What do you think?
Rate this book
Trust and Obey
There are those in the Church today who are fearful about anyone who raises a question concerning the ambiguities associated with the formula "justification by faith alone." The exclusive particle sola introduced by Luther has undoubtedly performed a valuable service in signalizing the distinction between the Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines of justification and in preventing the intrusion of merit on the part of man as a criterion of acceptability before God. The long and cherished tradition that lies behind "justification by faith alone" as a theological formula would make it appear to be an act of ingratitude, if not impiety, to raise the question of its adequacy as a summary of the thrust of the biblical doctrine of justification. Even so, it was the Reverend Professor Norman Shepherd's examination of the Scripture alone that gave him the courage to raise precisely this question.
- GenresTheology
277 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
2 people are currently reading
39 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 29, 2025
A HIGHLY SYMPATHETIC, DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO NORMAN SHEPHERD’S DISMISSAL
Ian Hewitson is professor of Biblical & Theological Studies at Northwestern College; before this, he was a minister for 14 years. He wrote in the Preface to this 2011 book, “The book that you have before you was conceived in 2003. At that time, I was hearing rumors about Norman Shepherd’s alleged lack of orthodoxy, but by then I had known Professor Shepherd for ten years and he had been my minister for six of those years… I heard, and witnessed, nothing from him that caused me to be at all suspicious of either his teaching or his person…
"I came to the conclusion that something had to be done to restore Professor Shepherd’s good name… I was obliged to come to the defense of a man I had come to believe was being unjustly slandered… it is a privilege to set before the reader an accurate account of a controversy that has been, and continues to be, destructive of the body of Christ.” (Pg. 15)
He adds, “having examined both the administrative and the theological evidence and having found that no charges were ever made at any time, during the controversy against Professor Shepherd, either doctrinal or moral and in view of the fact that he was repeatedly exonerated from all allegations by the seminary and by his presbytery, we can affirm with certainty that… his teaching on justification by faith, his exegesis of James 2 and its consonance with the teachings of Paul, his teaching on baptism, and his understanding of the ‘covenant dynamic’ were judged to be in harmony with Scripture and Confession and therefore do not represent departures from historical Reformed theology. In short, his formulations were found to be orthodox.” (Pg. 17)
He points out, “The long and cherished tradition that lies behind ‘justification by faith alone’ … would appear to make it an act of … impiety, to raise the question of its adequacy as a summary of the thrust of the biblical doctrine of justification. Nevertheless, for … Shepherd, there were reasons that made it necessary to raise precisely this question. For Shepherd, there is the fact that neither the Apostle Paul nor any other biblical author uses the expression ‘justification by faith alone.’ … the formula ‘justification by faith alone’ appears to be a reasonable rendering of the sense of ‘justification without the works of the law’ [Gal 2:16]. Traditionally the matter has rested at this point… and could remain there were it not for the fact that … James writes (2:24) ‘You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.’ It is to James 2:24 that Professor Shepherd turned his attention. The result of his inquiry … was a controversy that lasted seven years and still rages today… Professor Shepherd was compelled to study further the question of why the Protestant church was not content with the Pauline language … ‘justification “without the works of the law.’” Why was it necessary to say ‘justification by faith alone’?... why did the language of James not become… as popular in the church as the language of Paul?” (Pg. 21-22)
He notes, “the theological problem that provoked seven years of controversy was how to speak of conditions in the application of redemption and yet maintain the priority of grace in the use of the word ‘faith.’ How could one speak of grace while maintaining the … necessity of perseverance? According to Shepherd’s opponents, these questions had long been settled. But for Shepherd, these questions were the unfinished task of Reformed theology. This was the task to which Shepherd was fully committed, and it would engage him during the remainder of his tenure at WTS [Westminster Theological Seminary], and it would eventually result in his dismissal.” (Pg. 32-33)
In November 1981, “Although the [WTS] board stated that doctrinal errors were not the reason for removing Shepherd, removing him in the name of the ‘best interests’ of the seminary functionally achieved the stated goals of the minority… [which] had been focused on condemning what they believed to be the erroneous teaching of Professor Shepherd. Had the faculty at any time opposed Shepherd’s views, he would have had to leave the seminary…
"Shepherd’s continuation was supported not only by a majority of the faculty but also by two senior members who had been with the institution from its founding and who were familiar with its character and purpose; they were Paul Woolley and Cornelius Van Til.” (Pg. 92) He adds, “To date, Shepherd has not received a formal letter from the board of trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary informing him of his dismissal.” (Pg. 103)
He observes that the document, ‘The Commission on Allegations regarding Professor Shepherd: Summary of Allegations,’ lists “outside theologians who ‘concluded’ that ‘Mr. Shepherd’s views were wrong.’ The… Committee… did not agree on which questions were asked of these theologians… The questions were prejudicial and were designed to elicit a negative response… one of Shepherd’s most important papers was not included in the package… Shepherd was provided no opportunity to explain or defend any of these positions; neither was he permitted to inquire whether the outside theologians subscribed to the Westminster Standards.” (Pg. 210-211)
He asserts, “the procedural complexities and the multiple interests listed above should not disguise the central and abiding issue: At its heart, this struggle was over theology… Shepherd maintained that the Reformed church was not settled in its understanding of several of these doctrines. He believed that the church can and should continue to learn from the Bible and that the church must always be examining her teachings in the light of Scripture, with Scripture alone… being the final authority. He believed that the Reformed church’s teachings regarding faith, works, and justification were not settled, but that the church had within her pale the resources to answer the questions that he raised during the controversy. Further, he was firmly convinced that the church could … better express herself in a manner that conformed to the pattern of total scriptural witness. Shepherd’s opponents… were convinced that these matters had been settled at the time of the Reformation. Many of them felt that tentative inquiries into these central doctrines could only threaten the gospel.” (Pg. 220-221)
He concludes, “This book has sought to demonstrate that Westminster Seminary perpetrated an injustice against the reverend Professor Norman Shepherd … [when] they removed him from his teaching position at the seminary…. Westminster Seminary did not have adequate grounds to remove Shepherd. The persistence of a minority within the seminary community … along with certain pressures that came to bear on the seminary both financially and politically, finally culminated in the capitulation of the board in their decision to censure him… Westminster Seminary also had no grounds theologically to remove him from his teaching post… his understanding of justification by faith… and his understanding of the ‘covenant dynamic’ did not represent a departure from historic Reformed theology… This study seeks… to remove suspicion from Shepherd and to restore to him that which is more precious to him than silver or gold---his good name, a name besmirched not by enemies of the gospel but by brothers.” (Pg. 225-226)
This book will certainly not resolve all the controversy over Shepherd’s doctrinal teachings. (For a critical view of Shepherd, you might read 'The Current Justification Controversy'.) But this very detailed account will be “must reading” for anyone wanting to follow the progress of the controversy at WTS.
Ian Hewitson is professor of Biblical & Theological Studies at Northwestern College; before this, he was a minister for 14 years. He wrote in the Preface to this 2011 book, “The book that you have before you was conceived in 2003. At that time, I was hearing rumors about Norman Shepherd’s alleged lack of orthodoxy, but by then I had known Professor Shepherd for ten years and he had been my minister for six of those years… I heard, and witnessed, nothing from him that caused me to be at all suspicious of either his teaching or his person…
"I came to the conclusion that something had to be done to restore Professor Shepherd’s good name… I was obliged to come to the defense of a man I had come to believe was being unjustly slandered… it is a privilege to set before the reader an accurate account of a controversy that has been, and continues to be, destructive of the body of Christ.” (Pg. 15)
He adds, “having examined both the administrative and the theological evidence and having found that no charges were ever made at any time, during the controversy against Professor Shepherd, either doctrinal or moral and in view of the fact that he was repeatedly exonerated from all allegations by the seminary and by his presbytery, we can affirm with certainty that… his teaching on justification by faith, his exegesis of James 2 and its consonance with the teachings of Paul, his teaching on baptism, and his understanding of the ‘covenant dynamic’ were judged to be in harmony with Scripture and Confession and therefore do not represent departures from historical Reformed theology. In short, his formulations were found to be orthodox.” (Pg. 17)
He points out, “The long and cherished tradition that lies behind ‘justification by faith alone’ … would appear to make it an act of … impiety, to raise the question of its adequacy as a summary of the thrust of the biblical doctrine of justification. Nevertheless, for … Shepherd, there were reasons that made it necessary to raise precisely this question. For Shepherd, there is the fact that neither the Apostle Paul nor any other biblical author uses the expression ‘justification by faith alone.’ … the formula ‘justification by faith alone’ appears to be a reasonable rendering of the sense of ‘justification without the works of the law’ [Gal 2:16]. Traditionally the matter has rested at this point… and could remain there were it not for the fact that … James writes (2:24) ‘You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.’ It is to James 2:24 that Professor Shepherd turned his attention. The result of his inquiry … was a controversy that lasted seven years and still rages today… Professor Shepherd was compelled to study further the question of why the Protestant church was not content with the Pauline language … ‘justification “without the works of the law.’” Why was it necessary to say ‘justification by faith alone’?... why did the language of James not become… as popular in the church as the language of Paul?” (Pg. 21-22)
He notes, “the theological problem that provoked seven years of controversy was how to speak of conditions in the application of redemption and yet maintain the priority of grace in the use of the word ‘faith.’ How could one speak of grace while maintaining the … necessity of perseverance? According to Shepherd’s opponents, these questions had long been settled. But for Shepherd, these questions were the unfinished task of Reformed theology. This was the task to which Shepherd was fully committed, and it would engage him during the remainder of his tenure at WTS [Westminster Theological Seminary], and it would eventually result in his dismissal.” (Pg. 32-33)
In November 1981, “Although the [WTS] board stated that doctrinal errors were not the reason for removing Shepherd, removing him in the name of the ‘best interests’ of the seminary functionally achieved the stated goals of the minority… [which] had been focused on condemning what they believed to be the erroneous teaching of Professor Shepherd. Had the faculty at any time opposed Shepherd’s views, he would have had to leave the seminary…
"Shepherd’s continuation was supported not only by a majority of the faculty but also by two senior members who had been with the institution from its founding and who were familiar with its character and purpose; they were Paul Woolley and Cornelius Van Til.” (Pg. 92) He adds, “To date, Shepherd has not received a formal letter from the board of trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary informing him of his dismissal.” (Pg. 103)
He observes that the document, ‘The Commission on Allegations regarding Professor Shepherd: Summary of Allegations,’ lists “outside theologians who ‘concluded’ that ‘Mr. Shepherd’s views were wrong.’ The… Committee… did not agree on which questions were asked of these theologians… The questions were prejudicial and were designed to elicit a negative response… one of Shepherd’s most important papers was not included in the package… Shepherd was provided no opportunity to explain or defend any of these positions; neither was he permitted to inquire whether the outside theologians subscribed to the Westminster Standards.” (Pg. 210-211)
He asserts, “the procedural complexities and the multiple interests listed above should not disguise the central and abiding issue: At its heart, this struggle was over theology… Shepherd maintained that the Reformed church was not settled in its understanding of several of these doctrines. He believed that the church can and should continue to learn from the Bible and that the church must always be examining her teachings in the light of Scripture, with Scripture alone… being the final authority. He believed that the Reformed church’s teachings regarding faith, works, and justification were not settled, but that the church had within her pale the resources to answer the questions that he raised during the controversy. Further, he was firmly convinced that the church could … better express herself in a manner that conformed to the pattern of total scriptural witness. Shepherd’s opponents… were convinced that these matters had been settled at the time of the Reformation. Many of them felt that tentative inquiries into these central doctrines could only threaten the gospel.” (Pg. 220-221)
He concludes, “This book has sought to demonstrate that Westminster Seminary perpetrated an injustice against the reverend Professor Norman Shepherd … [when] they removed him from his teaching position at the seminary…. Westminster Seminary did not have adequate grounds to remove Shepherd. The persistence of a minority within the seminary community … along with certain pressures that came to bear on the seminary both financially and politically, finally culminated in the capitulation of the board in their decision to censure him… Westminster Seminary also had no grounds theologically to remove him from his teaching post… his understanding of justification by faith… and his understanding of the ‘covenant dynamic’ did not represent a departure from historic Reformed theology… This study seeks… to remove suspicion from Shepherd and to restore to him that which is more precious to him than silver or gold---his good name, a name besmirched not by enemies of the gospel but by brothers.” (Pg. 225-226)
This book will certainly not resolve all the controversy over Shepherd’s doctrinal teachings. (For a critical view of Shepherd, you might read 'The Current Justification Controversy'.) But this very detailed account will be “must reading” for anyone wanting to follow the progress of the controversy at WTS.
November 13, 2025
An excellent and fair presentation of the "Shepherd controversy" at WTS. Recommended.
November 18, 2025
Fascinating and helpful account of the Norman Shepherd controversy. Shepherd should be read by all!
September 17, 2011
Review to follow.
September 21, 2019
Almost too detailed in its chronicling the events leading to Norman Shepherd's resignation from Westminster Theological Seminary. Once and for all vindicates Shepherd from the charges of Neonomism and being out of accord with Westminster. The fact that Shepherd was ever thought to be teaching something that conflicted with the standards is just a testimony to the bankruptcy of most Reformed intellectual efforts in the late 20th and 21st centuries.
March 12, 2012
A pretty exhaustive account of the controversy over Norman Shepherd's formulation of Justification By Faith. Essential reading to understand the current caffuddle over Federal Vision.
December 17, 2012
This is an excellent resource for understanding all sides of the controversy.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews