Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So without listening to the screams who sided where? But I'll listen tomorrow.http://trinity-pres.net/essays/ns06-InterviewWithJimPaytonJackSawyerPeterLillback.pdf
The formatting screams 1970s/80s, so pretend like you are doing research on microfilm or something. Still, useful information.
So without listening to the screams who sided where? But I'll listen tomorrow.
So without listening to the screams who sided where? But I'll listen tomorrow.
It's a transcript, not audio.
You’ll have to provide your own screams. BYOS.
I know that Van Til approved of Shepherd, but everything I've read says that he was old and his mind was slipping. Where did the rest of the faculty stand? I believe Dr Knudsen disagreed with him.
Knudsen was engaged in a controversy not long before for being Dooyeweerdian
For someone who's mostly unknown today, few realize that there were many Dooyeweerdian controversies, which led to men as disparate as John Frame and Ronald Nash writing rebuttals to Dooyeweerd. Some of Frame's reviews of Dooyeweerdian literature are almost funny.
Where would one find a good account of the Shepherd controversy?
Yeah I have his book on the controversy. Your assessment is dead on. Also it doesn't take into account what Shepherd later wrote and taught. Listening to his lectures he completely was teaching what his critics said he was teaching.The RCUS has a good synopsis in its report on the controversy:
http://www.rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/RCUS-Position-Justification-Shepherd-2004.pdf
Ian Hewitson wrote a doctoral dissertation on the controversy that goes into more detail. The historical narrative is useful, but his own conclusions are far too favorable to Shepherd, especially viewed in retrospect with many of Shepherd's original supporters later coming to judge his views far more critically. He published it as a book but I've had a pdf copy for some time, so it may be somewhere online too.
I know that Van Til approved of Shepherd, but everything I've read says that he was old and his mind was slipping. Where did the rest of the faculty stand? I believe Dr Knudsen disagreed with him.
Against what? What people said about Van Til?Clowney eventually spoke out against.
Against Shepherd if I am not mistaken...Against what? What people said about Van Til?
Against what? What people said about Van Til?
I like thatStormin Norman
I was a student at WTS in the late 70's. I was strongly supportive of Shepherd at the time, and for decades afterwards. I routinely described him as one of the two main influences on my thinking, along with Gaffin. I got into more arguments than I can count, attempting to correct people's mischaracterizations of his thinking.Ian Hewitson wrote a doctoral dissertation on the controversy that goes into more detail. The historical narrative is useful, but his own conclusions are far too favorable to Shepherd, especially viewed in retrospect with many of Shepherd's original supporters later coming to judge his views far more critically.
The eventual Clowney position paper was posted here. You can dig for it. I don't have time or much interest any more. ( He was President of WTS).
The conclusion was that Shepherd was within the confessional bounds on justification by faith. Frankly his detractors sounded like they didn't think James was in the canon and Pauline exhortations to obedience can be ignored. I forget who at this point, but some men ( confessional) said the ones bringing charges sounded antinomian. Shepherd was trying hard to deal with some inerrant inspired scripture in a biblical and confessional way when it comes to the place of obedience and good works.
However, as Clowney so well lays out the matter, Shepherd ends up being not confessional on Perseverance of the saints. He is a true Christian and brother but because WTS holds to TULIP he was no longer able to be a teacher there. It wasn't eventually about justification, the main problem was about perseverance.
Having said that, a good seminary teacher must be crystal clear with his high IQ sharp young zealous students who are going to analyze and pick apart every word of every lecture. And his attempts to put together justification and good works and obedience could have been articulated better. He passed the eventual test on justification under examination, but he could have taught things more carefully.
You need to read the Clowney report before you swallow the story that he was outside confessional bounds on justifcation. Perseverance was a different matter though.
The idea that the many supporters listed above were wrong is absurd. It was complex and got very heated and there WERE personality conflicts going on as well. ( see John Frame's book with nasty remarks on the "Escondido cult" ie WSC, to get a real feel for how those conflicts go).