Greg Bahnsen a "Shepherdite"?

[mvdm]

David Bahnsen posted this article, which surely will stir things up:

Bahnsen

davidbahnsen.com

Scott Clark has already taken to twitter to definitively state that "Bahnsen was a Shepherdite".

Perhaps someone here more familiar with Bahnsen could provide some insight.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

David Bahnsen posted this article, which surely will stir things up:

Bahnsen

davidbahnsen.com

Scott Clark has already taken to twitter to definitively state that "Bahnsen was a Shepherdite".

Perhaps someone here more familiar with Bahnsen could provide some insight.

That article is 12yrs old. It is not a "current response" to anything.
It is part of the historical record, and that's why RSC refers to it.
What was said 12yrs ago and remains unchallenged should hardly "stir things up."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Back in 2009, @fredtgreco made the following comment in relation to David and Greg Bahnsen and the Federal Vision (see this thread for the wider context), which I consider to be judicious:

Part of the problem with this discussion is that it is anachronistic. Bahnsen cannot clarify anything he said anymore. That makes taking 20 year old statements and trying to apply them to a present controversy very difficult.

The real shame here is that his son has seen fit to drag his father's name through the mud for his own 15 minutes of "fame."

 

[mvdm]

Ah, did not see this was an old article. Clark and his followers were tweeting like it was breaking news. Greco's thoughts echo mine. Feel free to delete this thread!

 

[jwright82]

Yeah whatever he thought then has no bearing on now.

 

[RamistThomist]

In his lectures he said things that favor both sides. In his lectures on Calvin, he clearly came down as a Shepherdite. No equivocation. In his lectures on Roman Catholicism et al, he sounded more like a traditional Protestant.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In his lectures he said things that favor both sides. In his lectures on Calvin, he clearly came down as a Shepherdite. No equivocation. In his lectures on Roman Catholicism et al, he sounded more like a traditional Protestant.

Jacob, do you recall there being a post on the Heidelblog wherein RSC argued something to the effect that Greg Bahnsen may not have advocated the same views as Norman Shepherd, but that he fell short of his duties as a gospel minister in not zealously opposing them? I have noted over the years how many people think that can wash their hands of a situation by arguing that "I do not agree with FV (or whatever other gross error you care to mention)" while doing practically nothing to oppose it and stop the mouths of those spreading it.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

That thread is helpful as well as Mark Rushdoony responds to GBA with his father on this.

Why is Bahnsen linked to FV?

I know I'm late to the FV issue, but I've been trying to understand FV’s errors and their repercussions. I fear that paedocommunion is about come into my Church / Denomination and I need to be prepared to give a proper response to it when the time comes. Let me say clearly up front: What I...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob, do you recall there being a post on the Heidelblog wherein RSC argued something to the effect that Greg Bahnsen may not have advocated the same views as Norman Shepherd, but that he fell short of his duties as a gospel minister in not zealously opposing them? I have noted over the years how many people think that can wash their hands of a situation by arguing that "I do not agree with FV (or whatever other gross error you care to mention)" while doing practically nothing to oppose it and stop the mouths of those spreading it.

Sounds familiar. But Bahnsen in his lectures on Calvin specifically identified himself with Shepherd.

Calvin's Institutes Book III, Chapter 12 - 45 of 81

TSC - 45 of 81

www.cmfnow.com

Bahnsen:

I think [this] is rather convoluted. Let me very briefly point out, some people will say James can’t mean the word justify in a forensic sense, because then he would contradict Paul. Paul says we are justified by faith, not works. James says we are justified by works. So if they both mean ‘justify’ in the forensic sense, there is a contradiction. Well, I don’t think so, because in Galatians 5:6 Paul teaches exactly what James does. Paul says we are justified by faith working by love. We are justified by working, active, living faith. I think that’s what James is teaching. They mean exactly the same thing. But nevertheless some people have insisted-and this has been a bone of controversy in my denomination even, because a professor at Westminster Seminary insisted James means this in the forensic sense. Now. people who don’t like that say, It is to be taken in the demonstrative sense.

The problem is, the demonstrative sense of the word justify means “to show someone to be righteous,” and that doesn’t relieve the contradiction between James and Paul, because Paul in Romans 4 looks at Abraham as an example of how God justifies the ungodly. James is saying, Look at how God justifies someone demonstrated as godly. The contradiction is not relieved. And so what you really get–and this is crucial, this is a crucial point–modern interpreters who don’t like what I am suggesting and what Professor Shepherd is suggesting end up saying that to justify in James 2 really means “to demonstrate justification,” not to “demonstrate righteousness.” That is, they make the word to justify mean “to justify the fact that I’m justified.” And the word never means that. That’s utterly contrived. It means either “to declare righteous” or “to demonstrate righteous.” It does not mean “to justify that one’s justified.” Am I making myself clear? I’m suggesting that the reason Paul and James are not contrary to one another is because the only kind of faith that will justify us is working faith, and the only kind of justification ever presented in the Bible after the Fall is a justification by working faith, a faith that receives its merit from God and proceeds to work as a regenerated, new person.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sounds familiar. But Bahnsen in his lectures on Calvin specifically identified himself with Shepherd.

I had a look on the Heidelblog and could not find a specific post. If I recall correctly, Scott made that remark in the comments section below one of his posts. Maybe @R. Scott Clark can remember the discussion to which I am alluding.