Bahnsen vs. Shepherd

[EDIT] Be sure to see my additions at the bottom, with some clarification/corrections…

Dr. Clark has a post here that speaks of theonomy and the fv being separated at birth. The discussion goes on for a bit and part of it calls into question the legitimacy of bring Dr. Bahnsen into the mix. It is often stated that Bahnsen was a strong supporter of Norman Shepherd by Dr. Clark, as you can see in this more recent comment: November 6, 2008 at 8:29 am

Now, I am one of the unfortunate ones in that I never knew Dr. Bahnsen personally. But I have read much of his work and listened to much of his audio. I suspect that the support Dr. Clark speaks of for Shepherd was more of a personal support than doctrinal. Every time I read or listen to Bahnsen, I find myself hearing the tried and true soteriology of the Reformation. Bahnsen never conflated justification with sanctification as far as I can tell. You can listen to a free mp3 where he vehemently defends the Reformation and repudiates the vile doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. It is found here: The Road to Rome, Was the Reformation Right?, by Greg L. Bahnsen. I am listening to a bible study he conducted on the book of Galatians right now, and again, there is just no question or gray area when he speaks on these issues. As a side note, I think this bible study was a study done during his later years when he was pastoring in Southern California. He is so gentle and pastoral, it is amazing! Much different from the talks he gives to large crowds. You can tell it is a small group because the telephone rings sometimes and the children can be heard in the background.

Anyway, that’s my take on it, but this man knew Bahnsen personally for many years, and writes 22 pages with many quotes from Bahnsen that really should settle the issue. I hope you take the time to read it:

http://www.westminsterrpcus.org/pdf/Bahnsen.pdf

Kazoo

[EDIT]

11/18/08

I should have been a little more careful in my comments above. Basically, my point is that Bahnsen’s support for the historical reformed doctrine of Justification is very clear in all the material I have ever read of his, or heard a recording of. I can not say that I am the best student of Bahnsen, but I will state that I know A LOT of his material. And I can confirm that I have never run into anything that would bring into question whether he believed and taught the orthodox reformed doctrine of Justification found in the Westminster Standards.

For example:

Larger Catechism Questions & Answers #’s 70 – 73

Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XI

Of Justification
I.    Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;  not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,  they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II.    Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:  yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

Now, I am not an expert on the FV or Norman Shepherd. I am reading through Shepherd’s book “The Call of Grace” right now. So, it is/was unfair of me to hint at or to write with the assumption that Shepherd’s doctrine of Justification “conflates” sanctification with justification. Some say vehemently that it does, and others don’t. Dr. R. Scott Clark linked to a web page that David Bahnsen wrote to say that Dr. Bahnsen supported Shepherd both personally and doctrinally. That can be found here.

Like I said, I really don’t know very well what Shepherd taught or what he teaches and if the two are one in the same or if it has developed since Dr. Bahnsen’s death. Honestly, for this post, I don’t care. It isn’t relevant. But Bahnsen definitely DIDN’T stray from the Westminster Standards when talking about Justification. And THAT is my main point.

Lastly, when speaking with my very good friend Ron about these matters, I am constantly reminding him that the language he used to explain to me his understanding of justification sounds too much like the RC doctrine that I grew up with and rejected, and he is a self professed FV guy. That is probably one of the main reason I have to this day refused to take on the label “FV.”

Kazoo