# Dr. Richard B. Gaffin



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2006)

This is from Dr. Gaffin’s 1995 “Lectures on Romans”:

“Paul is describing [in Romans 2:6-16] the final, eschatological judgment as it will take place to all people, Jew and Gentile, believer and non, and it decides ultimate outcomes for all humanity. Life and death situation is in view. Further, this ultimate judgment has as its standard ‘good works.’ The doing of the law will ‘do it’ for believer and non-believer. The positive outcome is explicitly justification. Eternal life depends on and follows from a future justification based upon works and the law.”

~Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., of Westminster Theological Seminary, on salvation, justification, and works.

What do you think of this statement?


----------



## Archlute (Dec 23, 2006)

It's erroneous. 

This false interpretation is known as "final justification", which is nothing less than salvation by works. It is propounded by Gaffin/Shepherd/NPP/FV proponents, and comes straight out of the thirty-four theses that got Shepherd in trouble with the administration of WTS and his presbytery in the late 70's.

You can read more about the route that it has taken amongst the FVers in Guy Prentiss Waters, _The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A comparitive Analysis_ (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006) and more specifically regarding Shepherd and his theses in Paul M. Elliot's, _Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond_ (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2005).


----------



## Archlute (Dec 23, 2006)

As a side note, the verse that they specifically focus in upon is 2:13, "_For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified_", taking it out of context of the greater flow of Paul's argument for righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. 

Notice that if this is the standard, "righteous" works unto our final justification, then there is absolutely no need for faith in Jesus Christ for our salvation. Gaffin states as much in the portion quoted above when he writes


> The doing of the law will ‘do it’ for believer and non-believer. The positive outcome is explicitly justification.



There is a real problem with this interpretation, however, as in just the next chapter Paul undercuts their ability to attain this righteousness through works when he writes in 3:20, "For by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Paul then goes on in the following verses to proclaim how this righteousness, which is impossible to obtain through the works of the law, is now made manifest in Jesus Christ, and is obtainable through faith in Him.

This is really just the simple Gospel. It shouldn't be that difficult for a seminary prof to get, and if they continue to promote such false teaching they should be removed from their position.


----------



## Staphlobob (Dec 23, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> This is from Dr. Gaffin’s 1995 “Lectures on Romans” ... What do you think of this statement?



I got an email from Paul Elliott (the Evangelical Reformed Presyterian Church), as well as a back-up from John Robbins (the Trinity Foundation). 

Robbins writes:

*Dear Friend,
Paul Elliott, author of The Trinity Foundation book "Christianity and Neoliberalism: Tne Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond," has called my attention to a quotation from Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., of Westminster Theological Seminary, on salvation, justification, and works. It illustrates, once again, how thoroughly Antichristian the doctrine of the Presbyterian Neolegalists is.

This is from Dr. Gaffin’s 1995 “Lectures on Romans”:
“Paul is describing [in Romans 2:6-16] the final, eschatological judgment as it will take place to all people, Jew and Gentile, believer and non, and it decides ultimate outcomes for all humanity. Life and death situation is in view. Further, this ultimate judgment has as its standard ‘good works.’ The doing of the law will ‘do it’ for believer and non-believer. The positive outcome is explicitly justification. Eternal life depends on and follows from a future justification based upon works and the law.”

There you have it: Salvation -- eternal life -- by works.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ came to save his people from their sins, in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, 2000 years earlier. Eternal life is a free gift, not the result of "works and the law."

John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
December 23, 2006
www.trinityfoundation.org*


Both Robbins and Elliott are right on target. Gaffin is grossly wrong (heretical?) in what he said.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 23, 2006)

For what it's worth,

Dick signed the majority report of the OPC and even after someone quoted his recent volume on justification to him, on the floor of GA, as I heard the account, he stood by the report rather than his book. 

I don't remember the OP report dealing with this verse in detail, but I'm told that it was discussed on the floor and the "final justification" approach on the ground (partial or full) of Spirit-wrought sanctity was disavowed.

If I'm wrong on these things, I'm happy to be corrected.

rsc


----------



## ADKing (Dec 23, 2006)

R. Scott Clark said:


> For what it's worth,
> 
> Dick signed the majority report of the OPC and even after someone quoted his recent volume on justification to him, on the floor of GA, as I heard the account, he stood by the report rather than his book.
> 
> ...



If this is the case, has Dr. Gaffin retracted his previous published comments?


----------



## Casey (Dec 23, 2006)

ADKing said:


> If this is the case, has Dr. Gaffin retracted his previous published comments?


How about someone e-mailing him?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 23, 2006)

I don't know.

I'm happy that Dick supported and signed the OPC committee Report. He defended Norm Shepherd for 30 years and now seems to have abandoned him. I think we should give credit where credit is due. 

rsc



ADKing said:


> If this is the case, has Dr. Gaffin retracted his previous published comments?


----------

