original righteous demand and obligation. Salvation in the Biblical sense presupposes the permanent validity of the law. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit indwelling all true believers in Jesus Christ makes them grow in likeness to Christ unto the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13, 15; cf. Gal. 4:19).

*Another quote from chapter 9 - A Motivational Ethic Endorses the Law, pg. 71 (page 98 on the online edition)*


Those who are genuine believers in Christ know very well that their salvation cannot be grounded in their own works of the law: "œ. . . not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us, . . . that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7).* The believer´s justification before God is grounded instead in the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:11; Rem. 5:19); it is His imputed righteousness that makes us right before the judgment seat of God * (2 Cor. 5:21). "œA man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28).


----------



## Poimen (Apr 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Thanks for the quote and especially your prayers.


----------

