Caution and Respect in Controversy
Introduction
Now, simply the fact that honorable men hold to a position-a position which at the moment we may consider erroneous-is certainly not sufficient reason for us to adopt that position. However, their reputations do provide sufficient grounds for our not dismissing them. Their reputations do demand further inquiry on our part. Therefore, I sought to understand their own reasoning for holding their position, and not simply what I imagined their reasons might be.
For many months I read, listened to tapes and had conversations with those I thought were in error, as well as with those who shared my anti-paedobaptist views. In the process of coming to understand the Reformed position concerning covenant baptism I found myself being slowly persuaded by their arguments. Hypothetically, it might have turned out the way I originally thought it would when I started this quest, i.e., I would be in a better position to oppose their view. But regardless of the outcome, I knew that understanding them and accurately representing their teaching was the only honest way to deal with the issue.
As in most controversy, there was much in the way of verbal dispute1 that had to be cleared before getting to the heart of the matter. Taking the time to grasp the meanings of words and phrases as they have been used historically and in the current context is essential to any meaningful discussion or debate. Otherwise, we simply talk past one another with a pseudo-understanding of the real issues. This kind of caution usually takes some time.
As it turned out, in the case of my investigating my brothers' alleged Roman Catholic hangover, I came to see that they were neither hanging on to Rome nor headed back to Rome. The problem was in me, not them. They were, by and large, clear in their teaching. I was usually the one who was in the fog. Such investigation does not always end this way. They could have been wrong and I could have been right. Nevertheless, I owed my congregation and myself an honest report. I also owed these men caution and respect. Such an approach is not limited to the doctrine of paedobaptism.
AAPC Controversy
The Reformed Presbyterian Church United States [RPCUS] posted the following assertion on their web site:
The AAPC speakers have repeatedly and vehemently denied these assertions as not honestly representing what they have taught. This should cause us to pause and question whether we are involved in a verbal dispute. Has the time been taken to understand the meanings of the words and phrases, or is this an example of talking past one another? We must not be too hasty in judging these views to be wrong. We owe it to these men not to simply dismiss their views until we have done the proper research, understood their arguments, and still disagree.
In addition, the question has come up, where did some of the respected leaders of the past come down on these issues? This question will not be of universal interest, but is significant in light of the historical and theological connections of some who have leveled these allegations of heresy.4 It has been insinuated that men like Cornelius Van Til, R. J. Rushdoony and Greg L. Bahnsen would have opposed this "neo-Shepherd theology" of the AAPC.
It would be wrong to speculate about where these or other men would have come down on these issues. Speculation is not helpful. But is there any hard evidence that would shed light on that particular question, or are we left to mere speculation? Wherever these men actually articulated their own views or demonstrated their support for the views of others, it is legitimate to bring that forth. This is common work, when we quote from men of the past to support any position. If these men were silent then we should be silent. If they spoke, then we should show enough respect to listen to them.
When the weight of the respectability and faithfulness of the greats Van Til, Rushdoony and Bahnsen is added to that of Shepherd, Wilkins, Schlissel, Wilson and Barach, we can see more clearly our responsibility to give these men a fair hearing. Caution and respect are called for in even greater measure. What follows does provide both hard and supporting evidence of where these men actually stood.
Cornelius Van Til
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:
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.]
R. J. Rushdoony
Braswell continues with examples of this confusion or misunderstanding and insists, "Shepherd is speaking of the future judgment according to works, but this is still part of the one verdict of justification."10 He continues by arguing that others reached "the unwarranted conclusion that Shepherd, in stressing the necessity of perseverance in the way of truth and righteousness through covenant obedience, can only be construed in a causal sense and indeed as intruding upon the ground of justification. This is done despite the fact that Shepherd began this thesis by stating: 'The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ."11 Moreover, Braswell concludes that many who have attacked Shepherd have gone beyond misunderstanding him:
Greg L. Bahnsen
Bahnsen agrees with Calvin's conclusion (i.e., Paul says that one is justified apart from the help of works, while James does not want to account someone as righteous who does not do good works and demands that believers be fruitful in good works). However, Bahnsen disagrees with the way in which Calvin arrives at that conclusion. Lecturing on this section of the Institutes, Bahnsen, in agreement with Norman Shepherd, says:
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.13
Note that this endorsement of Norman Shepherd's competence came well after Shepherd had been removed from WTS. Instead of condemning Shepherd as dangerous, erroneous or heretical, Bahnsen sees his dismissal from WTS as the loss of a "very competent" man.
As the AAPC controversy became more public, I inquired of Roger Wagner15 as to what he knew of Bahnsen's views of Shepherd. This was his reply:
He thought, as do I, that Shepherd's critics either don't understand Shepherd's covenantal interests and concerns or don't want to (as is often the case with the critics of Van Til and Bahnsen as well). I'm not sure if it was Shepherd who pointed us to Fuller's book on law and gospel, but Greg also appreciated that discussion because it wrestles in a more sophisticated way with the question of the relation between redemption and ethics in the covenant (old and new). I think you said (somewhere) that Greg told you he agreed with Fuller's interpretation of some texts over his own after reading Fuller's book….16
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.
I think the covenant theology formulated by Shepherd, Schlissel, Wright, and others is not only biblical, but also our strongest bastion against the growing "Lutheranism" and antinomianism in Reformed circles. We should think it through and fine-tune it as necessary, but to reject it out of hand is suicidal.
Hope that helps,
Further supporting evidence for Bahnsen's support of Shepherd and his views comes from David Bahnsen (Dr. Bahnsen's son), who has recently written:
Conclusion
Asserting something does not make it true (e.g., paedobaptists have a Roman Catholic hangover). Just because someone can see in his own mind how a person could reason from this point to that point (inference) does not make it a necessary inference. Being able to employ the imagination to conceive of how this or that doctrine could lead to some other dreaded doctrine, and then declaring that this is the inevitable outcome, is an exercise in both fantasy and false witness.
We have an obligation to love our brothers and our neighbors, and that means telling the truth about them. Malicious false witness violates the ninth commandment and inflicts serious damage on our neighbor. Negligent false witness is also a breaking of the ninth commandment and can have similar effects. Our obligation is to honestly and accurately represent others when we disagree with them, not to assume that we know what they really mean. It does not take a big man to push over a straw man--little men are up to this simple task.19 We owe our Christian brothers the benefit of the doubt, and that obligation is enhanced when those brothers have a history and reputation for soundness in their thinking. Calvin warned against the refusal to hear contrary ideas by saying, "The less the interchange of opinion, the greater will be the danger of pernicious dogmatism."20
We are commanded to love our enemies, and certainly we are to love our Christian brothers with whom we may disagree. Christians who hold different doctrinal views often fail this test. Personal pride and the desire to be right may override Christian character, and soon brother sins against brother. Too often we resort to anger, name-calling, mudslinging, questioning the sincerity or honesty of our brother, or other personal attacks. When this occurs, regardless of the theological strength of our arguments, we have lost--we have ceased to be Christian at that point. In defending one truth of Scripture, we are not authorized to disregard the others. Humility must guide our discussion. This does not forbid expressions of enthusiasm or confidence in one's position, nor does it exclude vigorous exchanges between sincere Christians. It does, however, exclude arrogance, rudeness, and anger. The fruit of the Spirit must be manifest even in our disagreements with one another. Gentleness and reverence argue a cause far more effectively than does invective (1 Peter 3:15).21
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. Such charges, if true, sink a very large boat. If untrue, then the allegations are slanderous not only to the AAPC men, who are themselves worthy of our respect, but also to those who have stood in support of similar views in the past.
Reverend Christopher Strevel, a man for whom I have deep respect, discussing a different controversy, offered several bits of wise counsel for Christians as to how they should conduct themselves in such circumstances. "Personal attacks will be rendered innocuous only as we demonstrate the humility and love that the law demands." The Christian "should be an individual who is both approachable and teachable. The person who comes to him with the Word of God is both respected and heard (Proverbs 1:5). God's grace has made him compassionate toward others, winsome in his personality, and patient in his exhortation. He knows that the way to influence others with the wisdom and beauty of God's law is not through harsh invective and name calling, but through calm, loving explanation of his views and listening to the comments and criticisms of others.... In short, it can only be achieved as our own personal lives are characterized by meekness, kindness, and love."22 Strevel then quotes Calvin: "In this matter I quite agree with Capito. This, in brief, was the sum of our discussion: that among Christians there ought to be so great a dislike of schism, as that they may always avoid it so far as lies in their power."23
This particular controversy may turn out to be only a "tempest in a teapot"--time will tell. History is strewn with the litter of such unpleasant but necessary events (1 Cor. 11:19). It is one of the means whereby truth is advanced and God's church is strengthened. Keeping the long-term view helps us through controversy, knowing that God works even this together for good. And so, before circling the wagons and dividing into smaller and smaller truth squads, perhaps we should, in an abundance of caution and respect, have a very long conversation with one another.
[1] It is important to make a distinction between two types of disputes, real disputes and verbal disputes. A dispute is said to be real when one person believes that a certain statement is true while another person believes a statement is false. Real disputes arise when genuine differences of opinion exist regarding matters of fact. Verbal or linguistic disputes, on the other hand, occur when one person believes that a certain statement is true while another person believes that another statement is false. Rather than a difference of opinion over a single statement, there is a different view of what is at issue. In such cases the persons argue at cross-purposes because at least one of them realizes that the argument is not over the same statement. In this case the argument produces the illusion of there being a real difference on one issue between the persons when in fact they are arguing separate issues.
[2] The following is extracted from a report issued and approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA, February 26, 1982, concerning the their findings on the Norman Shepherd controversy. It should be noted that:
The controversy began in 1974, and in 1976, Shepherd presented a paper to the faculty. Some of the faculty issued a report in 1977 asking for further clarification of Shepherd's views. Shepherd responded to the faculty and this reports states, "The Faculty, reading Mr. Shepherd's formulations in the light of his commendable concerns, concluded that his position did not contradict the system of doctrine taught in Scripture and summarized in the Standards." (April 25, 1978 Faculty report, p. 4). At the November 14, 1978 Board meeting, a motion that the formulation of Mr. Shepherd on the doctrine of justification be found unacceptable to the Board was defeated.
On November 18, 1978 Mr. Shepherd presented "Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance and Good Works" to the Presbytery of Philadelphia of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In a cover letter he said that a resolution of the problem no longer seemed possible in the limited context of the Seminary and that he was appealing to the church. These theses and his paper presented to the February, 1979 Board meeting ("The Grace of Justification") became the statements of his views by which he wished to be judged. The Presbytery gave exhaustive consideration to the theses over many months, devoting ten full-day meetings to discussion and debate. Three of the theses were set aside as involving historical rather than theological judgments. The Presbytery as a Committee of the Whole found the other theses to be in harmony with the teaching of Scripture and the Reformed Standards, sometimes by a close vote.
On February 8, 1979 the Board received Mr. Shepherd's paper "The Grace of Justification" and discussed it, along with the "Thirty-four Theses" presented to the Presbytery. After long discussion the Board determined by a vote of 11-8 that it found no sufficient cause to pursue further inquiries into Mr. Shepherd's teaching regarding justification by faith. His views, as presented to the Board did not "call into question his adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith."
In May of 1980, the board established a commission to determine whether the charges made against Professor Shepherd's views are substantial and true…all with a view to determining a recommendation to be made to the board by the commission at a special meeting of the board in November, 1980; such a recommendation should either propose that Mr. Shepherd be dismissed or that he be exonerated and the controversy ended in the faculty and board. A special meeting of the Board was held December 10-11, 1980 to receive and act upon the report of this Commission. The following motion was then passed: "That on the bases of discussions with Mr. Shepherd and on the bases of other corroborating evidence, the board determines that Mr. Shepherd be exonerated from the allegation of holding views which are not in conformity with Scripture and the doctrinal standards of the seminary. All the advice and admonitions that the board has previously made to Mr. Shepherd to be cautious and clear are herewith restated."
The Board, on recommendation of the President, elected a committee of three trustees as a Visitation Committee, and this committee recommended the removal of Professor Shepherd. The Faculty communicated to the Board a series of motions with respect to the report of the Visitation Committee. With Mr. Shepherd participating, it voted 7-4 with 3 abstentions to ask the Board not to remove Mr. Shepherd. A motion to "affirm that Mr. Shepherd's system of theology is not out of accord with the system of doctrine taught in Scripture and subscribed to in the subordinate standards of the Seminary" was carried, with one negative vote.
The Executive Committee, at the direction of the Board, prepared a brief statement of the reasons for the action to remove Shepherd from the faculty. The statement said that: "The Board makes no judgment whether Mr. Shepherd's views as such contradict Westminster Standards." The report further states: "Since the Board did not remove Mr. Shepherd on the ground of demonstrated errors in his teaching, charges of such errors, together with specifications, obviously would not be appropriate." After seven years, the report concludes, "…the Board has not judged that his views are in error…"
[4] Several of the ministers in the RPCUS have been openly identified with Cornelius Van Til, R. J. Rushdoony, and Greg L. Bahnsen, and thus the views of these men are significant for our current discussion.
[5] John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ: 1995), p. 393.
[6] CVT does NOT mean, "descent as in decline or departure from" but rather, he refers to descent as "in the line of," i.e., "what follows."
[7] Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Symposium on the Millennium, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1976-77, Gary North, ed., "Justice to Victory," Norman Shepherd.
[8] Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Symposium on the Change in the Social Order, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1990-91, Gary Moes, ed., "Lord of Life: The Confession of Lordship and Saving Faith," Joseph P. Braswell.
[13] Steve M. Schlissel, ed., The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen, "Covenantal Antithesis," (Covenant Media Press, Nacogdoches, TX, 2002), pp. 35-37. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Calvin's Institutes, 3.12, Session 34, audio tape lecture #GB449b, 1986. (Available from Covenant Media Foundation at www.cmfnow.com.]
[14] Greg L. Bahnsen, Calvin's Institutes, Session 4, audio tape lecture #GB178, 1986. (Available from Covenant Media Foundation at www.cmfnow.com.)
[15] Roger Wagner, pastor of Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Chula Vista, CA, was Greg Bahnsen's best friend. The two of them went to college and seminary together and ministered together until Dr. Bahnsen's death.
[16] While The New Southern Presbyterian Review (Summer 2002) declared Dan Fuller's views as heretical, Dr. Bahnsen wrote in No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics, (Tyler, TX: institute for Christian Economics, 1991), pp. 26-27: "I have been persuaded by Daniel Fuller that Romans 3:31 ("we uphold the law" by faith) is better interpreted-better than I did in Theonomy-as Paul saying that his message of salvation through faith endorses or substantiates the same message as found in the Old Testament (the law): see Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980).
[17] David Bahnsen, "Greg Bahnsen and the Auburn Avenue Controversy," (www.cmfnow.com/AAPC/bahnsen.html), February, 2003.
[18] Two of the AAPC speakers were welcomed to the pulpit of one of the RPCUS churches within one year of the RPCUS' public charges against them. This fact alone calls for caution and respect toward these two men.
[19] The strawman fallacy is an informal logical fallacy. It occurs most often when a person does not like a certain view, and he bases his objection to it on false or exaggerated assumptions as to its nature or consequences. In other words, he carelessly or intentionally misrepresents the position with which he disagrees in order to refute it more easily. It is, therefore, a way of bearing false witness against our neighbor.
[20] John Calvin, Letters of John Calvin, ed. Jules Bonnet (New York: Burt Franklin, 1972), 2:252.
[21] I acknowledge that there are exceptions to this general rule (e.g., Proverbs 26:5; Titus 3:10, 11).
[22] Christopher B. Strevel, "The Godly Theonomist's Picture," (first published in The Counsel of Chalcedon and now available at: www.covenant-rpcus.org/ftpd/theonomypicture.html).
Randy Booth
Several years ago, as a Reformed Baptist pastor, I remember being puzzled by the fact that so many of the Reformed men I admired--men like Calvin, Murray and Van Til--were paedobaptists. I also recall assuming the standard Baptist explanation: the Reformed paedobaptists had simply not reformed enough and were still suffering from a Roman Catholic hangover. A cautious respect emerged, however, that caused me to consider how men of such theological rigor and faithfulness--men who had stood up against the errors of Roman Catholic doctrine at so many other places--could have fallen so short on this issue of baptism. Determined to discover why they believed what they believed, I set out to get some answers. I wanted to actually understand what it was I was so opposed to. Respecting their honesty, I wanted to be careful to articulate their position in such a way that they would agree that I was correctly and accurately understanding their views. It was the least that I owed them.
The 2002 and 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastors Conferences [AAPC] in Monroe, LA have been the focus of controversy in some limited circles. Indirectly tied to this current controversy is the name of Norman Shepherd, former professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA. Professor Shepherd was the center of a similar controversy while at the seminary. He had been invited to speak at the 2002 AAPC but was providentially hindered from attending. Nevertheless, the assertion has been made that much of the AAPC controversy is simply a reemergence of the old Shepherd controversy. Unsubstantiated charges of heresy have been leveled at both Professor Shepherd and those associated with the AAPC teaching. Open attempts to link the two and to demonize them both have been made.2
In January of 2002, Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) hosted its annual pastor's conference. Shepherd was scheduled to be a speaker at the event but could not attend. The speakers (Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins, and Wilson) focused their lectures on the covenant, combining the teachings of Shepherd and the "New Perspective," calling on the listening crowd to reject the historical Reformed understanding of baptism, covenant, and justification as "frozen in the 1640's" and insufficient. They taught at the conference that Christians ought to embrace the idea that baptism begins a process of justification which is maintained by faithful obedience leading to eventual and final justification at the judgment. That is, of course, for those who remain faithful. Those who do not remain faithful are excommunicated and left to damnation, losing what they once had. Accompanying this is a continual deemphasizing of individual justification in favor of the emphasizing of corporate justification. In essence, Mr. Shepherd and his followers hold forth teachings that blur the distinction between justification and sanctification and amount to a salvation by faith plus works.3
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
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].
In the midst of the Shepherd controversy at Westminster Seminary in the mid and late 70s, Rushdoony published Norman Shepherd in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction.7 Had Rushdoony considered Shepherd to be heretical it would be hard to imagine that he would have consented to publishing his work. Moreover, if there is any remaining doubt about where Rushdoony stood, it can be removed by considering the fact that in the early 1990s, ten years after Shepherd's leaving Westminster Seminary, he did not hesitate to publish an explicit defense of Shepherd's views. This apologetic for Shepherd is found in Joseph Braswell's essay, "Lord of Life: The Confession of Lordship and Saving Faith."8 In this essay, Braswell observes:
[S]ome Reformed leaders seem to be somewhat confused, displaying dislike for the attribution of "necessary" to good works and regarding the future judgment of works as having to do only with the degree of rewards for the redeemed rather than involving any question of eternal destiny. This confusion was brought to the surface by the reaction of many ostensibly Reformed thinkers to the "Shepherd Controversy" at Westminster seminary some years ago.9
[It]…is not simply a failure to understand Shepherd's covenantal perspective, but a recalcitrant refusal to even attempt such an understanding, to interpret Shepherd's formulations from within his framework. This appears to be due to a hide-bound traditionalism, a conviction that the formulations of the past cannot be improved upon but represent the final word for all time. Yet there are problems with the past ways of stating the faith which bring into question the propriety of uncritical repetition.12
There is both objective evidence and supportive evidence for Bahnsen's support of Norman Shepherd and his views. The following is from a chapter I wrote in the recently published book, The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen, "Covenantal Antithesis."
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.
Moreover, while lecturing on Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bahnsen responds to questions from a student regarding the competency level at some seminaries. After complimenting the seminaries for some good work, he is also critical of how other situations have been handled. When specifically asked about the caliber of 20th century instructors, Bahnsen replies that overall "the caliber has not been there." After commenting on another example, Bahnsen observes,
But then again John Murray retires at Westminster and you have a man who was very competent who took his place and because he was so competent and wrote in a way that didn't favor mass, well the opinion of many in positions of influence, he was moved out of his position. So, you have both things. The political as well as the lack of proficiency. No no, Norman Shepherd took his place.14
Randy,
Greg and I both had Shepherd for the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in seminary and were very, very appreciative of his teaching (as well as his preaching in chapel and elsewhere from time to time). 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).
RogerAll 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.17
The recent controversy over some of the teaching that has come from the 2002 and 2003 AAPCs has brought forth some fantastic charges against men with solid reputations--Reformed pastors with histories of doing good and sound work in the kingdom of God--men worthy of our respect. Assuming that he motives of those involved in this controversy are what they should be, we should also keep in mind that at times controversies are motivated by things not readily apparent. As the rhetoric has increased and the volume has been turned up, we should take a couple of steps back and start asking some serious questions. Controversy requires caution and respect. There will always be a few self-appointed crusaders--the keepers of the true flame--whose confidence exempts them from the need for careful investigation. But for more cautious and respectful souls, an honest inquiry will be helpful.18
FOOTNOTES