The Trinity Review / July-August 2003

THE TRINITY REVIEW

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare
[are] not fleshly but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high
thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience
of Christ. And they will be ready to punish all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Number 222 Copyright 2003 John W. Robbins Post Office Box 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692 July/August 2003
Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/ Telephone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

The Current Justification Controversy

O. Palmer Robertson
Editor’s Note: Dr. O. Palmer Robertson is Director and justification was the central issue of the Christian
th
Principal of African Bible College, Uganda, and Professor Reformation of the 16 century, and defections from that
of Theology at African Bible College, Malawi. Formerly, he doctrine throughout church history merit the anathemas
had been on the faculties of Knox, Covenant, Paul pronounced on all who teach a different message.
Westminster, and Reformed Seminaries. He is the author When Norman Shepherd was dismissed from the faculty
of several books, including The Christ of the Covenants, of Westminster Seminary in early 1982, I thought the
The Final Word, Understanding the Land of the Bible, and Seminary had solved the problem of false teaching by
The Israel of God. removing a false teacher. I was wrong. As Dr. Mark
This essay, which concludes in the August 2003 issue of Karlberg explained in another of Trinity’s books, The
The Trinity Review, is taken from his new book, The Changing of the Guard, the Seminary’s Board had
Current Justification Controversy, a history of the removed one teacher (Shepherd) from its faculty – a
controversy surrounding Norman Shepherd in the teacher John Murray had approved as his successor, and
Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster whose view of justification Cornelius Van Til had defended
Theological Seminary. The Trinity Foundation plans to – but had allowed false teaching on justification to
publish it in August. More information on ordering the book continue at the Seminary. For the past 20 years, though
appears in the August 2003 issue of The Trinity Review. Norman Shepherd has not been on the faculty of
Westminster Seminary, men who agree with him on these
Background to the Controversy1 matters and defend and endorse his views have been
The Gospel of justification through belief alone is the teaching there, inculcating their views of election,
central doctrine of Scripture, as Paul makes clear in his justification, covenant, and salvation in hundreds of men
letter to the Romans. After declaring this Gospel to be the who are now pastors, missionaries, and teachers in
power of God for salvation in Romans 1:16-17, the apostle Presbyterian and Reformed churches, schools, and
discusses other doctrines and how they imply or are seminaries. So, when P&R Publishing Company (which
implied by the doctrine of justification through belief alone. has had close ties to the faculty of Westminster Seminary
He begins with the sinfulness of men, their universal and for at least three decades) published Norman Shepherd’s
total depravity, for the doctrine of total depravity is a book The Call of Grace in late 2000, there were plenty of
necessary implication of the doctrine of justification defenders of Shepherd’s erroneous views in the churches,
through belief alone. Paul emphasizes that the Jews, who and they responded to his call by vigorously defending the
had great confidence in their sacrament of circumcision, errors they had learned. The result has been a
their Abrahamic lineage, and their Mosaic covenant, were widespread outbreak of opposition to the Gospel of
as guilty before God, and more so, than the uncircumcised justification through belief alone in the very churches that
Gentiles outside the law who had none of those privileges. profess to be Reformed.
The Jews too, if they are to be saved, Paul argues, must The cancer of Neolegalism was not killed in 1982, and it
be justified through belief alone. That doctrine of has now metastasized throughout Reformed and
Presbyterian churches in America. The Philadelphia
1
A longer version of this introductory essay by Dr. John W. Presbytery of the OPC, by failing to take proper
Robbins appears in A Companion to The Current Justification disciplinary action against Shepherd, his supporters, and
Controversy. A Companion includes documents mentioned by their views when it had the opportunity to do so more than
Dr. Robertson but not included in his book. It is available from 20 years ago, permitted the leaven of the Pharisees to
The Trinity Foundation for $7.95 when purchased in conjunction leaven the whole lump.
with The Current Justification Controversy.
 The Trinity Review / July-August 2003
Dr. Robertson’s history of the justification controversy Respectfully submitted,
more than 20 years ago is indispensable to understanding O. Palmer Robertson
how Reformed and Presbyterian churches have arrived at
the dire situation they are in today. Dr. Robertson’s appeal failed. His detailed history of the
justification controversy was never published in any
Covenant Seminary’s Role theological journal. The powers that be, reading their
When Dr. Robertson wrote The Current Justification copies of 1984, as well as church history, did their best to
Controversy, the Editorial Committee of Presbyterion, the suppress it. The Trinity Foundation is pleased to be able
theological journal of Covenant Seminary (where Dr. to offer it for the first time in book form. Here are some
Robertson had been a member of the faculty since 1980) excerpts from Dr. Robertson’s book:
accepted it for publication. But the faculty of Covenant
Seminary intervened and voted to stop its publication on Introduction
the grounds that it might embarrass the faculty of another By the five-hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther’s
Reformed Seminary, namely, Westminster. Dr. Robertson birth [1483-1983], it might have been expected that the
authored a Resolution appealing this decision to the question of the way of a man’s justification before God
General Assembly of the PCA, the highest court in the would have been settled, at least in Reformed and
denomination: evangelical circles. But history demonstrates that such an
expectation fails to take account of the resilience inherent
A Resolution to the Eleventh General Assembly in man’s natural inclinations to find some role for his own
of the Presbyterian Church in America performance in determining his position before God. For
the controversy over the relation of works to justification
Whereas the pursuit of truth with integrity is essential to continues to challenge the church.
the propagation and defense of the Gospel; and The recurrence of this issue attests to the correctness of
Whereas this pursuit of truth must he carried on with Luther’s judgment that justification by faith alone is the
Christian love and sensitivity but without respect of doctrine of the standing or falling church. For why else
persons or institutions; and would this single doctrine become the point of dispute
Whereas the attached history of the “current justification throughout the generations?
controversy” among Reformed and Presbyterian churches This historical overview of a current controversy relative
in America has been submitted to the theological journal to justification is offered in the hope that it may provide a
of Covenant Theological Seminary by a faculty member of framework by which the church in this day may see more
the Seminary; and clearly the Gospel issues, and may maintain a fully Biblical
Whereas the editorial committee of this journal perspective. Certainly this brief treatment cannot expect to
(Presbyterion) has commended this article as a fair conclude the matter in the present context. But perhaps it
representation of the issues currently before the church so can provide some impetus for advancing the discussion in
far as it can determine, noting that the material “must” be a way that shall promote the peace and the purity of the
published, and even offering to assist financially in its church….
publication; and
Whereas this committee, and then by a vote of five to The Beginnings of the Controversy
four with two abstentions, the faculty of Covenant The “justification issue” came to the attention of the
Seminary voted not to publish this article in its journal, Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1975,
giving as its reason that it might be offensive to another when certain students were reported to have set forth a
respected seminary of the Reformed and Presbyterian position that justification was by faith and by works when
family in America; and being examined by various church bodies. In February
Whereas the author of this article has expressed his 1976, two Faculty members formally addressed the
openness to editorial suggestions, and his willingness to situation, and requested that together with Mr. Norman
have other viewpoints on this issue printed in subsequent Shepherd, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at
editions of Presbyterion so long as they are factually true the Seminary, the Faculty attempt to clarify the matter.
and promote the doctrinal positions of the Presbyterian In a previous Faculty discussion of the issue on April 14,
Church in America; and 1975, Mr. Shepherd had affirmed that as faith was the
Whereas due to this church’s relation to Covenant instrument of justification, so also works were the
Theological Seminary, Presbyterion in some sense serves instrument of justification. This assertion had drawn a
as the organ for ongoing theological discussion within the rather vigorous response from various members of the
Presbyterian Church in America, and not merely the organ Faculty, since it challenged directly expressions in the
of Covenant Theological Seminary; and doctrinal standards of the Seminary. For the Westminster
Whereas the policies and decisions related to Covenant Confession of Faith states that “Faith…is the alone
Theological Seminary are subject to the review and instrument of justification” (WCF 11.2).
control of the Presbyterian Church in America; Through the early years of the discussion in the Faculty
Therefore, the Presbyterian Church in America is and the Board at the Seminary, it was not clear that Mr.
respectfully requested to determine whether or not the Shepherd actually had taught in the classroom that
pages of Presbyterion should be open to this article on the justification was “by works” as well as “by faith.” It was
current justification controversy. reasoned that a teacher cannot be held responsible for all
2
 The Trinity Review / July-August 2003
the ways his students may understand him. It was also instrument of justification, while works were the “way” of
proposed that some of Mr. Shepherd’s expressions had justification.
been exploratory, and were meant only for the Faculty. Yet through all this divergence of phraseology, a
However, in the discussions of a special Board-Faculty consistency of position was being maintained, indicated by
committee in 1980, it finally was made clear by tapes of a Faculty report to the Board dated May 17, 1977. The
his 1975 lectures that Mr. Shepherd had taught in the subsequent evaluations of several outside scholars also
classroom that justification was by works as well as by noted this consistency. Despite his various modes of
faith. In these lectures, Mr. Shepherd developed expression, faith and good works were presented
extensively the idea that works functioned in a parallel role consistently as parallel to one another in their relation to
to faith in justification. He declared that justification justification. In this scheme, one could speak of the
presupposes faith; faith is not the ground of justification, “unique” role of works as the “way” of justification as well
but faith is the instrument of justification. In parallel as the “unique” role of faith as the “instrument” of
fashion, he declared that justification presupposes good justification. But the distinction between an “instrument” of
works; good works are not the ground of justification, but justification and a “way” of justification in Mr. Shepherd’s
good works are the instrument of justification. While faith formulations was difficult to determine.
and works were maintained as distinctive in themselves, Fifthly, Mr. Shepherd stressed the organic unity of faith
each was presented not as the ground but as the and works in justification. In the end, he could reduce to a
instrument of justification. single assertion his views about the parallelism of faith
At this point, certain aspects of the controversy as it and works in justification. He could affirm that justification
originally developed may be noted. was “by faith alone” and yet retain his position that
First of all, the problem arose with Mr. Shepherd’s justification was by faith and by works. For in his view the
affirmation that good works served as the instrument or as “faith” that justifies is itself a work of obedience which is an
the way of justification. He wished to avoid the idea that integral aspect of the larger covenantal response of
good works might serve as the ground of justification. But obedience for justification. If justification is by “obedient
he also plainly stated that good works paralleled faith as faith,” it also is by the “obedience of faith.” If justification is
the instrument of justification. by a “working faith,” it also is by the “works of faith.” Even
Secondly, Mr. Shepherd declared his intention to remain the classic assertion that justification is by “faith alone”
loyal to the teaching of the Westminster Confession of thus comes to mean that justification is by faith and by
Faith and catechisms. This fact must be remembered, and works, since the “faith” that justifies is understood as
explains much of the divergence in subsequent integral to good works done as the way of justification.
evaluations of the issue. For in Mr. Shepherd’s mind, his Because of this distinctive perspective, Mr. Shepherd
teaching was in accord with the standards of the church, was understood by some to be attacking a recognized
although going beyond the Confession and catechisms at enemy by his formulations. He might emphasize that a
certain points. The question created by his formulations faith that does not work cannot justify; and so the errors of
was whether or not many of his statements actually did “easy-believism” would be countered. But because by
accord with the teaching of Scripture and the Confession. these expressions he also could mean that the works of
Thirdly, Mr. Shepherd defended a “unique” role for faith faith justify, he was communicating once more the same
in justification. Faith was viewed as playing a role in point that had received such vigorous opposition originally.
justification that nothing else could fulfill. Indeed, good In a slightly different form he was asserting his view that
works also were to be viewed as the instrument or the works as well as faith justify.
“way” of justification, but faith was presented as having a Mr. Shepherd cited as Biblical support for his view the
distinctive place in justification. This assertion about faith’s statement of James that a man is justified by works as
“uniqueness” had the effect of allaying the fears of many well as by faith (James 2:24). In his interpretation, James
about Mr. Shepherd’s commitment to the Reformed was speaking of essentially the same justification as Paul,
doctrine of justification. But for others, so long as his and so could be cited as proof that justification was “by
teaching did not also exclude works as the “way” of works.”
justification, the issue remained clouded. At this point, it may be remembered that both Martin
Fourthly, Mr. Shepherd developed from these original Luther and John Calvin responded rather explicitly to the
formulations a variety of ways by which he might express Roman Catholic analysis of these assertions of James. As
his distinctive position. Originally he affirmed that good Calvin says:
works were the instrument of justification as well as faith.
Then for a period of time he proposed that neither faith nor That we may not then fall into that false reasoning
works should be regarded as the “instrument” of which has deceived the Sophists [the Romanists], we
justification, since the term “instrument” had the danger of must take notice of the two-fold meaning of the word
being understood as “instrumental cause.” Since only the justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of
righteousness of Christ rightly could be understood as the righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James,
cause of justification, it would be dangerous to speak of the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and
either faith or works as the “instrument” of justification. that before men, as we may gather from the preceding
Finally he spoke of faith as “unique” in its role as words, “Show me thy faith,” etc. [Commentaries on the
Catholic Epistles, 314ff.].

3
 The Trinity Review / July-August 2003
According to the Reformers, James does not say that formulations on justification and the covenant would then
“works” must be added to “faith” or included in faith as the signal a tragic narrowing of the Reformed tradition
way by which men receive God’s judicial declaration that represented at Westminster Seminary and in American
their sins are forgiven. In their understanding, James is Presbyterianism. Evidence to support this analysis has
not even discussing the way to pardon from guilt, as is been found in the newly emerging “predominance” of the
Paul. To the contrary, James is describing how a man Presbyterian Church in America on the Board of
may “show” his faith to be genuine (James 2:18), and how Westminster Seminary.
faith inevitably will “come to fulness” or “fruition” in good A significant cultural distinction may be detected
works (James 2:22). between the Scotch-English and the Dutch tradition of
Subsequent discussion of the “justification” issue must Calvinism as they have come to expression on American
begin with a full awareness of the original state of the soil. It is true that the Presbyterian Church in America,
matter. Otherwise, later assertions by Mr. Shepherd that representing the former of these traditions, has increased
actually continue his initial perspective will be heard only its representation on the Board of Westminster in recent
as affirmations of traditional orthodoxy. The controversy days.
began with Mr. Shepherd’s assertion that works paralleled Yet it is difficult to establish a view of justification and the
faith as the instrument of justification. The issue continued covenant rooted in the Canons of Dordt of the Dutch
as Mr. Shepherd insisted that works were the way of tradition that is different from that which may be found in
justification, and that faith included in its essence the good the Westminster Confession and catechisms. The
works that justify…. Reformers were united about the doctrine of justification.
Their creedal statements reflect that unity. Although
The Causes of the Controversy differences may be found at certain points, it is difficult to
What brought about these agonizing and seemingly drive a wedge between these two traditions with reference
hurtful disputes within the very womb of evangelical to the doctrines of justification and the covenant.
Christianity in America today? How could it be that those Of course, if a difference of substance should have
so close in theological background and commitment would emerged, Westminster Seminary as a point of historical
find themselves so radically opposed on the central fact is committed to the formulations of the Westminster
doctrine of justification? Standards. It is to these documents specifically and not to
Many false reasons have been cited as the source of the a broader confessional base that the professors and
issue. Board members of Westminster Seminary are committed.
A head-count of the constituency of Westminster’s
False Reason 1: Misunderstanding Board with reference to their church affiliation dispels the
It has been said that misunderstanding of Mr. theory that domination by the Presbyterian Church in
Shepherd’s position is to blame for the controversy. If his America explains the conflict. At the time of the dismissal
opponents had been more careful in their evaluations, of Mr. Shepherd, the Board included seven members from
they would not have misread him. the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, six members from the
Such a proposition begins to lose credibility after a Christian Reformed Church, and six members from the
certain point. As the circle of dissent from Mr. Shepherd’s Presbyterian Church in America. This proportioning hardly
position broadens to include ever larger bodies of represents “PCA domination.”
scholars, theologians, pastors, and laymen, the appeal to The wide spread of ecclesiastical background in the
“misunderstanding” loses whatever convincing character it opponents of Mr. Shepherd’s view also dispels the notion
may have possessed. of a possible denominational “coalition” against him. Board
As any pedagogue knows, the teacher is responsible to and faculty members opposing his views included
a great degree not only for what he says but for how he is representatives from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
heard. Communication has not been achieved until the the Christian Reformed Church, the Reformed Church in
hearer rightly understands the speaker. America, the Canadian Presbyterian Church, the
It should not be suggested that Mr. Shepherd Reformed Church in the United States (Eureka Classis),
manifested incompetence in the area of communication the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Church of
skills. He continually demonstrated his ability as a trained England.
scholar and a devoted theologian.
Yet in this case, evidence clearly indicates that whatever False Reason 3: Personality Conflict
his intent, he communicated doctrine that many A third explanation of the controversy has been made. It
understood to contravene the teaching of Scripture and has been suggested that a “personality conflict” created
the Westminster Confession. the controversy. Strong individuals on either side
encountered one another, with the inevitable result of an
False Reason 2: Dutch Tradition unending struggle. It cannot be denied that strong
Another proposed explanation for the controversy has personalities were involved in the issue. Persistence
been the suggestion that Mr. Shepherd’s theology marked participants on each side of the controversy. But
represented a tradition of the faith of the Reformers this phenomenon can neither be faulted in itself, nor
different from the perspective prevalent among evan- blamed as the source of the problem. A matter of such
gelical Presbyterians in America today. A rejection of his crucial substance clearly justifies determination on the part

4
 The Trinity Review / July-August 2003
of participants. Blame for the conflict must be found legalistic courtroom setting, even when discussing
elsewhere. specifically the doctrine of justification.
(2) Election has been viewed deficiently by the
False Reason 4: Lack of Due Process dominance of a static model of God’s unchanging
It has been proposed with some vigor that the real decrees. Since man cannot perceive the elect as God
blame for the controversy must lie at the doorstep of Mr. sees them, it is fruitless as well as misleading to assume
Shepherd’s opponents. Their un-Christian procedures so this perspective. Instead, the church must view election as
marred the orderly process of evaluation that discussion of Scripture does, which is out of the dynamic of the
the theological substance of the matter became covenant. God indeed elects unchangeably. But he
meaningless. By a prejudicial and premature calling forth nonetheless functions in the dynamic of the covenant. In
of opinions from “outside theologians,” and by a this framework the movement from reprobation to election
dissemination of one-sided allegations to the public, all also opens the real possibility that God’s elect may
hope of coming to a sympathetic understanding of Mr. become reprobate.
Shepherd’s legitimate concerns was destroyed. Instead, (3) Church membership and the sacraments must be
Mr. Shepherd became the public scapegoat of a seriously seen for what they really are. They define genuine
mishandled situation. positions and experience in the covenant of grace. Any
However, those opposed to Mr. Shepherd’s views, and lesser perspective on their significance mocks the divine
2
particularly the signers of the May 4, 1981 letter, had no ordinances and contradicts the clear teaching of many
guarantee that the broader community of the church would portions of Scripture. Baptism rather than regeneration
agree with them in their assessment of Mr. Shepherd’s marks the point of transition from death to life. But
formulations. If their statement of the issue was prejudicial discontinuation in the covenant ordinances means
to Mr. Shepherd’s views, then in time an evaluation of the damnation.
primary documents of the discussion should make that (4) Faith and its fruits never can be abstracted from one
fact evident to all. Interestingly, however, it has been Mr. another, for to believe is to obey. As a consequence, the
Shepherd’s opponents who have been most concerned way of justification before God is the way of obedience,
that all the materials of the controversy be made available and obedience is the way of justification. The unity of
to the public, while at the same time recognizing the right man’s salvation finds its realization in the dynamic of
and perhaps the necessity of Mr. Shepherd to retract any covenant living.
of his controverted statements. Time will uncover the ultimate consequences of Mr.
In the final analysis, only the presence of an issue of Shepherd’s distinctive formulations. But as novel
substance can explain the controversy. Numerous factors perspectives on the Biblical teaching concerning
have tended to conceal this reality. But this perspective justification, the covenant, the sacraments, and the
alone provides an explanation of all the various elements relation of faith to works, they provided the catalyst for the
involved in the controversy. current controversy. This issue was one of theological
substance and not of incidental disagreements that could
Reason 1: Deep Doctrinal Differences have been avoided.
Not all theological disputes center on issues of sub-
stance. But this matter had substance from the beginning. Reason 2: Discoordination between Presbytery
Never has a view of justification and the covenant and Seminary
precisely like that of Mr. Shepherd’s been proposed in the Complicating the entire process was the relationship
church. Indeed, many close parallels may be found. But developed between the Seminary community and the
as a man with distinctive academic gifts and qualifications, church. Ecclesiastical approval for ministry depended on
he has developed a unique perspective that represents the evaluation of materials by the Presbytery. Seminary
new doctrinal formulations…. approval depended on evaluation of materials by the
It is somewhat difficult to capture all the nuances of a Board and Faculty. The church and the Seminary of
perspective that still is emerging. Yet an effort may be necessity had to take into account the evaluations of one
made to summarize the distinctiveness of Mr. Shepherd’s another.
formulations that generated this controversy: Yet the two groups simultaneously were working with
(1) Justification has been perceived inadequately by the different sets of materials. Even as the Seminary was
church through its use of a Roman legal model. The evaluating the October 1976 paper and a subsequent
Biblical perspective requires that justification be paper modifying four of its most controversial formulations,
understood in terms of the dynamic of the covenant the Presbytery was determining not to admit this material
model. The “covenant of life” must not be reduced to a as evidence for charges against Mr. Shepherd. The
Presbytery eventually moved on to evaluate Mr.
Shepherd’s Thirty-four Theses, and in the end failed to
2
For the text of this letter, as well as additional information about pass a motion finding them in accord with Scripture and
the origins and effects of the Shepherd case not included in The the Confession.
Current Justification Controversy, see A Companion to The When considered by a select group of faculty members
Current Justification Controversy by Dr. John W. Robbins, at the Downingtown Conference, these Theses failed to
available from The Trinity Foundation for $7.95 when ordered provide a basis for unity, particularly when placed in the
with The Current Justification Controversy.
5
 The Trinity Review / July-August 2003
context of Mr. Shepherd’s distinctive views on the God’s applying the benefit of Christ’s redemption (the ordo
covenant. salutis) needed reassessment in the light of this new data
A partial reason for prolonging the controversy appears provided by “Biblical Theology.” Systematics must now be
to reside in this distinction between the respective roles of “informed” by these new perspectives.
Presbytery and Seminary. The Seminary had opportunity This ascendancy of “Biblical Theology” over Systematics
to make a more thorough analysis of Mr. Shepherd’s could be hailed as a great triumph which would lead to
distinctive formulations because of its access to a broader renewal in a church permeated with the errors of “easy-
scope of materials. But their evaluation did not have the believism.” All the vitalities and distinctive insights of the
advantage of open and public discussion in which it would Biblical Theologian could become the catalyst for
become apparent how Mr. Shepherd would be heard by compelling the church to rethink its dogmatic assumptions
the church at large. about “once saved, always saved” that too often lead to
On the other hand, the Presbytery restricted the scope presumption.
of materials it would consider. By such an action, it closed The church can only rejoice over the discovery of fresh
the door to a most important avenue of relief for the insights provided by the discipline of Biblical Theology.
opponents of Mr. Shepherd’s views. He had propounded Drawing out the distinctive emphases of the various
and defended for a two-year period certain doctrinal portions of Scripture must inevitably enrich the church’s
statements that never had been seen by the Presbytery. appreciation of the variegated revelation of God to men.
Although he made a general statement regretting their But some reserve must be expressed on this subject.
problematic nature, he never retracted anything in First, the Biblical Theologian must be very careful that his
particular. The Presbytery, therefore, never was in a exegesis is correct as he deals with the various portions of
position to judge whether Mr. Shepherd’s more recent Scripture. Secondly, the Biblical Theologian must
formulations actually did represent a repudiation of the emphasize the rich diversity and distinctive message of
specific statements that were proposed to be of an Scripture only in a framework in which he also recognizes
erroneous or misleading nature. the controls exercised by the unity of the whole of
At the same time, the general statement of regret made Scripture. In other words, the “progress” of revelation must
by Mr. Shepherd to the Presbytery hardly could be always proceed with a full awareness of the final stages of
expected to satisfy Faculty and Board members who had the revelational process. For it must be remembered that
heard him repeatedly defend the most controverted of his the ultimate context of any particular Scripture is the
statements. A way of relief could have been found if Mr. totality of Scripture.
Shepherd had retracted statements regarded as erron-
eous or misleading. But so long as one set of documents Reason 4: Unconvincing Exegesis
was being considered by the Seminary, and a different set Mr. Shepherd was not altogether convincing with
of documents was being considered by the Presbytery, it respect to his basic exegesis of certain portions of
was not likely that this step would be taken. Scripture which have played a crucial role in the
development of his new “Biblical Theology.” He posited
Reason 3: “Biblical Theology” that justification had identical significance in the letter of
A third major cause of the controversy may be James and in Paul’s argument in Romans and Galatians.
proposed. It has been identified by some as the Yet even though he analyzed rather carefully the optional
“ascendancy” of “Biblical Theology” over Systematics. meanings of the word “to justify” in James, he never
Mr. Shepherd in his own mind had discovered a established that James meant specifically that the guilty,
distinctive teaching on justification in James. He desired to polluted sinner had all his sins forgiven “by works” and not
allow James to speak with full canonical authority in the merely “by faith.” In this case, it would not be adequate to
church. He did not want the formulations of Paul to mute show that James used the term “justified” semantically to
the vital words of James that justification was “by works.” mean “declared to be just” rather than “demonstrated to
Mr. Shepherd also wished to give full weight to the be just.” For the meaning of justification in Paul can be
warnings of Scripture concerning those who professed understood properly only in terms of the total context
faith but did not live in obedience. Particularly the which deals with the way guiltiness is removed. In order to
warnings of Hebrews needed to be given their proper establish that Pauline “justification” is “by works,” Mr.
place in a doctrine of justification, since this book insisted Shepherd would have to show that James’ intention was
on a “holiness” without which no one could see the Lord. to affirm that all the guiltiness of the polluted sinner is
The experience of elect Israel also needed a renewed removed by the sinner’s own actions – actions which in
emphasis in the modern church scene. Unquestionably themselves at best are imperfect and sinful.
Israel had been the elect of God. The distinctive words of In a similar manner, when Mr. Shepherd asserted that
Deuteronomy 7 clearly asserted that fact. Yet they had Paul excluded only works done in an attitude of boasting
become “not-my-people,” the reprobate among the and pride from the way of justification and did not intend to
nations. This distinctive message of Scripture needed to exclude also the “good works” done in faith by the
be given its proper role in the doctrine of justification. regenerate as the “way” of justification, he had the
It was in the framework of a bringing together of these obligation of establishing this point on clear exegetical
various testimonies of Scripture that Mr. Shepherd grounds. Working in the context of history since the
developed his distinctive formulations. The older “order” of Reformation, he basically had a responsibility to answer

6
 The Trinity Review / July-August 2003
the argument of John Calvin and others in their analysis of with the greater emphasis of the New Testament on the
the scope of the “works of the law” excluded from “eternal background” of the same reality (ibid.).
justification by Paul. Calvin had argued quite convincingly In attempting to make relevant the significance of the
that if Paul were excluding only boastful works from movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the
justification, then he would not have cited the Old old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual
Testament to show that if a person should do these very elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become
“works” he would be blessed with life (see John Calvin’s reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has
treatment of Galatians 3:10,13 in his Institutes III, ii, 19). communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural
When Mr. Shepherd’s exegesis of Paul is joined to his revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the
exegesis of James, the implication is that a man is finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the
“justified” by good works done in faith, although he is not framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old
justified by works done in prideful boasting. His Testament, it may be that Mr. Shepherd has allowed the
ambiguous use of the phrase “obedience of faith” then typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too
serves as a means of communicating the idea that much control over the manner in which the New
justification is by the obedient acts done in faith, as well as Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this
by faith, which inevitably comes to expression in perspective on election, a corresponding perspective
obedience to God. emerged in his development of the idea of “justification”
Some have credited “Biblical Theology” with these “fresh that actually could be lost.
insights” into the way of justification. But if the “distinctive” The Biblical Theologian must not only describe
message of Paul and of James both have been accurately the distinctive message of the various portions
represented from a perspective that is not precisely true to of Scripture. He must also balance Scriptural diversity with
their own message, then the “Biblical Theology” arising Scriptural unity. The distinctive message of each portion of
from these conclusions could not prove to be helpful to the Scripture has as its final and definitive context the totality
church. of the teaching of Scripture. In the end, portions of
Scripture which deal most explicitly with the topic at hand
Reason 5: Misunderstanding of Covenant must be given their full weight. The “shadows” of Old
Election Testament Scripture must be interpreted in the context of
A close scrutiny also must be made of Mr. Shepherd’s New Testament “reality.” The obscurities of Scripture must
analysis of the teaching of Deuteronomy, Ephesians, and be understood in the light of its more explicit teaching.
Hebrews on election, the covenant, and perseverance. Is In view of these considerations, it may be inappropriate
it true that God’s election of individuals under the new to credit the “fresh insights” of Biblical Theology in contrast
covenant actually is of the same sort as God’s election of to Systematics for originating this controversy. Only as
national Israel under the Old? Do the typological exegesis functions accurately in describing the progress of
limitations associated with national Israel’s election revelation meaningfully in the context of the total message
continue in the individual election described in Ephesians of Scripture may it properly be termed “Biblical Theology.”
1? May a person elected by God according to the The delicate art of exegesis can be spoiled by setting one
categories of Ephesians 1 lose his elected status just as statement over against another if an actual dialectic is
the nation of Israel lost theirs in the historical event of the created. The assertions of one text may be overstated so
exile? Is the only election found in Scripture something that an equivalent adjustment-in-error of many other texts
that may be called “covenant election,” referring to an may be required for maintaining “harmony” in Scripture.
election-in-covenant that may become reprobation? For these and other reasons this controversy on
Once more the appeal to the discipline of “Biblical justification has arisen in the church today. It is indeed
Theology” must be weighed with care. painful to engage in such a vigorous debate on the central
It is true that the distinctive emphasis of every portion of doctrine of justification. But perhaps the controversy itself
Scripture must he given full expression. Such a distinction may be the means by which the church will clarify and
in the progress of revelation with respect to divine election deepen its thinking. Perhaps the church will be prepared
and reprobation is brought out by Geerhardus Vos when for even more meaningful advances in testifying to the
he notes that the doctrines of election and reprobation saving grace of Jesus Christ, who is “The Lord our
“are by preference viewed in the Old Testament as they Righteousness” (Jeremiah 33:16).
emerge in the actual control of the issues of history. It is
God acting in result of his eternal will, rather than willing in
advance of His temporal act that is emphasized in the Old
Testament stage of revelation” (“The Biblical Importance
of the Doctrine of Preterition,” in Redemptive History and
Biblical Interpretation, edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.,
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1980,
413, emphasis supplied). This old covenant emphasis on
viewing God’s eternal decrees through the admittedly
limited perspective of historical images may be contrasted

7
 The Trinity Review / July-August 2003
4. The Issue before the Presbytery
The Current Justification Controversy 5. The Downingtown Conference
6. The “Committee to Draw Up a Statement”
O. Palmer Robertson
7. The Commission on Allegations
Trade paperback, 2003 8. Implications for Church Union and Unity
120 pages, $9.95 9. The Removal of Mr. Shepherd
10. Challenge, Response—and Continuation
Contents: 11. The Causes of the Controversy

About the Author Index

Foreword Scripture Index
Introduction The Crisis of Our Time
Intellectual Ammunition
1. The Beginnings of the Controversy
2. The October 1976 Paper
3. Reactions to the October 1976 Paper

ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS
To purchase The Current Justification Controversy by Dr. Robertson and A Companion to The Current
Justification Controversy by Dr. Robbins, please send your order and payment to
The Trinity Foundation
Post Office Box 68
Unicoi, Tennessee 37692.

The Controversy A Companion

1-5 copies $9.95 each $7.95 each
6-25 copies $8.00 each $6.00 each
26-50 copies $7.00 each $5.00 each
51-100 copies $6.00 each $4.00 each
101+ copies $5.00 each $3.00 each

Shipping: Please add 15 percent to your order total for postage and handling to one U.S. address.