by Sam Waldron | Mar 31, 2010 | Systematic Theology
the doers of the law will be justified. It will come as no surprise to readers of my previous blogs that I regard Paul as making an assertion parallel to those of Matthew 12:37, James 2 and the other passages I have cited. In my very first post I mentioned that I would be intgeracting with Lee Irons’ paper Is Romans 2:13 Coherent? So far as I know his paper has only been posted on the internet and not otherwise published. Lee knows I will be commenting on his paper, and I hope I will be gracious in doing so. My method will be simply to cite statements he makes within it and then give my own reaction. His statements will be in italics and mine in regular type.
Abstract:
There is an apparent contradiction between Rom 2:13 (“the doers of the Law will be justified”) and Paul’s teaching in the next chapter (3:20, 28). Some scholars just think Paul was incoherent. Others try to resolve the apparent contradiction in one of two ways:either (1) Rom 2:13 is hypothetical, setting forth the standard that no one actually meets (3:9-10, 23), or (2) “the doers of the Law” refers to the obedience of faith and does not equal “the works of the Law” which Paul rejects elsewhere. Option 2 comes in two varieties: (2a) Gentile Christians are in view, or (2b) non-Christian Gentiles.
This ignores the possibility that it is converted OT Jews that are in view. This is John Murray’s view.
Page 2
Paul here states, in what seems to be a straightforward affirmation, that “the doers of the Law will be justified.” In other words, he predicates justification on the basis of doing that which the Law requires.
The phrase “the doers of the law will be justified” strictly speaking says nothing about the basis on justification, but only specifies who will be justified—rather than on what basis they will be justified. Deriving the basis of justification from it is a step of logic or inference on Irons’ part that may or may not be justified, but which needs to be justified on other grounds than merely quoting Romans 2:13. The passage which Irons cites to prove a contradiction all contain the language of means or instrumentality. In other words, the key word is ”by.” This “by” is not present in Romans 2:13.
Footnote 7 Page 7
The first harmonizing approach is to take Romans 2:13 as hypothetical …. It is the majority view in traditional Reformed and evangelical interpretation.
In footnote 7 on page 7 Irons cites Murray as holding the hypothetical view. He emphatically does not. See His commentary on Romans on the passage and particularly his comments on Romans 2:6. They are found on 1:62-63 of his commentary on Romans.
As to Irons’ assertion that the majority of Reformed and evangelical interpreters hold the hypothetical view, I am not entirely competent to say. I did do a quick survey from my own library and discovered that according to my books it is about 50/50.
Holding the hypothetical view are Robert Haldane, Doug Moo, Stu Olyott, Charles Hodge, Henry Alford, and in his New Testament Theology George Eldon Ladd.
Holding a mediating position in which they seem to take Romans 2:13 as hypothetical, but verses 7-10 as real, are John Calvin, Matthew Poole, Alfred Barnes, and Geoffrey Wilson.
Holding the position that the judgment and justification of these verses are real are John Murray, R. C. H. Lenski, William Hendriksen, Tom Schreiner, James Denney, W. H. Griffith Thomas, G. Campbell Morgan (as cited by Thomas), Frederic Godet (as cited by Thomas), and C. E. B. Cranfield. In Paul Herman Ridderbos also defends the view that this judgment is real. In Paul: Missionary Theologian Robert Reymond also defends this view and, in fact, cites Murray.
Category: Systematic Theology
Comments
Paul Elliott on Apr 5, 2010 11:46am
I’m rather confused that MCTS, on the one hand, features your defense of justification by faith alone in light of Romans 2:13, while on the other hand advertising Dr. Barcellos’ latest book using an endorsement by Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., who holds a clearly heretical view of Romans 2:13.
By the way, I devoted a chapter to a critique of Dr. Gaffin’s views on salvation in my book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism (Trinity Foundation, 2005). It also includes an analysis of Dr. Gaffin’s public defense of an OPC ruling elder who taught that Romans 2:13 means that we are justified by our works at the Last Judgment.
Sincerely in Christ,
Dr. Paul M. Elliott
President
TeachingTheWord Ministries
http://www.teachingtheword.org
James Dolezal on Apr 6, 2010 4:12am
Based on Dr. Waldron’s previous post (Justification #7) in which he allows for future justification as open vindication (not future imputation!), I’m not sure that there is a great difference between his position and that of Richard Gaffin. Also, it seems overdrawn to assert that Gaffin’s position is “clearly heretical.” A review of Dr. Elliott’s work may be found at http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/Elliott.pdf.
Brandon Adams on Apr 6, 2010 3:25pm
Dr. Waldron, I hope to have time to study your posts in this serious. I have to say they still raise a number of questions.
One question comes from the Reymond reference you gave here. On p. 535 Reymond says:
Paul teaches that not only unbelievers but believers as well will be judged in the judgment of the Eschataon (Rom 14:10, 12; 1 Cor 3:12-15; 2 Cor 5:10). To those who, by persistence in doing good, seek glory, honor, and immortality, that is, to those who do good, God will grant eternal life, glory, honor, and peace (Rom 2:7, 10). The criteria of this judgment will be their works.
but later on p. 537 he quotes Murray saying:
We must maintain therefore, justification complete and irrevocable by grace through faith and apart from works, and at the same time, future reward according to works. In reference to these two doctrines it is important to observe the following:
(i) This future reward is not justification and contributes nothing to that which constitutes justification. (ii) This future reward is not salvation. Salvation is by grace and it is not as a reward for works that we are saved.
Those two statements appear quite contradictory to me. It seems the only way to avoid contradiction would be to argue that justification and salvation do not include or consist of eternal life.
Paul Elliott on Apr 14, 2010 9:08am
Mr. Dolezal,
Dr. Waldron’s “open vindication” position is substantially different from Dr. Gaffin’s. It should also be noted that Mr. Hofstetter’s review of my book is not without severe bias, since he is a protege of Dr. Gaffin’s. Mr. Hofstetter, along with Dr. Gaffin, publicly endorsed and defended OPC ruling elder John Kinnaird’s theological statement in which he declared that justification is by faith plus works, and that the alien righteousness of Christ is not enough.
In fairness I would ask you to read my critique of Dr. Gaffin’s position, which can be viewed online here: http://www.teachingtheword.org/content_tq/articles/cnl_selections/article_cnl_selections_01.htm
Sincerely in Christ,
Dr. Paul Elliott
TeachingTheWord Ministries
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 19, 2010 | Systematic Theology
Galatians 5:5-6, 2 Timothy 4:7-8, and Hebrews 11:7 also speak of righteousness in the context of the day of judgment. They do so, however, in a way a little different than Matthew 5:20. I have said that Matthew 5:20 is a reference to an imparted righteousness which consists in our good heart and the good deeds that spring from it. The passages mentioned at the top of this paragraph do not speak in my view of an imparted righteousness, but of a righteousness which results at least in some way from this imparted righteousness. Like Matthew 5:20 they do speak of a righteousness given us in the day of judgment.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
This passage speaks of a “hope of righteousness.” However this interesting phrase is to be more particularly understood, it seems clearly to refer to a righteousness we “hope” to receive in the day of judgment. Since the imputed righteousness of Christ is not a hope, but a present possession, this righteousness cannot be identical with the imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith alone in the past at our conversion. It is, of course, closely related to such an imputed righteousness as verse 4’s reference to being justified by grace and not by law makes clear. Our past justification by grace is the whole ground or basis of this future righteousness. Yet this is a righteousness received by hope (not by faith) and by faith working through love (and not by faith alone). I think that it refers to being accounted and publicly declared righteous (a genuine believer in Christ as vindicated by the works of faith) to a watching universe.
2 Timothy 4:7-8
7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.
The crown of righteousness is, I take it, the crown which consists in righteousness. This crown imagery is not naturally taken to be a reference to our actual characters being made perfect in holiness at the last day. Trying to make it refer to that actually raises some difficult problems. Rather, it seems to me that the crown of righteousness imagery refers to the vindication or accounting and declaring righteous before a watching world of Paul and with him all who like him loved the Lord’s appearing and persevered in the faith. This crown of righteousness (as the passage declares quite plainly) is not received by faith alone. Rather, it is received by Paul in consequence of his having “fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.” Further, it is for “all who have loved His appearing.”
Hebrews 11:7
7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
This passage also speaks of the future righteousness or vindication of the day of judgment. Noah became an “heir” of this righteousness by building the ark. Again, I think it is a mistake to make this refer mainly or specifically to the imputed righteousness of Christ. Again, let me repeat that the imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith alone is the whole basis and ground of it, but that is just my point. We do not receive that imputed righteousness by building arks. This righteousness is the crown and hope of righteousness of which Paul spoke in the other passages. It is the accounting and declaring righteous (or genuine believers in Christ) to a gathered world.
In these passages, then, we have clear and repeated teaching that to be declared a genuine believer in Christ at the day of judgment, your faith alone in Christ must be vindicated as genuine by perseverance in faith and repentance or, in other words, evangelical obedience.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 16, 2010 | Uncategorized
In Matthew 5:20 Jesus at a pivotal point in His Sermon on the Mount utters the following serious warning: “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” One correspondent represents many exegetes who default to an “imputed righteousness” understanding of Matthew 5:20. He wrote: “This passage does not demonstrate that imparted righteousness is required. It demonstrates that imputed righteousness is required because the righteousness that is required is perfect righteousness, as Jesus’ examples make clear.” Again, I have to observe that in this context the question is not at all one of imputed righteousness, but of imparted righteousness. And it is a question of imparted righteousness as necessary in the day of judgment.
First, we need to be clear that Jesus is not speaking our initial justification by faith. Entrance into the kingdom is eschatological here–as it often is in the synoptic gospels. Cf. Matt. 6:10; 8:11-12; 13:43; 25:34. This observation is confirmed by the consistently eschatological perspective of the blessings promised in each of the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-10. It is also confirmed by the frequent references to the day of judgment in the comments of Jesus which follow (Matthew 5:22, 26, 29, and 30). It is further confirmed by the parallel passage in Matthew 7:21-23 where the scene of entrance into the kingdom of heaven is the day of judgment.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
The eschatological character of this statement is confirmed finally by the fact that righteousness in question is the imparted righteousness which consists in our good heart and good deeds. Failure to understand the eschatological perspective of Jesus leads to the conclusion that he is saying that in order to be converted we must literally be more practically righteous than the Pharisees. Of course, this is nonsense and would directly contradict justification by grace and faith alone and directly affirm salvation by works. But all this brings me to my second point about Matthew 5:20.
Second, Jesus’ point is that no one will enter the eschatological kingdom unless their practical righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. The context is not talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ, but the practical righteousness of the disciples. Notice Matthew 5:19: “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Are we to gloss or intepret this verse by adding to it, “but no one actually does this.” I think not. Further, the Beattitudes of verses 3-10 are not subtle calls for imputed righteousness. Nor are they only the law slaying men so that they will seek out an imputed righteousness. They are the actual marks of genuine godliness in the lives of Christ’s disciples. Finally, in verses 21-48 Jesus is calling for a heart-righteousness in his disciples practically different from the externalism of the Pharisees. This call is summed up in unavoidably clear terms in Matthew 5:43-45:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Such a genuine heart righteousness qualitatively different than that of the Pharisees is necessary to find eschatological entrance into the kingdom of God. Of course, this is so not because it is the basis or ground of our acceptance with God. Rather it is so because it is the necessary vindication of the fact we have saving faith and are really Christ’s disciples.
Here I am happy to point you to the comments of John Murray in his great book entitled, Principles of Conduct. In his brief comments on the Sermon on the Mount on pages 149-180 of this book Murray routs and refutes a good deal of current nonsense with regard to the interpretation of this vital passage in Jesus’ teaching. I urge my readers to read the entire treatment specifically of Matthew 5:20. In particular he rejects an imputed righteousness view of this passage.
“It might be supposed that the righteousness in view here is the righteousness of imputation. What else, we might say, will fit into the evangelicalism of the gospel of pure grace? The context offers no warrant for this interpretation.” (p. 155)
He also emphasizes that what the passage really positively requires for entrance into the kingdom is as follows:
“Hence, if we are to find in this verse the positive complementary truth to that of the negative, all we need to do is to recognize that, if we are to be members of the kingdom of heaven , our attitude, character, and behaviour, will have to be of an entirely different sort; different not in respect to concern for details, but different in respect to the details for which we entertain concern, and in respect of the intensity with which the law is applied to heart, thought, and word as well as to overt action. Jesus, however, does not inform us here of the way by which we come to possess that righteousness.” (p. 157)
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 15, 2010 | Uncategorized
There is a third passage which I believe uses the verb, to justify, to refer to the justification of the believer and his faith by his works. This passage is Romans 2:13: “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” Since I hope to respond to Lee Irons’ paper on Romans 2:13 in some detail, I will defer the discussion of this passage.
In this blog I wanhttp://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70141379&trkid=1166207t to discuss the use of the noun, righteousness, with regard to the day of judgment. I want simply to point at a number of passages which clearly teach that in the day of judgment we need not only the imputed righteousness of Christ, but also an imparted righteousness from Christ. Of course, we need these two rigtheousnesses in quite different respects. We need the imputed righteousness as the basis or ground of our acceptance before God. We need the imparted righteousness from Christ as the divinely appointed vindication that our faith in Christ is genuine.
There are a number of passages which require the possession of such righteousness in connection with the day of judgment as the vindication of a genuine and saving faith. Here I leave aside all the passages which plainly teach that such a righteousness is one of the vindications of a genuine faith even in this life. I have in mind when I say this passages like the following.
1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
1 John 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
I also leave aside several passages which use the noun to refer to the imputed rigtheousness of Christ. Romans 4:3 uses the noun to refer to this righteousness as possessed now by faith. Romans 4:3: For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Philippians 3:9 is an important use of the noun because it is one of the few passages which speak of the importance of imputed righteousness in the context of the day of judgment.
Philippians 3:9: and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.
There are, however, several passages which use the noun in connection with a status conferred in connection with imparted righteousness eschatologically or in the day of judgment. They are the following: Matthew 5:20, Galatians 5:5-6, 2 Timothy 4:7-8, and Hebrews 11:7. I want to discuss these passages one at a time. In the blogs that follow.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 10, 2010 | Uncategorized
The second passage which uses the verb, to justify, in a way similar to Matthew 12:37, with a different connotation than it has in Romans 3 and 4, and a way which is quite relevant to the idea of a future justification in the day of judgment is James 2:21-26.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
While the passage is clearly not speaking of the believer’s initial justification by faith alone, the context makes clear that the time period of the justification in view is not specifically the day of judgment. This difference between Matthew 12:37 and the present passage must be freely admitted at the outset. There is, however, a clear similarity between James and Matthew. In both the verb, to justify, seems to have meaning of show or demonstrate to be righteous. Abraham did not become righteous when he offered up Isaac. That had already happened by Genesis 15:6. Yet this act demonstrated that he was truly righteous. In other words it showed that he had a genuine faith and was a genuine believer.
The key assertion of which James is clearly thinking is Genesis 22:12: “He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”” Even granting anthropopathism in these words, the idea cannot be evaded that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac at God’s command vindicated Abraham’s faith as genuine not only in the court of his own conscience and in the court of human opinion, but in some sense in the court of God. This vindication of Abraham’s faith is said to justify. Thus, Abraham is said to be justified by his works.
Similarly Rahab’s works demonstrated or showed that she was righteous. They were not, of course, the basis on which she passed from a state of wrath to a state of grace. They were, however, the way in which her faith was shown to be a genuine faith—the kind of faith that saves. In the previous context the emphasis is on showing that one is righteous not becoming righteous, verse 18. Only the kind of faith that shows itself as righteous by good works can save a person, verse 14.
James 2:14-18 14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? …. 18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
Thus, the meaning of “to justify” here is quite similar and even identical to that found in Matthew 12:37. Even the point at which there is a difference is not such a contrast as might at first be thought. Though the venue of the justification in view is not the day of judgment, yet the reference to Genesis 22:12 does suggest the court of divine judgment and anticipate the justification of faith by works which will take place at that time.
Several objections might be and have been made to this understanding of the justification in view in James 2.
(1) Someone could argue as follows: God does not rely on our works to determine if we have saving faith. If He did how could we ever be justified apart from and before doing any good works? This objection is, of course, true, but, as I said above, while God is not dependent on our works to know if we have true faith, He does know that our works do evidence the genuineness of our faith. Thus, God can say to Abraham Now I know that you fear me on the basis of His works. If God can say this on the basis of Abraham’s works, then God also say to the world that our works vindicate that we are true believers.
(2) Someone could also argue as follows: If we grant that James 2 refers to being justified (in the way proposed) in God’s court room, and we grant that the “future” justification is not in view, and we grant that “initial” justification is not in view, then we must grant that there are more than just 2 justifications. There are at least three, and in reality, an indefinite number of justifications. My response to this is simply: So be it. The believer’s works do time after time “justify” his faith as genuine in this life and in the next. Nevertheless, there are only two kinds of justification in the sense in which I intend. There is, first, the justification of the sinner by faith alone at the outset of the Christian life. There is, second, the justification of the believer by his works both during this life and in the life to come.
And here something bears repeating that I said in a previous blog. While the connotation of justify in Matthew 12:37 and James 2 is different than its connotation in Romans 3 and 4 , the denotation is the same. It means to declare or account righteous. Even in James 2 justify does not mean in the Roman Catholic sense to infuse the moral quality of righteousness into the sinner. In Romans 3 and 4 the sinner is accounted righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone. James 2 and Matthew 12 the believer is accounted a genuine believer (and righteous in that sense) on the basis of his works.
(3) Someone might also argue as follows: James is not saying Abraham was justified (however we want to understand that word) at the point in time he offered up Isaac. Here I must simply affirm that this is simply wrong and an evasion of what James 2:21 says: Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? What is the implied answer? Yes, that was when he was justified in the sense of which James 2:21 is speaking. It cannot be the same justification because the justification of Genesis 15:6 was by faith, and this justification was by works. Of course, this justification did fulfill in some sense the justification of Genesis 15:6, but it is not the same justification or the same kind of justification.
Comments
Tom Hicks on Mar 15, 2010 2:10pm
Thanks for the post! I agree with it. You may be planning to deal with this at a later point, but I’ll go ahead and ask here. Would you say that there is any legal necessity attached to the verdict(s) that are subsequent to the initial verdict? If Christ has fully satisfied divine justice, perfectly fulfilling the requirement of God’s law, is there any law-necessity for subsequent verdicts? If not, then why are they needed? If so, then how do you reconcile that with Christ’s finished work? Thanks again for your labors!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
