The Current Justification Controversy

by O. Palmer Robertson

This is the only book-length account of the Norman Shepherd controversy in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster Theological Seminary ever published. That controversy lasted 7 years (1975-1982) and was never properly resolved by either the Seminary or the denomination. Written at the time of the controversy, Robertson's manuscript was suppressed by the faculty of Covenant Seminary, which refused to publish it in in its academic journal Presbuterion for fear of offending the faculty of Westminster Seminary. It appears here in print for the first time, 20 years after it was written.

Genres: Theology

120 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Owen Palmer Robertson (born August 31, 1937) is an American Christian theologian and biblical scholar. He taught at Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, Knox Theological Seminary as well as at the African Bible Colleges of Malawi and Uganda. He also served as principal of the latter institution.

Robertson is perhaps best known for his book The Christ of the Covenants. His definition of a biblical covenant being "a bond in blood, sovereignly administered" has been widely discussed.

In 2008, a Festschrift was published in his honor. The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson included contributions by Bruce Waltke, Richard Gaffin, Robert L. Reymond and George W. Knight III.

Reviews

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading a dissection of church controversy is an almost ‘no-win’ situation; it is an act of courageous intent to try and distill hours of discussion and paper-writing into a story with coherent flow. Robertson gets 5 stars on coherence.

The attempt at impartial record-keeping was also admirable. Hard to be impartial about someone taking a position you think is unsound and might endanger others. So …5 points there.

However, the book as a whole (let alone the “Crisis of Our Times”) left me wondering….how does this further the gospel of Christ? Of what value is a dissection of a six-year battle over an established theological principle, other than to turn people away from a church that can’t find unity in the principles it has affirmed for centuries?

I felt frustrated at the descriptions of what seemed to be turf wars over position. Leaders seemingly lacking the courage to say, “You may be a bright boy but you’re out of line with the real meaning of our standards; if you confuse peers then you can’t effectively teach young minds full of mush.” Perhaps that was the real intent of this book - to rile.

But most of all, I thoroughly disagree with Robbins’ take on the crisis of our times. This entire book shows Christian intellectuals hampered in using their Spirit-given ability of discernment and unwilling to say, “It doesn’t matter what you assert about your conflicted position - you’re lying about what you believe, to yourself and to us.” The antidote is not more training on logic. I agree with Robbins in saying our world is ridiculously anti-intellectual and overly fond of contradiction. But logic does not save. Christ does, through the work of the Spirit. It wasn’t logic that told Paul that Elymas was the ‘enemy of all righteousness’. It wasn’t logic that told Peter to call out lying in Ananias and Sapphira as a deadly offense. It was the Spirit.

When men of sense lack courage to point out the obvious, they get what they want to avoid: contention. And unfavorable public attention. And serve them right for displaying spiritual cowardice. That, too, is an offense indicated alongside faithlessness.

Found this quote on the Heidelblog and couldn’t agree more: “A movement in aid of holiness which produces strife and dispute among God’s children is somewhat suspicious.” – JC Ryle

[Lee Irons · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a historical account of the controversy that took place at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1975 to 1982 over Norman Shepherd’s teaching on justification. The author was a participant in these events and he wrote this account in 1983 while his memory was fresh. I was in elementary school when the Shepherd controversy started and in middle school when he was dismissed from Westminster. Being raised in a non-Reformed church, I had no knowledge of the OPC or Westminster at the time. So when I later went to seminary (Westminster Seminary California) and I heard a lot about the Shepherd controversy, I was only able to pick up bits and pieces from different professors. I wish I had Robertson’s excellent account back then. It was very instructive to get a grasp on what exactly transpired. Robertson gives the blow-by-blow, covering each paper, board meeting, presbytery meeting, and other meetings. It is a sad story. The saddest part is to see how these highly intelligent godly leaders of Reformed institutions (WTS and the OPC) were so discombobulated and confused by Shepherd’s teachings that they could not immediately spot his error and denounce it. Of course, there were those shining lights, like Robertson, Meredith G. Kline, Robert Godfrey, Arthur Kuschke, Philip E. Hughes, and others, who did clearly see the error and tried to point it out. But they were apparently in the minority for most of this period and had to endure contumely (and at one point the threat of charges, can you believe it?) for their upright stand. Sad and shameful.

[Cody Justice · Rating 5 out of 5]

If Robertson's report is accurate, Professor Shepherd was not mistreated, generally speaking, during this controversy. Quite the contrary, he was treated very leniently for heretical views not only on justification, but also on works, election, and the covenant. I fear his influence, in some ways, is permeating now, largely undetected and unknown. Perhaps if the men involved in the Shepherd controversy had acted more courageously and decisively earlier on, things would be different. The major lesson is this: fundamental doctrine, especially the doctrine of justification, always trumps relationships. Always. Nodding to orthodoxy, claiming to subscribe to a confession, and mouthing all the right phrases is not enough, especially when one replaces the definitions of accepted terms with something foreign or contrary to their original meaning. That is not only dishonest, it is cowardice.

As an aside, the remedy for easy believism is not to teach justification by works or obedience; rather, it's to teach the law of God and its place in sanctification. I think it was Dr. Waters who, speaking of the federal vision (which is rooted in Shepherdism), said that these men responded to pastoral problems by reframing theology. That was not the answer. An error in practice does not necessitate an error in doctrine. Peter in Galatians 2 is a plain example of such. He knew, believed, and taught the truth of the gospel, but he denied it in his practice.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent concise historical overview of the views and controversy over Norman Shepherd’s doctrine of justification (Former Westminster Professor of Systematic Theology).

Robertson discusses the events leading up to the controversy with students from Westminster seminary failing their ordination exams for stating that justification is by “faith as well as works”. This lead to an investigation of the teachings of Norman Shepherd both among the Seminary Faculty at Westminster and later in the OPC that ultimately resulted in his removal from Westminster Seminary.

While Norman Shepherd is not well know today, his views of monocovenantalism and denial of the covenant of works in favor of an overarching covenant of Grace and “working faith/covenant obedience” as the requirement to justification and to maintain covenant membership by continued covenant obedience are well attested in both the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul.

This book is an important warning to remain firm in the historical and biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, and to avoid the destructive errors of neonomianism that turn the Gospel into the papist/romanist error of justification by faith + works.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A REPRINTED ARTICLE DETAILING THE CONTROVERSY AT WESTMINSTER OVER NORMAN SHEPHERD’S TEACHINGS

O. Palmer Robertson (born 1937) is an American Christian theologian and biblical scholar. He taught at Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, Knox Theological Seminary as well as at the African Bible Colleges of Malawi and Uganda. He also served as principal of the latter institution. He has written other books such as 'The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,' 'The Christ of the Covenants,' 'Final Word,' etc.

Dr. Robertson was on the faculty of Westminster Seminary during the time (1975-1982) of the controversy over the doctrinal teachings of Norman Shepherd ['The Call of Grace'], who was dismissed from his position in 1981. Robertson’s book was originally written in 1983, and was to be published in the theological journal of Covenant Seminary, but was refused publication, for fear of offending those at Westminster. However, the book was reproduced as an article, and given to about one thousand ministers at the Eleventh General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. Then in 2003, the Trinity Foundation bought the rights to the article, and has republished it.

He observes that “As the full consequences of Mr. Shepherd’s teaching became apparent, the controversy over his formulations inevitably deepened. For if the only election and justification that the sinner who trusts in Christ can know may be lost, then all enduring assurance is lost. It was this point in particular that served ultimately to clarify the implications of Mr. Shepherd’s various formulations, and to evoke a steady resistance to his teachings. For he clearly had introduced a new element into the classic formulation of the Reformers when he declared that justification and election by God could be lost.” (Pg. 23-24)

He points out, “For six years, Board and Faculty members of Westminster Seminary had made hardly any formal communication with the church at large about the ‘justification controversy.’ The Board had acted to allow its members to share the documents related to the discussion. Mr. Shepherd’s relation to the Presbytery of Philadelphia of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church had evoked some response. But to a remarkable degree, the entire matter had been kept ‘in house.’ Hardly any religious journal had given the slightest indication that the issue was being discussed. Was this circumstance good for the Seminary, the Church, and the Gospel? The question could be debated.” (Pg. 58-59)

He notes that in 1981, “After listening to some forty hours of Mr. Shepherd’s most recent classroom lectures, President [Edmund] Clowney concluded that his views ‘differ from our Confessional standards and appear to threaten significant doctrinal positions…’ … He observes that if he felt the ‘present crisis of confidence’ were limited to ‘misunderstandings of Professor Shepherd’s views,’ he would feel compelled to oppose any suggestion of resignation or dismissal.” (Pg. 67-68)

But he admits that “Largely because of pressures brought by critics, Mr. Shepherd was released… Neither is it surprising that Mr. Shepherd would offer a challenge to the Board’s action. Three times he had been exonerated of doctrinal error. Then he was ‘removed,’ primarily on the basis of a paper alleging serious doctrinal error by the President, even though the President himself subsequently supported the Faculty’s affirmation that Mr. Shepherd’s system of theology was not out of accord with Scripture and the Confession.” (Pg. 73-74)

Ultimately, however, a 1982 report notes that Shepherd’s writings “‘establish that Mr. Shepherd did in fact teach that justification could be lost.’ The effect of this perspective on the question of assurance is clear. If the only assurance concerning election and justification that the sinner can know refers to a ‘covenantal election’ or ‘covenantal justification’ that may be lost, who confidence is left for the believer?... The report is careful to say that Mr. Shepherd also affirms that the election of God may not be lost, for those whom God elects and justifies cannot lose their election or fall from a state of justification.” (Pg. 79-80)

He concludes, “It is indeed painful to engage in such a vigorous debate on the central doctrine of justification. But perhaps the controversy itself may be the means by which the church will clarify and deepen its thinking. Perhaps the church will be prepared for even more meaningful advances in testifying to the saving grace of Jesus Christ…” (Pg. 98)

The entire Shepherd affair was one of most controversial---but also interesting---theological controversies of recent memory. If you want to read a “positive” assessment of Shepherd, you can read 'Trust and Obey (Norman Shepherd and the Justification Controversy at Westminster Seminary)'; but this book will be of great value to anyone wanting to know more about this controversy.

[Carlos Montijo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating story of Norman Shepherd and how poorly Westminster Seminary dealt with his false teachings. Didn't fully agree with Robertson's approach to the controversy based on Acts 15. Edmund Clowney who was the seminary president at the time made several bad moves, like telling the churches not to talk about the controversy and for concerned individuals to follow Matthew 18. But a seminary professor teaching false doctrine is not a personal offense. The Bible commands church leaders to refute those who contradict sound doctrine publicly.