Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Frame declared, "Van Til and others, including myself, believed that Shepherd's formulations were orthodox."
Originally posted by Draught Horse
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.
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.
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...
Oh what fitting description of Shepherd, Sanders, Sandlin, Wilson, Wilkins, etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by JOwen
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