From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: thoughts on AAPC
Dan,
This came dated 1 January 1970, so I’m reposting it to BH. Just found it.
JBJ
At 12:29 PM 1/1/1970, you wrote:
BHrethren,
Some initial thoughts about the AAPC Pastors Conference:
I hope Drs. Wright and Gaffin continue to interact via email, etc.
- 1. It was great to meet many of you on the list! (I know many of you were there that I didn’t get to meet — next time)! I wish we had more time to talk!
- Steve Wilkins and AAPC did a phenomenal job of hosting the conference! Many thanks to you, Steve, and all the workers!
- I think the conference was a landmark both in terms of the content and in terms of the way the discussion was conducted between Gaffin and Wright. It was a great example of how these discussions ought to take place, and hopefully will pave the way for future discussions of the same sort.
- A large part of the strain the Reformed churches are undergoing on so called FV and NPP issues is that we are trying to filter everything through and fit everything into a 17th century confession. Imagine the difficulty of doing that in other fields, such as science. This doesn’t make the WS bad, or lessen my love for them, it is just to acknowledge that they express 17th century British theology, not a once-for-all-completed statement of faith.
- I enjoyed a number of conversations with Norman Shepherd. He was very positive about Wright’s teaching, while also maintaining that Paul teaches the imputation of Christ’s righteousness for justification.
Blessings,
Dan Dillard
P.S. You all saw John Robbins, didn’t you?
James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32578
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:52:47 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: thoughts on AAPC
At 11:45 AM 1/19/2005, you wrote:
5. I enjoyed a number of conversations with Norman Shepherd. He was very positive about Wright’s teaching, while also maintaining that Paul teaches the imputation of Christ’s righteousness for justification.
No. Shepherd rejects this notion. You must be thinking of something else.
JBJ
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:16:12 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: Shepherd on imputation
Jim:
I think Shepherd affirms the “imputation of X’s righteousness.” I just don’t think he wants to define this as “imputation of active obedience.” That may sound semantic, but I think it is important. I think we will only get ourselves in trouble if we go around saying, “I don’t believe in the imputation of X’s righteousness!”
BDN
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:41:12 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: thoughts on AAPC
Yes, now you know. I sent it 35 years ago. I invented the internet, and kept it secret for many years. It wasn’t Al Gore.
But I hope the observations in the post weren’t too out of date. (Must be a bug in my desktop Mac email program — thanks for letting me know).
Blessings,
Dan Dillard
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:43:37 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: thoughts on AAPC
On Jan 19, 2005, at 9:52 AM, James B. Jordan wrote:
No. Shepherd rejects this notion. You must be thinking of something else.
JBJ
Sorry, I mean the imputation of Christ’s death. Thanks for the correction.
Blessings,
Dan Dillard
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:47:44 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: Shepherd on imputation
Yes, it is the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience righteousness. I don’t know why critics wind themselves around the axle on this. I have no problem affirming the traditional doctrine, but why not say the whole obedience of Christ is ours via union with him in his death and resurrection? But that would sound too much like he-who-must-not-be named.
Blessings,
Dan Dillard
