Norm Shepherd's reformulation of WCF 7.2

[R. Scott Clark]

In a word: YIKES!

I rest my case.

rsc

 

[MW]

I thought scholars recognised that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience was one of development in reformed theology.

 

[turmeric]

and I mean that in the Classical sense! How is this different from what the old Dallas Dispensationalists used to say? This leads right back to perfectionism! Yikes indeed!

[Edited on 6-27-2006 by turmeric]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"Yikes" just doesn't cover it.

How about, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Dr. Clark,
I have heard a term bantered around.... Pre-lapsarianism, that is used by these jokers who don't believe in the COW. They all appeal to some idea that the Adamic Covenant was one of grace. Can you tell me more about this junk?

Plus, have you read Dr. Samuel Waldrons new book Faith, Obedience, and Justification... Current Evangelical Departures? It covers Luther and Calvins doctrine of Sola Fide along with the historical Confessions. Then it exposes Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and Don Garlingtons views (or departure from) on Sola Fide. I read it slowly but anxiously. It was very well written In my humble opinion.

 

[VanVos]

Surely his position is plain to all now. Why would one to deny such a wonderful doctrine? Again this demonstrates the importance of seeing the Adamic administration as a Covenant of Works. This mono-covenantalism totally blurs the Law - Gospel distinction that is so clearly taught in scripture Gal 3:10-14. Thank you Dr Scott for your firm stand on this issue.

VanVos

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

All of these guys who believe this stuff deny the importance of Christ's active obedience which is imputed to us by faith.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Just for info....

Quote by Norman Shepherd

I set out my reasons for saying that the Adamic covenant was not a covenant of works....
If I were to reformulate chapter 7, section 2, of the Westminster Confession it would sound something like this: "The first covenant made with man was a gracious covenant wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity as a gift to be received by a living, active, and obedient faith."

[Edited on 6-27-2006 by puritancovenanter]

 

[MW]

I think it would be quite easy for us to team up here and help ourselves to feel good over the fact that we have a better grasp of things. I would be more interested in exploring the issues, exegetical, historical and theological.

For example, Mr. Shepherd has shown that Christ's active obedience is not so clearly stated in earlier reformed works. That is a fact. There was debate on this issue in the Westminster Assembly's discussion of the 39 Articles.

Another worthwhile discussion would be Mr. Hofstetter's comments, as follows:

"As for his suggested paraphrase of WCF 7.2, with all due respect, I am glad that Dr. Shepherd was not one of the Westminster delegates. I am concerned that he has made obedience an instrumental means of obtaining grace. I would argue that nothing in the text supports his contention, and in fact, he has fallen into the trap of which he accuses others, imposing his own theological preferences onto the text."

Now, how does a covenant, purportedly established by grace, and requiring obedience, lead to the conclusion that obedience is an instrumental means of obtaining grace. That is a non sequitur, and I am afraid that it is one which is too often made.

I stand squarely on the covenant theology of the WCF, so I wouldn't want to be seen to be supporting Shepherd at all. But I do support a sound discussion of the issues.

 

[turmeric]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Now, how does a covenant, purportedly established by grace, and requiring obedience, lead to the conclusion that obedience is an instrumental means of obtaining grace. That is a non sequitur, and I am afraid that it is one which is too often made.

I stand squarely on the covenant theology of the WCF, so I wouldn't want to be seen to be supporting Shepherd at all. But I do support a sound discussion of the issues.

This FV stuff is frankly wearing me out. Perhaps I shouldn't bother my pretty little head about it, but since it concerns my justification, I can't just wait for y'all to figure out who is arguing better. Salvation just can't hinge on this, otherwise we're back to leaving our eternal destiny up to human experts.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Dear Randy,

Pre-lapsarian is a latinized way of saying "before the fall."

Was the fall a violation of the law or a fall from grace or both? I would say it is "lawlessness," with 1 John 3:4. Our confessions do not describe the prelapsarian state as gracious and the overwhelming testimony of the Reformed tradition is in favor of a covenant of works/law/nature for the reasons that some have observed already.

Yes, I was the external reader for Dr Waldron's PhD. I haven't seen it since it was finished/published. I offered a number of criticisms and suggestions to improve the work but I don't know how it stands now.

Blessings,

rsc

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Dr. Clark,
I have heard a term bantered around.... Pre-lapsarianism, that is used by these jokers who don't believe in the COW. They all appeal to some idea that the Adamic Covenant was one of grace. Can you tell me more about this junk?

Plus, have you read Dr. Samuel Waldrons new book Faith, Obedience, and Justification... Current Evangelical Departures? It covers Luther and Calvins doctrine of Sola Fide along with the historical Confessions. Then it exposes Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and Don Garlingtons views (or departure from) on Sola Fide. I read it slowly but anxiously. It was very well written In my humble opinion.