The Jack Miller Archive

CJM Archives, St. Louis

Hewitson, Page 62

“It was moved and seconded to ask Mr. Shepherd to identify the document(s) that represent(s) a current statement of his views . . . Shepherd responded to the question and identified the paper “The Grace of Justification” and the “Thirty-Four Theses . . . “ as the documents that represent a current statement on his views.”

Clowney Proposed a Resolution Re: Shepherd’s Teaching on Justification to end the inquiry:

“The board finds no sufficient cause to pursue further its inquiries into the teaching of Professor Norman Shepherd regarding the doctrine of justification by faith. Mr. Shepherd’s views as they have been presented to the board do not call into question his adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith as a voting member of the faculty.” (Hewitson summary)

Actual resolution in full:

“I wish to present the following resolution as a proposed motion of the board with respect to Mr. Shepherd’s views. I do so out of a sense of my own responsibility as president to seek to serve the board and the cause of Westminster Seminary. I do not think I should extend this report by including a summary statement in support of the proposed action, but I would be glad to offer such a statement if the boards should desire it. The substance of the resolution follows: The board finds no sufficient cause to pursue further its inquiries into the teaching of Profefssr Norman Shepherd regarding the doctrine of justification by faith. Mr. Shepherd’s views as they have been presented to the board do not call into question his adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith as a voting member of the faculty. The board notes with gratitude to God that we have learned much in the course of these discussions. The board appreciates the love of the Lord and of the Scriptures that has been evident in Mr. Shepherd’s expositions as well as in the papers of those who have questioned some of his views. Progress has certainly been made as the result of this lengthy process of discussion. Certainly Mr. Shepherd’s concerns have become better understood: he does not question or challenge the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. Rather, he wishes to assert, in full harmony with that doctrine, the Biblical [sic] emphasis on the good works that always accompany true saving faith. Certainly, too, Mr. Shepherd has clarified and improved his statements, and has recognized that some of his earlier formulations were obscure, misleading or ambiguous. The board wishes to encourage continuing exegetical and theological study of these questions on the part of the faculty and particularly to encourage open interchange and discussion between members of the faculty. The board also urges Mr. Shepherd to continue to give attention not only to precision in expressing biblical doctrine but also to wisdom in communicating it. No doubt the substantial misunderstanding that has arise offers sufficient warning to Mr. Shepherd of the importance of this counsel."