# Edmund Clowney on Norman Shepherd's Distinctive Theology.



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 8, 2011)

Thanks to Pastor Wes White for this blog. I received permission from him to repost his blog post here. 

Here is the link to Pastor White's blog...
http://www.weswhite.net/

Pastor Wes White posted this on his blog and I found it most excellent. It defines the good theology in the first part and then exposes Dr. Norm Shepherd's departure from solid biblical doctrine concerning the Covenants. 

Wes did a good thing in posting this. I didn't even know it existed. 

Edmund Clowney on Norman Shepherd’s Controversial, Distinctive Theology « Johannes Weslianus

Sorry if this is long but I am going to post Dr. Clowney's report. 



> > Edmund Clowney was president of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia from 1966–1984. He was the president when the Board removed Norman Shepherd from his position at Westminster Seminary. Clowney finally came down in opposition to Norman Shepherd. He wrote:
> > But after examining his position as carefully as I can, I am persuaded that his views are sufficiently distinctive in emphasis and form to be controversial. By controversial I do not mean simply views that stimulate discussion and debate, but views that differ from our Confessional standards and appear to threaten significant doctrinal positions.
> > Clowney concluded that there were five areas in which Norman Shepherd “threaten(ed)” our Confessional standards:
> > 1.	The contrast made in the Westminster Standards between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is significantly reduced.
> ...


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 8, 2011)

Thanks for that, Randy! Very useful!


----------



## lynnie (Mar 12, 2011)

I finally had time to read this. What a great essay. I wish I had read this years ago. You note that Clowney exonerates him on the charges of teaching justification by works, and heresy, and correctly points out how wrong some of the accusers handled the whole thing. I was familiar with that, and with Gaffin's defense of him for a long time. I was also exposed to some of the anti Shepherd material a while ago that was positively antinomian sounding, and seemed to have no grasp of necessary obedience and "living faith" vs "dead faith".

But this explanation of Covenants and the second Adam and where NS departs from traditional Reformed theology is beautifully written and makes perfect sense, and I finally understand what the problem is and why the concern about his influence.

It is too bad that those against Shepherd did not do such a careful job of detailing what he really said (and it wasn't justification by works) and what the real problem was. I can see now how seriously problematic his views are. I can see how his position badly undermines the doctrine of perseverance.

By the way my husband also said this is the best thing he ever read on this, and the first thing that helped him see clearly what the NS errors are. Hub was on NS/Gaffin's side back when the whole mess started.

Thanks again for a great post.


----------

