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.
