Updated December 13, 2019

This article has two parts. Here is Part II.

The doctrine which Martin Luther declared to be the article by which the church stands or falls, which John Calvin affirmed as the principal ground on which religion must be supported, which forged the conflict with Rome during the Protestant Reformation, resulting in the largest schism in the history of the church—is the doctrine of justification. Justification by faith alone, sola fide, is the answer to life’s most profound questions: “How then can man be righteous before God? Or how can he be pure who is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4).[1] How does man get into heaven? “Then [the Philippian jailer] called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ So they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household’ ” (Acts 16:29-31). The Heidelberg Catechism thus answers Question 60, “How art thou righteous before God?”

Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.[2]

It is faith alone, to understand and assent to the Gospel, “without any merit of mine,” that saves sinners. Despite their differences, the Protestant reformers rightly understood and unanimously affirmed this vital doctrine, “a truth which all the reforming leaders in Germany, Switzerland, France, and Britain, and all the confessions which they sponsored, were at one in highlighting, and which they all saw as articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae—the point on which depends the standing or falling of the church.”[3] It is the heart of the Gospel, as the apostle Paul explains:

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Gal. 2:14-16)

If faith is something man must “do,” however, does that make it a work? Does the act of faith contribute to his justification? The Bible and historic Protestantism answer both in the negative. After Jesus fed the five thousand by multiplying bread and fish, the people sought Him again, but Jesus tells them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him” (John 6:26-27). They apparently misunderstand Him because they then ask, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" (v. 28) And Jesus answers, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” (v. 29). Christ gave an ad-hominem reply[4] to contrast faith and works, not to conflate them. Later He also reveals “the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (v. 40).

The Instrumental Copula

But if it’s not a work, how then does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? Question 73 of the Westminster Larger Catechism answers: “Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.” A logical proposition has a subject, predicate, and copula. In the proposition, “God is holy,” for example, God is the subject, holy is the predicate, and is, the verb to be, is the copula. The predicate is what describes the subject. The copula adds nothing—no content, no meaning—to the subject; it merely connects the predicate to the subject. Similarly, faith contributes nothing to salvation. It is not a work, but merely the instrument, the bridge—the copula—that connects Christ’s redemptive work and His benefits to the believer. Charles Spurgeon illustrates how faith is the instrumental cause of justification:

Remember this; or you may fall into error by fixing your minds so much upon the faith which is the channel of salvation as to forget the grace which is the fountain and source even of faith itself. Faith is the work of God's grace in us. No man can say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost. "No man cometh unto me," saith Jesus, "except the Father which hath sent me draw him." So that faith, which is coming to Christ, is the result of divine drawing. Grace is the first and last moving cause of salvation; and faith, essential as it is, is only an important part of the machinery which grace employs. We are saved "through faith," but salvation is "by grace." Sound forth those words as with the archangel's trumpet: "By grace are ye saved." What glad tidings for the undeserving![5]

Neither faith nor works contribute to salvation, for faith is the instrumental cause, “the channel of salvation,” and good works are the fruits of it, “for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). What, however, does “that” and “it” refer to? Grace, saved, or faith? Discerning commentators recognize that they refer to all three—salvation by grace through faith—because

to refer back to any one of these words seems to be redundant. Rather than any particular word it is best to conclude that τοῦτο [Gk. ‘that’] refers back to the preceding section. This is common and there are numerous illustrations of such in Ephesians. For example, in 1:15 τοῦτο refers back to the contents of 1:3-14, in 3:1 it refers back to 2:11-22, and in 3:14 it refers back to 3:1-13. Therefore, in the present context, τοῦτο refers back to 2:4-8a and more specifically 2:8a, the concept of salvation by grace through faith.[6]

Commenting on this passage, reformer John Calvin concurs:

Paul's doctrine is overthrown, unless the whole praise is rendered to God alone and to his mercy. And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

Salvation, in other words, is entirely by God’s grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), in Christ alone (solus Christus), to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria), based on the ultimate authority of Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). These five solas of the Reformation encapsulate what Protestants believed and taught concerning salvation—all of which is God’s gift to us. Good works contribute nothing to salvation, but rather result from it in sanctification, which is why the Bible says to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Php. 2:12-13). Christians are primarily sanctified by God’s word, not by works, as Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (John 7:17-19). Good works are the fruit, not the cause, of sanctification, though God uses certain works, such as the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Bible reading and study, and Biblical preaching as secondary means of sanctification, hence the command to “exercise yourself toward godliness” (1 Tim. 4:7).[7] Martin Luther said it well:

Beware then of trusting in thine own contrition, or attributing remission of sins to thy own sorrow. It is not because of these that God looks on thee with favour, but because of the faith with which thou hast believed His threatenings and promises, and which has wrought that sorrow in thee. Therefore whatever good there is in penitence is due, not to the diligence with which we reckon up our sins, but to the truth of God and to our faith. All other things are works and fruits which follow of their own accord, and which do not make a man good, but are done by a man who has been made good by his faith in the truth of God.[8]

The Last Days of Evangelicalism

To be a true evangelical, then, is to be a true Protestant, for it originally referred to one who affirms the material principle, sola fide, and the formal principle, sola Scriptura, of the Reformation. But the term has been robbed of its meaning by ecumenical and liberal trends in the church. It is nothing new for compromising evangelicals like Bill Bright, Pat Robertson, Richard Mouw, J. I. Packer, and Chuck Colson to sign (and in Colson’s case, co-author) “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” which affirms that “Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.”[9] Or that leading evangelicals like Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Bryan Chapell, President of Covenant Theological Seminary, Ligon Duncan, Presbyterian minister and President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and Chuck Colson once again, signed (Colson also co-authored) the “Manhattan Declaration,” which states in no uncertain ecumenical terms: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered…to make the following declaration[:]…We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.”[10] It’s now commonplace for influential Protestants such as Michael Horton to praise the work of “important theologians” like Pope Benedict XVI and Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian who apostatized to Rome:

In this remarkable book [Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI], Scott Hahn has drawn out the central themes of Benedict’s teaching in a highly readable summary that includes not only the pope’s published works but also his less-accessible homilies and addresses. This is an eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important theologian of our time.[11]

Why would someone like Horton—a United Reformed minister and J. G. Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, the supposed bastion of Reformed orthodoxy, who has a ministry called “The White Horse Inn: For a Modern Reformation,” inspired by the historical inn where Protestants gathered for “frequent and regular open discussions on the key issues of Protestant theology” and “became the kindling fire for the larger English Reformation as a whole”[12]—laud the work of a pope and Roman Catholic apologist? For academic respectability? Ecumenical collegiality? Or just plain hypocrisy?[13] This rampant ecumenical confusion subverts Biblical Christianity, “for if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8).

To be a true Protestant by conviction, one must understand what he protests—Romanism—and why—Rome’s false gospel of justification by faith and works amidst a quagmire of other false teachings.[14] Many professing Protestants and evangelicals are ignorant, however, not only of the Reformation but of Roman Catholicism as well, and sound more like the magisterium of Rome than Jesus, Paul, and the reformers when expounding their views of justification. Legalism or Nomism comes in various flavors, whether it’s Roman Catholicism, Shepherdism, Federal Vision or Auburn Avenue Theology, the New Perspective on Paul, or Neonomianism, all of which oppose Biblical Christianity:

In the 1970s and 1980s the attack [against sola fide] came from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and the teaching of Norman Shepherd who taught justification by faithfulness. If you are not aware of this you can read O. Palmer Robertson’s The Current Justification Controversy, Mark Karlberg’s The Changing of the Guard, A Companion to The Current Justification Controversy edited by John W. Robbins, and Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [OPC] and Beyond by Paul M. Elliott. After Shepherd was dismissed from both the Seminary and the OPC without discipline, Richard Gaffin, Jr. continued to teach a doctrine of justification similar to Shepherd’s for over thirty more years. Another attack from the Reformed camp has been from the Federal Vision or Auburn Avenue Theology of John Barach, Peter Leithart, Rich Lusk, Steve Schlissel, Tom Trouwborst, Steve Wilkins, and Douglas Wilson, among others, who teach…that baptism is what makes a person a Christian, that justification is by faith and the obedience of faith, and that the elect can become reprobate because they are not given the gift of perseverance, among other false teachings. The New Perspective on Paul of E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright also attack justification by faith alone, teaching instead that Paul is more concerned with the “identity or boundary markers” of who is in and who is not in the church, and not how a sinner can be declared righteous before a holy God.[15]

These false teachings pervade Protestant churches today, even though they have been marked and rejected by discerning voices and church councils.[16] In addition to an initial and final justification or salvation—a common thread among these views—they promote other dangerous, subtle falsehoods. They redefine and betray sound Biblical teaching and their Protestant heritage. They affirm justification by faith alone on one hand, thereby confusing many by appearing orthodox, but undermine it on the other by introducing Romanist concepts of justification. They give a markedly different answer to the question of how we get to heaven, irreparably damaging vital Christian doctrines in the process. One prominent example is John Piper’s doctrine of “final salvation.” In his attempt to reconcile passages like James 2:14ff. and Hebrews 12:14—“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord”—Piper offsets the doctrine of justification by faith alone with a lopsided emphasis on evangelical obedience, claiming that believers are required to have good works at the last judgment for God to allow them into heaven. Piper’s false teaching of “final salvation” is the product of both bad hermeneutics and a failure to harmonize Scripture consistently. It suffers from not one but at least six flaws, all of them fatal, for the doctrine of justification is so fundamental to Christianity that it affects all other doctrines. To get justification wrong, to get salvation wrong, is to get Christianity wrong.

Fatal Flaw #1: Justified by Faith at First, Saved by Works at Last

Piper’s errors are nothing new,[17] though he has become more explicit in twisting Protestant doctrine to make it fit his neolegalist mold. In 1993 he stated,

Our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. And our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith (cf. Romans 12:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). In other words, salvation is by faith, and rewards are by faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration.[18]

Note the legal terms Piper uses to describe how works relate to “final salvation.” He claims “our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration,” that is, forensic evidence that contributes to our justification in “Christ’s courtroom,” which, as we will see, undermines the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers and every legal status the believer has in relation to God—especially justification. Recently he’s been stressing that believers will have to present their works on the final judgment, not just for heavenly rewards, but as “necessary confirmation” that they are worthy of entering heaven, otherwise they won’t get in:

Paul calls this effect or fruit or evidence of faith the “work of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11) and the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26). These works of faith, and this obedience of faith, these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven (Hebrews 12:14).

So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone. Love, the fruit of faith, is the necessary confirmation that we have faith and are alive. We won’t enter heaven until we have it. There is a holiness without which we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin (Romans 8:13) and the pursuit of holiness (Hebrews 12:14). Mortification of sin, sanctification in holiness. But what makes that possible and pleasing to God? We put sin to death and we pursue holiness from a justified position where God is one hundred percent for us — already — by faith alone.[19]

Piper’s answer to the question of “getting to heaven” is not faith alone; it is not the same answer to the question, How can a person be right with God? Faith, for Piper, is not enough. Believers must also have good works, love, kill indwelling sin, and pursue holiness for God to allow them into heaven on the final judgment, because “we won’t enter heaven until we have it.” This is a Roman reversal of the Protestant Reformation, because Protestants have only one answer to both questions—faith alone. And though he correctly explains that “we put sin to death and we pursue holiness from a justified position where God is one hundred percent for us — already — by faith alone,” Piper betrays sola fide by conflating it with sanctification, for he plainly states that God requires good works, the “sanctifying fruit” of faith, as “necessary confirmation” for believers to enter heaven at the last judgment: “In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith. As Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, ‘God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.’ ”[20]

Some excuse Piper because he nevertheless affirms justification by faith alone. But those familiar with church history know that heretics use Biblical and orthodox terms to affirm the Christian doctrines they reject, all the while redefining them and twisting the Scriptures into destructive heresies. John Robbins thus warns that “Piper denies justification by faith alone while professing to accept Biblical soteriology—which makes his work all the more dangerous. The most effective attack on truth, the most subversive attack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christ for the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language and Biblical phraseology.”[21] Piper’s own words mark him guilty in a similar admonition he gives his readers:

Bible language can be used to affirm falsehood. Athanasius’s experience has proved to be illuminating and helpful in dealing with this fact. Over the years I have seen this misuse of the Bible especially in liberally minded baptistic and pietistic traditions. They use the slogan, “the Bible is our only creed.” But in refusing to let explanatory, confessional language clarify what the Bible means, the slogan can be used as a cloak to conceal the fact that Bible language is being used to affirm what is not biblical. This is what Athanasius encountered so insidiously at the Council of Nicaea. The Arians affirmed biblical sentences while denying biblical meaning…. The Arians railed against the unbiblical language being forced on them. They tried to seize the biblical high ground and claim to be the truly biblical people—the pietists, the simple Bible-believers—because they wanted to stay with biblical language only—and by it smuggle in their non-biblical meanings.[22]

This is what Piper does to Protestant doctrines when he twists their meaning with heterodox interpretations of Biblical passages that betray both the Reformation and Scripture: “You can see what extraordinary care and precision is called for in order to be faithful to the Scripture when using the five solas. And since ‘Scripture alone’ is our final and decisive authority, being faithful to Scripture is the goal. We aim to be biblical first — and Reformed only if it follows from Scripture.”[23] Recently he added, “My answer is — and it’s the answer of the entire mainstream of the Reformed tradition, and really not just Calvinists would talk this way; many others would as well — works play no role whatsoever in justification, but are the necessary fruit of justifying faith, which confirm our faith and our union with Christ at the last judgment.”[24] Piper teaches contrary views: He cannot affirm the Protestant position that believers are justified by faith alone, but at the last judgment good works will be required to forensically demonstrate their worthiness to enter heaven and thus contribute to, not merely confirm, their justification; for the latter fatally undermines the former. Piper “embraces” Protestantism to redefine it, ultimately to reject it:

The stunning Christian answer is: sola fide—faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely: He [Tom Schreiner] says right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.

“We are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.” Faith that is alone is not faith in union with Christ. Union with Christ makes his perfection and power ours through faith. And in union with Christ, faith is living and active with Christ’s power.

Such faith always “works by love” and produces the “obedience of faith.” And that obedience— imperfect as it is till the day we die—is not the “basis of justification, but . . . a necessary evidence and fruit of justification.” In this sense, love and obedience—inherent righteousness—is “required of believers, but not for justification”—that is, required for heaven, not for entering a right-standing with God.[25]

This is Romanism at its core—a travesty of the Reformation. According to Piper, “there are other conditions for attaining heaven” that believers must meet based on his unbiblical and anti-Protestant distinction between justification and “final salvation.” And to assert that “inherent righteousness” is “required for heaven” is to side with Rome’s analytic justification and to reject the true Gospel and the Protestant doctrine of synthetic justification, as we will see below. Piper’s apple of “final salvation” doesn’t fall far from the tree of Roman Catholic dogma, defined by the Council of Trent:

CANON IX. If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

………….

CANON XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

………….

CANON XXXII. If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,--if so be, however, that he depart in grace,--and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.[26]

Recall Piper’s view of good works being required for heaven: “These works of faith, and this obedience of faith, these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven,”[27] and “love and obedience—inherent righteousness—is…required for heaven.”[28] Now note how he echoes Rome, “that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is,… merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life.” In the same way that Rome requires “the said justified” to have good works for the “attainment of that eternal life,” Piper requires good works from those who are in a “justified position where God is one hundred percent for us—already”[29] as “necessary for our final salvation.” Despite his attempt to separate justification from “attaining heaven,” Piper errs on the side of Rome because they both conflate sanctification with justification. “The fundamental error of the Church of Rome,” writes Scottish Presbyterian James Buchanan in his stalwart defense of sola fide,

consisted in confounding [Justification] with Sanctification.… Popish writers confounded, and virtually identified, them; and thereby introduced confusion and obscurity into the whole scheme of divine truth. For if Justification were either altogether the same with Sanctification; or if,—not being entirely the same, but in some respects distinguishable from it,—it was founded and dependent on Sanctification, so as that a sinner is only justified, when, and because, and in so far as, he is sanctified; then it would follow,—that Justification, considered as an act of God, is the mere infusion, in the first instance, and the mere recognition, in the second, of a righteousness inherent in the sinner himself; and not an act of God's grace, acquitting him of guilt, delivering him from condemnation, and receiving him into His favour and friendship. It would not be a forensic or judicial proceeding terminating on man as its object, and rectifying his relation to God; but the exertion of a spiritual energy, of which man is the subject, and by which he is renewed in the spirit of his mind. Considered, again, as the privilege of believers, it would not consist in the free forgiveness of sins, and a sure title to eternal life; but in the possession of an inward personal righteousness, which is always imperfect, and often stained with sin,—which can never, therefore, amount to a full justification in the present life, as the actual privilege of any believer.[30]

It is, as Presbyterian philosopher and theologian John Robbins explains,

fatal to Christianity, for it makes the conclusion inescapable that we are justified by faith and works. Augustine defined faith as knowledge with assent. So should you. Practice is the result of faith, not part of faith. Faith is the cause; practice is the result. Bonhoeffer’s statement is precise and true: Only he who believes is obedient; only he who is obedient believes. If a person does not believe, he cannot be obedient, no matter how “good” his behavior is; and if a person believes, he will be obedient, as James says. To put it in more technical language, sanctification is a necessary consequence of justification; and justification is a necessary precedent for sanctification. But justification and sanctification are not the same. To confuse them is to be ignorant of the Gospel.[31]

Piper has more in common with Rome than with the Reformation on these foundational issues, but his error is subtler, more dangerous, because he’s a professing Protestant who’s aware of Rome’s denial of justification by faith alone, and thus attempts to distance himself by creating a false dichotomy of a justification that is by faith alone, but a “final salvation” that requires “love and obedience—inherent righteousness—”and good works as public, legal evidences in “Christ’s courtroom” for believers to be judged worthy of heaven. Make no mistake—despite his futile clarifications, Piper’s view means that the good works of believers will not ground but necessarily contribute to their justification as forensic, “public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom” at final judgment. This makes him at odds with Christ’s own word: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24). Piper affirms Protestant doctrine but nuances the terms in a way that opposes historic Protestantism, resulting in a neolegalist retreat to Rome.

Fatal Flaw #2: To Be, Or Not To Be Saved

Timothy Kauffman exposed another fatal flaw in Piper’s teaching that begs the question: “Is there such a case as a person receiving present justification and not maintaining right standing with God through good works?”[32] Piper claims the answer is no, but his own words betray him:

Jesus says that doing the will of God really is necessary for our final entrance into the kingdom of heaven. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). He says that on the day of judgment he really will reject people because they are “workers of lawlessness.” “Then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:23). He says people will “go away into eternal punishment” because they really failed to love their fellow believers: “As you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” (Matt. 25:45-46).

There is no doubt that Jesus saw some measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation. “Whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:35). So the second historic answer to the question, how is Jesus the path to perfection? has been that he enables us to change. He transforms us so that we really begin to love like he does and thus move toward perfection that we finally obtain in heaven.[33]

Writes Kauffman:

Piper’s 2006 work was written to instruct Christians on the need to obey Jesus’ commands (What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006, 17). We agree that Christians are to obey Jesus. One rather disconcerting observation, however, is found in Demand #21, in which Piper explains that Jesus will send some believers to hell “because they really failed to love their fellow believers.” We cited this same example above to show that Piper means “final justification” when he speaks of “final salvation.” We return to it now to demonstrate that Piper’s wavering on justification is due partly to [Daniel] Fuller’s tutelage, and partly to his own confusion.

To arrive at his conclusion that Jesus will send some believers to hell, Piper combines Matthew 7:23 “depart from me, ye that work iniquity” and Matthew 25:41-46, “Depart from me, ye cursed … Inasmuch as ye did it not…”. Piper thus shows that Jesus will send some people “‘away into eternal punishment’ because they really failed to love their fellow believers” (Piper, Demands, 160). The two passages say nothing of the sort.

……………………………………..

Piper assures us that that could never happen: “None who is located by faith in God’s invincible favor will fail to have all that is necessary to demonstrate this in life” (Piper, Demands, 210). If so, then in what way does Jesus “really” send some of our “fellow believers” to hell on the Last Day?[34]

We will see later how Piper undermines the glorification of believers with his claim that Jesus “transforms us so that we really begin to love like he does and thus move toward perfection that we finally obtain in heaven.” He also twists Matthew 7:21-23 into requiring good works from believers for them to attain heaven: “Jesus says that doing the will of God really is necessary for our final entrance into the kingdom of heaven…. There is no doubt that Jesus saw some measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.” Ironically, Christ condemns precisely what Piper advocates in this passage. Christ condemns these professing believers because they present their works as their hope of “attaining heaven” at the last judgment: “Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (vv. 22-23). Piper’s miserable attempt to harmonize his view of “final salvation” with Scripture leads him to misinterpret “doing the will of the Father” as the evangelical obedience that believers will have to demonstrate at final judgment. But Christ reveals what the will of the Father is in John 6:40, and it has nothing to do with presenting good works at final judgment: “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” What’s “required for heaven,” in other words, is faith alone in Christ’s righteousness alone.

Fatal Flaw #3: The Analytic Justification of the Believer

Piper’s view of final salvation contradicts the heart of the Protestant doctrine of justification, the latter of which is not only forensic but synthetic. It is not the believer’s own righteousness—he has none (Luke 17:10, Rom. 3:10-20)—but rather Christ’s righteousness, which is extra nos (foreign, or outside of us), that is imputed to him; as opposed to Rome’s analytic or subjective justification, in which, according to the Council of Trent, “we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure,”[35] and requires inherent righteousness and good works at the last judgment, which is what Piper affirms, that “love and obedience—inherent righteousness—is…required for heaven.”[36] As Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul explains the differences, note how indistinguishable Piper’s view of final salvation is from Rome’s view of justification:

The Roman Catholic view of justification is known as analytic justification because in order for God to justify a person in the Roman system, that person must be righteous by definition. Righteousness must inhere within the individual. This righteousness may be rooted in the grace of God, but it must become a personal, inherent, and experiential righteousness through the cooperation of good works….

In the biblical view, we cannot be justified unless the alien righteousness of Christ is added to us in imputation. Unlike the analytic view of justification, our works do not combine with this righteousness in order to make us intrinsically righteous. Our right standing with God is never based on our own holiness. Because the perfect righteousness of Christ is added to us, or more precisely, declared to be ours, the Protestant view is called “synthetic” justification.[37]

James Buchanan defines justification as “a legal, or forensic, term, and is used in Scripture to denote the acceptance of any one as righteous in the sight of God.”[38] When God justifies a sinner, He legally pardons him and reckons him righteous, so “there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1). Synthetic justification is final, irreversible, and definitive even at the last judgment, for the believer has already been legally and eternally pardoned on the Cross of Christ, “who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). Why else did Christ proclaim, “It is finished!” (John 19:30)? Because “he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24). Although he affirms forensic justification,[39] Piper errs with Rome once again because, in his view, believers cannot be forensically justified now; instead, they must wait until the final judgment for God to evaluate their personal works of holiness and be publicly, legally declared worthy of entering heaven. Piper uses legal language to describe the believer’s admittance to heaven after they first “demonstrate” their analytic righteousness publicly in the “judgment hall of Christ”:

Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come…. It sounds to many like a contradiction of salvation by grace through faith. Ephesians 2:8–9 says, “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God — not of works lest anyone should boast.” Salvation is not “of works.” That is, works do not earn salvation. Works do not put God in our debt so that he must pay wages. That would contradict grace. “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:23). Grace gives salvation as a free gift to be received by faith, not earned by works.

How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of the measure of our reward in the kingdom of God according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation — our entering the kingdom — according to our deeds?

The answer in a couple sentences is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. And our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith (cf. Romans 12:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). In other words, salvation is by faith, and rewards are by faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration.[40]

Piper favors Rome’s analytic justification because he claims that the deeds of believers “will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real…. The evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life.” These deeds are legally demonstrated in “Christ’s courtroom” as “public evidence” and are rendered a final legal judgment of the believer’s worthiness to enter heaven. Piper has abandoned synthetic justification, for believers are already fully justified before God solely on account of Christ’s active and passive obedience. They are thus no longer subject to another judgment or evaluation of their worthiness to enter heaven. Piper contradicts himself by claiming that “God is already one hundred percent for us,” yet still subjects believers to a final judgment where they could be denied entrance to heaven due to a lack of personal holiness, or “because they really failed to love their fellow believers.”[41] Even when he further contradicts himself by claiming that the latter will never happen, Piper impugns the justice of God by advocating a form of double jeopardy, in which he adds a second judgment of believers on top of the judgment that Christ already satisfied on their behalf on the cross, as do all legalistic systems that advocate an initial and final justification or salvation. Piper cannot legally eat his justified cake now and still have it at the last judgment. By contrast, Jonathan Linebaugh rightly explains that

justification is God's final judgment. As Wilfried Joest writes, "there is no second decision after justification." In the language of the Reformation, the "sole and sufficient basis" for our justification before God's eschatological tribunal is Jesus Christ (solus Christus), freely given (sola gratia) to sinners in the word (solo verbo) that creates the faith (sola fide) to which Christ is present. In Jesus, God's future word has invaded the present in such a way that, by faith, we know the future: "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justified. Who is to condemn? It is Christ who died" (Rom 8:33-34).[42]

It’s therefore impossible for believers to be fully justified by faith alone in Christ’s righteousness alone, only to be placed on a lifelong probationary period requiring evangelical obedience until the final judgment when they are put on trial to be legally pronounced worthy of heaven by a public demonstration of their works. The latter destroys the former. Linebaugh further expounds the Biblical link between justification and judgment:

Here's an important rule of theology: Talk about justification is talk about final judgment. As Peter Stuhlmacher, on the basis of numerous published investigations of the Old Testament and early Jewish literature, writes, "The place of justification is (final) judgment." (For those interested in such things, scholars like Simon Gathercole and the late Friedrich Avemarie have shown that inattention to eschatological judgment as the context of justification in early Jewish literature is a major deficiency in the interpretation of the soteriology of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism in the tradition of E.P. Sanders' 1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism.) When Paul introduces justification in Romans it is within a discussion of the day when "God's righteous judgment will be revealed" (2:5). This day is the day of judgment, the time when "[God] will repay each one according to their works" (2:6). Hence the first "doctrine of justification" in Romans: "the doers of the law will be justified" (2:13). The future tense of the verb and the contextualization of this justification as taking place on the day of judgment (2:5-10, 16) suggests that for Paul, as for his Jewish forbearers and contemporaries, justification occurs at the final judgment.[43]

This is the clear teaching of the Bible and historic Protestantism. Piper’s errors on the other hand fall under the apostle Paul’s rebuke to the bewitched Galatians: “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?” (3:2-4).[44]

To be continued . . . in Part II.

---

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version, and all emphases are mine.

[2] All citations from the Heidelberg Catechism and other Reformed confessions are from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, http://reformed.org/documents/index.html.

[3] J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 149.

[4] For more on this type of argument, see Tim Shaughnessy, “The Scripturalist Ad Hominem Reply,” ThornCrown Ministries, March 27, 2017, https://thorncrownministries.com/blog/2017/03/27/srr-scripturalist-ad-hominem-reply.

[5] Charles H. Spurgeon, All of Grace (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), 22, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/spurgeon/grace.html, November 12, 2017. Whenever possible, online versions of classic works were cited so readers may easily consult them.

[6] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 342-43. See also John Eadie’s Commentary on Ephesians 2:8-10 at Monergism.com, https://www.monergism.com/commentary-ephesians-28-10.

[7] See John W. Robbins, “The Means of Sanctification,” The Trinity Review, August 1997, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=158; Douglas Douma, “Sanctification: Clark, Robbins, and Piper,” A Place for Thoughts, October 24, 2017, https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/sanctification-clark-robbins-and-piper/; and the Reformed and Baptist confessions and catechisms on Sanctification.

[8] Martin Luther, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church, in First Principles of the Reformation, or the Ninety-five Theses and the Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther, ed. Henry Wace and C. A. Buchheim, trans. R. S. Grignon (London: William Clowes and Sons, 1883), 209, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/first_prin.v.iii.iv.html, November 12, 2017. Emphasis mine.

[9] “Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” First Things, May 1994, https://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/05/evangelicals-catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium, January 31, 2018.

[10] Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson, “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” November 20, 2009, http://www.manhattandeclaration.org, November 31, 2017. The list of signatories includes several Protestant and evangelical leaders. See Ligon Duncan’s reasons for signing the Declaration at “The Manhattan Declaration: A Statement from Ligon Duncan,” Reformation 21, December 2009, http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-manhattan-declaration-a-statement-from-ligon-duncan.php. For a critique of the Declaration, see Richard Bennett, “The Roman Catholic Agenda Embedded in the Manhattan Declaration,” The Trinity Review, May/June 2010, http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=270:

Some of the [Manhattan Declaration] signatories have already faced criticism and have published their own justifications for why they signed. These include Joel Belz, Bryan Chapell, Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, Niel Nielson, and Ravi Zacharias gave his justification on his radio broadcast. Some prominent leaders have written their own statements on why they did not sign the Manhattan Declaration, including Alistair Begg, Michael Horton, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, and James White. Sadly, some of these latter prominent leaders have sounded an uncertain sound by having a signer of the Manhattan Declaration lecture at their conferences – Albert Mohler spoke at Grace Community Church’s (MacArthur is pastor) Shepherd’s Conference and is scheduled to speak at R. C. Sproul’s 2010 Ligonier Conference. [Duncan and Mohler also spoke at the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Shepherd’s Conferences, https://www.shepherdsconference.org/media.]

[11] Michael S. Horton, praise for the print edition of Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, by Scott W. Hahn (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009), https://www.logos.com/product/30788/covenant-and-communion-the-biblical-theology-of-pope-benedict-xvi, March 3, 2018. Other Protestant scholars endorsed the book as well. Evidently, Logos Bible Software wanted to capitalize on Horton’s endorsement by removing his “disagreement” from the original, which reads:

Even when one disagrees with some of his conclusions, Benedict’s insights, as well as his engagement with critical scholarship, offer a wealth of reflection. In this remarkable book, Hahn has drawn out the central themes of Benedict’s teaching in a highly readable summary. An eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important theologian of our time. (“Horton on Hahn,” White Horse Inn, November 17, 2009, https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2009/11/horton-on-hahn/, March 5, 2018)

But instead of learning an important lesson about praising “remarkable books” that promote Roman Catholicism and its popes, Horton shamelessly defended his endorsement (“Horton on Hahn”). An incisive comment left by John Bugay sums up the matter apropos:

My own personal objection stemmed from the fact that Scott Hahn is not merely a “scholar” who is doing a “study.” Hahn is a person with a very clear agenda, and his agenda is not only well-known, but it is revered and imitated by scores of lesser known apologists, very many of whom bring nothing but mud to the show.

In lending your name to the legitimacy of Hahn’s work, you are lending your good name, and the name of Westminster, California, to this whole movement. (And since you know James White, why not ask him what he thinks about that movement?)

You may think that, in the spirit of Christian dialog, you will somehow accomplish something useful. But in dealing with Hahn, you are not dealing with a person who can make any concessions at all. Moreover, official Rome has very clearly re-articulated what it thinks of the churches of the Reformation. Equivocation on the part of individuals who have (with good intentions) tried to negotiate at any level at all with Catholicism — including Packer, Colson, George, and others — have seen absolutely no official budge at all from Rome.

How many Protestants, even your own seminary students, are well enough equipped to profitably read a work by Hahn, much less a work by Ratzinger, and to be able to deal with it adequately?

In the meantime, you are someone not unimportant at a very important Reformed seminary. Why not commission a study of Ratzinger’s work from a Reformed perspective, and endorse that?

[12] “Why We Call Our Radio Program White Horse Inn,” The White Horse Inn, January 26, 2016, https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2016/01/why-we-call-our-radio-program-white-horse-inn/, March 5, 2018.

[13] Horton compounds his hypocrisy by refusing to sign the Manhattan Declaration. See “A Review of the Manhattan Declaration,” White Horse Inn, December 1, 2009, https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2009/12/a-review-of-the-manhattan-declaration/. Horton should ask himself if any of the reformers he admires would ever be caught dead endorsing a book by a Roman Catholic apologist that celebrates the pope, who, according to Horton’s own confession, is “that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God” (Westminster Confession of Faith 25:6). Yet this isn’t Horton’s first time doing this. See John Robbins, “The White Horse Inn: Nonsense on Tap,” The Trinity Review, September/October 2007, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=245.

[14] See John W. Robbins, “The Roman State-Church,” The Trinity Review, March/April 1985, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=42.

[15] Thomas W. Juodaitis, “The Reformation at 500: Is It Over or Is It Needed Now More than Ever?”, The Trinity Review, March/April 2018, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=333.

[16] See, for example, R. Scott Clark, “Forty Three Years Of Federal Vision Theology,” The Heidelblog, February 18, 2017, https://heidelblog.net/2017/02/forty-three-years-of-federal-vision-theology/.

[17] See John W. Robbins, “Pied Piper,” The Trinity Review, June/July 2002, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113; and Timothy F. Kauffman and Tim Shaughnessy, “John Piper on Final Justification by Works,” The Trinity Review, November/December 2017, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=331.

[18] John Piper, “What Happens When You Die? All Appear Before the Judgment Seat of Christ,” Desiring God, August 1, 1993, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/what-happens-when-you-die-all-appear-before-the-judgment-seat-of-christ, November 12, 2017.

[19] John Piper, “Faith Alone: How (Not) to Use a Reformed Slogan,” Desiring God, September 13, 2017, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/sola-fide, November 12, 2017.

[20] John Piper, “Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone?”, Desiring God, September 25, 2017, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone, September 30, 2017. Emphasis his.

[21] John W. Robbins, “Pied Piper,” The Trinity Review, June/July 2002, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113.

[22] John Piper, Contending for Our All: Defending the Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 64-65, 66.

[23] Piper, “Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone?” Emphasis his.

[24] John Piper, “Will We Be Finally ‘Saved’ by Faith Alone?”, Desiring God, March 2, 2018, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/will-we-be-finally-saved-by-faith-alone, March 5, 2018.

[25] Justin Taylor, “John Piper’s Foreword to Tom Schreiner’s New Book on Justification by Faith Alone,” The Gospel Coalition, September 15, 2015, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/john-pipers-foreword-to-tom-schreiners-new-book-on-justification-by-faith-alone/, November 31, 2017.

[26] The Council of Trent, Session VI, “On Justification,” StGemma.com Web Productions, 2005, http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm, November 31, 2017. Emphasis mine.

[27] Piper, “Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone?”

[28] Taylor, “John Piper’s Foreword.”

[29] Piper, “Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone?”

[30] James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of its History in the Church and of its Exposition from Scripture (West Linn, OR: Christian Publication Resource Foundation, n.d.), 63-64, https://www.monergism.com/doctrine-justification-ebook, November 28, 2017. Emphasis mine.

[31] John W. Robbins, “The Counterfeit Gospel of Charles Colson,” The Trinity Review, January/February 1994, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=187.

[32] Timothy F. Kauffman, “Piper on Justification,” The Bible Thumping Wingnut, October 31, 2017, http://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2017/10/31/piper-on-justification/, January 31, 2018. See also Timothy F. Kauffman and Tim Shaughnessy, “John Piper on Final Justification by Works,” The Trinity Review, November/December 2017, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=331.

[33] John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 160. Emphasis mine.

[34] Kauffman, “Piper on Justification.”

[35] The Council of Trent, “On Justification,” Chapter VII.

[36] Taylor, “John Piper’s Foreword.”

[37] R. C. Sproul, “Synthetic Justification,” Ligonier Ministries, n.d., http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/synthetic-justification/, January 31, 2018.

[38] Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, 115.

[39] “…this reality of forensic righteousness, which is imputed to us on the first act of saving faith (as the seed of subsequent persevering faith), is different from transformative sanctification, which is imparted by the work of the Holy Spirit through faith in future grace” (John Piper, “What Do You Believe About Justification by Faith Alone?”, Desiring God, January 23, 2006, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-do-you-believe-about-justification-by-faith-alone, January 31, 2018).

[40] Piper, “All Appear Before the Judgment Seat of Christ.”

[41] Piper, What Jesus Demands, 160.

[42] Jonathan Linebaugh, “The Good News Of Final Judgment by Tullian Tchvijian,” The Spiritual Life Network, August 12, 2013, http://www.thespiritlife.net/facets/devotional/57-exchanged/exchanged-publications/4079-the-good-news-of-final-judgment-by-tullian-tchvijian, December 3, 2017.

[43] Ibid.

[44] This is an excellent point made by Patrick Hines, pastor of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church PCA. See his critiques of Piper on Sermon Audio, https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Patrick_Hines; and his new podcast, The Protestant Witness, at ThornCrown Ministries, https://thorncrownministries.com/the-protestant-witness/.

To be continued . . . in Part II.

Last week, with our article, The Gospel According to Piper, we caused a stir here at the Semper Reformanda Radio in our assessment of Piper on final justification and final salvation. On September 25, 2017, Piper wrote an article Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?, answering in the negative: No, God does not save us by faith alone. Our article was in response to Piper's.

Piper's expressions affirm that while justification is by faith alone, "final salvation" is not. In his September 25 article, he expressed this in multiple ways. We provide here two examples of this:

In justification, faith receives a finished work of Christ performed outside of us and counted as ours — imputed to us. ... In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.

These works of faith [(1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11)], and this obedience of faith [(Romans 1:5; 16:26)], these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith, are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven (Hebrews 12:14). So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone.

By such words, Piper expresses justification in terms of "faith alone" and final salvation by works that flow from faith, attempting to preserve sola fide without compromising the Scriptural emphasis on works "which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

Our article, The Gospel According to Piper, was the work of two writers, but what may be the most controversial contribution to the article came from my hand: by "final salvation" Piper actually means "final justification," and therefore Piper was actually expressing—under a Reformed flag—the Roman Catholic view of initial justification by grace and final justification by works. In support of our position I offered the following citation from Piper which summarized one of the main points in his book, The Future of Justification:

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (Piper, John, and N.T. Wright. “The Justification Debate: A Primer.” Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37)

It seemed sufficient to us that if a) in final salvation at the last judgment "faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne," and b) in future justification at the last judgment the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives is brought forward as a "confirmation of true faith," then c) we may say that Piper equates final salvation with future justification, and his description of justification and final salvation is really a description of initial justification by faith alone and final justification by faith and works.

Several of our readers considered this representation uncharitable and unfair for three main reasons:

1. in other places Piper denies such a Roman Catholic formulation,
2. by "final salvation," Piper probably meant "final glorification" rather than "final justification," and
3. we should interpret Piper through the lens of forty years of his faithful preaching

Today I will address each of these three criticisms. The first objection is justifiable and compels me to apologize to Piper for overlooking his explicit denials of the Roman Catholic view of justification. I should have found them and included them in my contributions to the original article. I was wrong to omit them. The second objection requires that I provide compelling evidence that Piper means "final justification" by "final salvation."

After addressing these two objections, I will spend considerable time on the third to explain why I remain concerned about Piper's formulations on justification based on a survey of his shifting and contradictory expressions of the doctrine of justification over time. Piper's teaching on justification has been changing for years, and is still changing now. Therefore, it is laudable but nigh impossible to defer to an ostensible continuity and clarity in Piper's teachings.

Objection 1: Piper rejects the Roman Catholic view of justification

Because Piper's statement on justification in Christianity Today grounded present justification on "the substitutionary work of Christ alone," but said that future justification "accords with our works," making mention of Christ's righteousness only in reference to present justification, it appeared to us that Piper was summarizing his own position on justification in terms of an initial justification by grace through faith, and a future justification that is based on works. The Roman Catholic Tridentine formulation on justification is that the righteousness received in justification is "preserved and also increased before God through good works," and that those works are not "merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 24). If according to Piper's own formulation our initial justification is grounded on Christ's righteousness imputed to us by faith, and our final justification "accords with our works," we could not see how his expression of justification was substantially different from Rome's similar expressions of initial, ongoing, and final justification.

Here two clarifying data pertain. First, the Christianity Today article we cited was intended as a summary of Piper's The Future of Justification, which itself was a critique of N. T. Wright's views of justification. In The Future of Justification, Piper expresses concern that Wright's expressions explicitly affirm a future justification based on works. Piper finds this "startling":

Wright makes startling statements to the effect that our future justification will be on the basis of works. (Piper, The Future of Justification (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007) 22)

Here Piper finds "startling" Wright's final justification based on works, and what startled Piper so much is that Wright's position appears to conform to that of Roman Catholicism in which the justified are finally “judged righteous (and receive eternal life) because they are truly righteous" (Piper, The Future of Justification, 183). As startling as Wright's statements are to Piper, Piper's are to us, for Piper's own formulation is just as unsettling:

Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works.  (Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37)

Why did Piper recoil at Wright's formulation, but when summarizing his own views, express a future justification that "accords with our works"? Part of the answer is how Piper differentiates between "based on works" and "according to works." He writes,

I take [Paul's] phrase 'according to' (kata;) in a sense different from 'based on.' I think the best way to bring together the various threads of Paul’s teaching on justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; 4:4–6; 11:6; Eph. 2:8) is to treat the necessity of obedience not as any part of the basis of our justification, but strictly as the evidence and confirmation of our faith in Christ whose blood and righteousness is the sole basis of our justification (Piper, The Future of Justification, 110).

Whatever one may think of Piper's various formulations on justification, in fairness to him the critic must at least acknowledge Piper's attempt at differentiating between "based on" and "according to" when formulating an expression in which final justification is according to works. This writer failed to do so.

We will return to Piper's varied, diverse and problematic formulations on justification below, but for now, I will simply acknowledge that my critics were correct to point out that Piper elsewhere objects strenuously to the Roman Catholic view of justification. It was my duty to consider those statements in my examination of Piper.

Objection 2: by "final salvation" Piper means "final glorification" rather than "final justification"

Some of my critics have said it is wrong to make "final salvation" mean "final justification" in Piper. It seems to them, rather, that Piper is talking about "final glorification" instead. For example, the following citation from Piper is taken to refer to "glorification":

So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone. Love, the fruit of faith, is the necessary confirmation that we have faith and are alive. We won’t enter heaven until we have it. There is a holiness without which we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). (Piper, John, Faith Alone: How (Not) to Use a Reformed Slogan, September 13, 2017)

One problem with claiming that Piper is speaking here of glorification is that Piper repeatedly states that final glorification is our inheritance after attaining heaven or getting to heaven. Piper is in this passage speaking not of glorification but of getting into heaven prior to glorification, and the way to get into heaven is to be saved from the wrath of God on the Last Day by the fruits of faith. In fact, that was his whole point in Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?: "In final salvation at the last judgment ... we are saved through that fruit and that faith." There is a critical step between judgment and glorification and that step is "attaining heaven."

Note well that Piper elsewhere speaks of glorification as a result of attaining heaven only after final salvation is secured at the Last Judgment: "Jesus transforms us so that we really begin to love like he does so that we move toward perfection that we finally obtain in heaven" (Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006) 160). When we obtain heaven, "we are going to receive a great inheritance, including our own glorification" (Piper, Children, Heirs and Fellow Sufferers, 2002). To Piper, the holiness without which no one will see the Lord is not "glorification" but "love, the fruit of faith." To attain heaven one must first be acquitted in judgment, and to be acquitted in judgment—justified—one must have works.

Piper thus speaks of personal holiness as a "validating transformation" that will serve as evidence of true faith at the last judgment so that we can attain heaven, and he speaks of final glorification as the inheritance we receive upon attaining heaven after surviving that final judgment. Piper is speaking of, and has been speaking of, a final acquittal in judgment as a prerequisite to attaining heaven, which itself is a prerequisite to final glorification.

Yes, by "final salvation," Piper means "final justification," and "final justification" to Piper means "final salvation from future judgment."

As evidence, simply read Piper's own words. He speaks again and again of faith and works being necessary to be acquitted in the final judgment:

Final salvation from future judgment is conditional. It will not happen apart from our persevering faith. ... "salvation" refers to our future deliverance from the wrath of God at the judgment and entrance into eternal life. (Piper, John, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Piper, John, Desiring God, Multnomah Publishers, 1996) 42) (emphasis added)

[Jesus] says that on the day of judgment he really will reject people because they are "workers of lawlessness." "Then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:23). He says people will “go away into eternal punishment” because they really failed to love their fellow believers: “As you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” (Matt. 25:45-46). There is no doubt that Jesus saw some measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation. (John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, 160). (emphasis added)

It is not accidental that the title of this book has a double meaning. The Future of Justification draws attention not only to where the doctrine itself may be going, but also to the critical importance of God’s future act of judgment when our justification will be confirmed. How will our obedience function in that Day? (Piper, The Future of Justification, 183-4). (emphasis added)

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation. (Christianity Today, June 2009: 35-37) (emphasis added)

In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith. (Piper, Does God Really Save us by Faith Alone? (Desiring God, September 25, 2017) (emphasis added)

The fact is that in his own words, Piper sees "future justification" and "final salvation" as the same thing, and future justification is by faith and works.

The reader is invited to consider, as well, the fact that the summary on Piper provided from Christianity Today—in which future justification and future salvation are equated—was reviewed and confirmed by Piper himself as an accurate summary of what he was trying to say. Trevin Wax, who compiled the summary confirms this: "Please note that both John Piper and N.T. Wright looked over my work and made some slight revisions regarding their respective summaries" (Wax, Trevin, Piper vs. Wright on Justification: A Layman's Guide, June 26, 2009).

Piper's statements on final justification—final salvation from the wrath of God at the last judgment—were in response to Wright's teaching on final justification in a debate on the meaning of justification. To propose that Piper really was talking about "final glorification"—something not even mentioned in the entirety of Piper's The Future of Justification—is an unhelpful diversion that obscures the actual point Piper was making about "Wright’s view of justification  ... in the present and at the end" (Piper, The Future of Justification, 103). How are we justified at the very end? By faith and by works, according to Piper.

Objection 3: we should evaluate Piper based on decades of faithful gospel preaching

Several critics considered our criticism of Piper uncharitable because we were taking Piper's unclear teachings on justification and using them to interpret his clear teaching on justification. Instead we should consider the fact that Piper has taught clearly for decades on justification and salvation. This objection, however, assumes that Piper has taught consistently and clearly on justification until now. The fact is, Piper has wavered between several different and contradictory positions on justification, which makes it exceedingly difficult to determine which teachings of Piper are the "clear" ones, and which are the "unclear ones."

In order to understand just how unclear Piper has been over the span of his career, we provide below a survey of his thinking on justification from 1985 through 2017.

Piper through the Years

Piper received his Master of Divinity at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California (1968-1971) where he studied under Daniel Fuller and discovered the teachings of Jonathan Edwards. Piper was called to become the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1980 in which capacity he served until 2013.

It is worth noting that in his formative years, Piper was greatly influenced by Daniel Fuller who came under the displeasure of O. Palmer Robertson because of his problematic formulations on justification:

In substitution for the biblically clear distinction between the legally imputed righteousness of justification and the vitally infused righteousness of sanctification, [Daniel] Fuller opts for the flexible meanings that may be introduced into the phrase, the “obedience of faith.” Unwittingly it seems, Fuller plays on an ambiguity inherent in the phrase. When he speaks of “salvation” by the “obedience of faith,” does he mean

(1) faith as attaching to Christ altogether? (2) the obedient actions arising from faith? (3) faith considered in itself as an act of obedience?

Because of the ambiguity inherent in the phrase, Fuller may slide between its various meanings … meaning sometimes the obedience which is faith and meaning at other times the obedient actions done in faith. In other words, man is saved by doing, by keeping the revelatory law of Moses, which is the law of faith. … Fuller … leaves himself open to being understood as commending works of faith (the “obedience of faith”) as the way of justification.” (O. Palmer Robertson, Presbuterion, 1981, vol. 8, issue 1, Daniel Fuller's Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, A Review Article, 84-91)

Robertson's point is borne out by Fuller's work, The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity (Zondervan, 1992). Fuller built his view of justification around Jonathan Edwards' rejection of Calvin. While Edwards insisted on justification by faith alone, he struggled to grasp how a sinner could be initially justified by faith alone when the verdict on his final justification was still pending, awaiting the outcome of his perseverance. Edwards (and Fuller following) concluded that we are not actually saved by faith alone, but rather are "saved by perseverance." Thus, in the initial verdict of justification, God "has respect to" the eventual perseverance of the sinner:

"But [contrary to Calvin] we are really saved by perseverance… For, though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith; yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being virtually [implied] in the first act." (Fuller, Daniel, The Unity of the Bible (Zondervan, 1992) 296-298 (citing Edwards))

This is problematic. Our view on justification is that the righteousness God contemplates in His verdict of justification is Christ's righteousness alone, imputed to us by faith alone. The Westminster Confession insists that God justifies believers "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, ... nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness," not even their perseverance (Westminster Confession of Faith, 11.1). Edward's problematic formulation has God contemplating the sinner's perseverance in His verdict of justification, focusing on the "thing wrought in them."

W. Robert Godfrey correctly recognized that Fuller had indeed proposed a different view of justification, and therefore a different gospel:

The clearest implication of Fuller’s work has to do with the instrumental cause of justification. What is implicit in his book is made explicit in his interactions with Robertson’s work where he states that faith and works are the instrumental cause of justification. (Godfrey, W. Robert, O. Palmer Robertson, Presbuterion, 1983, 9.1, Back to Basics, 80-81).

Godfrey's concern, too, had been borne out in Fuller's book. Let the reader keep in mind that Piper's view on justification blossomed in the same sun and soil as Fuller's. As Piper himself later acknowledged, "the plants of my pondering have grown" in Fuller's garden. As we shall see, starting with Fuller's ambiguous meaning of "obedience of faith," Piper has wavered throughout his ministry between multiple positions, and is still even now trying to find his voice on justification. Piper's apple did not fall far from Fuller's tree, and Robertson and Godfrey could write the same  today of Piper as they did of Fuller.

1985: Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism

We provide the following statement to show where Piper was early in his teaching ministry. This is five years after accepting the call to pastor Bethlehem Baptist. Piper is entrenched in the justification construct Robertson and Godfrey found so disconcerting in Fuller. Piper, puzzled over how God can provide an initial verdict of justification before the sinner has even shown that he will persevere, attempts in this statement to reconcile the difficulty:

God justifies us on the first genuine act of saving faith, but in doing so he has a view to all subsequent acts of faith contained, as it were, like a seed in that first act. ... God does not wait to the end of our lives in order to declare us righteous.  ... Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith. ...[W]e are justified on the basis of our first act of faith because God sees in it (like he can see the tree in an acorn) the embryo of a life of faith. (emphasis added)

That difficulty will continue to arise in Piper as he wrestles with the righteousness God contemplates in the initial and final justification of the believer.

1995: The Sinner is Justified by Faith in His Future Moral Improvement

It is now 1995 and Piper is still advancing Fuller's constructs on justification. While Piper does not completely agree with Fuller on everything, he nonetheless formulated his own view of justification based on the latent ambiguity in Fuller's "obedience of faith," the very construct Robertson found so reprehensible:

Daniel Fuller’s vision of the Christian life as an “obedience of faith” is the garden in which the plants of my pondering have grown. Almost three decades of dialogue on the issues in this book have left a deep imprint. … His major work, The Unity of the Bible, is the explanatory background to most of what I write. (Piper, Future Grace (1995) 7)

For Piper, “[f]aith is primarily future oriented” (Piper, Future Grace, 13), which necessarily causes the sinner to focus primarily on his future transformation rather than on the past work Christ has already accomplished for him. We see Fuller's influence as Piper explains his meaning: "future grace" is the Holy Spirit's moral transformation in the believer, and the believer is justified by faith in that moral transformation:

“…the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 3:16) is virtually the same as what I mean by future grace.” (Piper, Future Grace (Multnomah, 1995) 69).

“And this faith in future grace is the faith through which we are justified.” (Piper, Future Grace, 191).

Thus, to Piper, both God and the sinner have the sinner's future moral improvement in mind in justification. God contemplates the sinner's future improvement—the sinner believing, and God foreseeing—that the sinner will improve over time. Take Piper's own words from Future Grace, and we have exactly what Robertson feared in Fuller: the sinner is justified by God's knowledge of, and the sinners confidence in, his future moral improvement, "for the faith through which we are justified" is faith in "the heart-strengthening power that comes from the Holy Spirit."

1999: Does James Contradict Paul?

In his 1999 sermon on James and Paul, Piper struggled to reconcile the two apostles, and could only resolve the tension by having Paul speak of the initial moment of justification at the beginning of the Christian life, and having James speak of maintaining an ongoing and final right standing with God through faith and works:

So when Paul renounces "justification by works" he renounces the view that anything we do along with faith is credited to us as righteousness. Only faith obtains the verdict, not guilty, when we become Christians. Works of any kind are not acceptable in the moment of initial justification. ... For James, "justification by works" (which he accepts) means "maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love. (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul?, August 8, 1999)

Piper repeats the construct multiple times, insisting that Paul is speaking only about justification by faith alone in initial justification: "That's how we get started in the Christian life - justified by faith alone."  James, on the other hand, is talking about how "one maintain[s] an ongoing and final right standing with God." (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul?, sermon audio, 28:26-34:26).

At the end of the sermon, Piper finally commends an entirely new construct to his listeners to resolve the difficulty: "justification by dependence alone on Christ alone." Piper defined "dependence" as faith at the beginning of the Christian walk, and defined "dependence" as faith and works during the middle and end of the Christian walk. Here, in an attempt to clarify, he simply muddied the water in order to preserve a Reformational sola, but in reality imported works into final justification (Piper, John, Does James Contradict Paul? ,sermon audio, 35:30-35:50).

Like his mentor Fuller, Piper thus repeatedly "leaves himself open to being understood as commending works of faith (the “obedience of faith”) as the way of justification." In fact, this 1999 sermon was simply a recapitulation of Fuller's 19th chapter of The Unity of the Bible, Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity, "Abraham's Persevering Faith" (281-304). It is important to establish this in Piper's timeline to show that in 1999, Piper was still advocating a view on justification that the reformed community found reprehensible.

2002: Counted Righteous in Christ

Something apparently had happened between 1999 and 2002. During that time, Piper wrote Counted Righteous in Christ to defend "the historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience so that the two are not conflated in the instrumentality of justification." A laudable concern, indeed, since his own mentor had conflated them, and he had as well. Gone from his writing was the ambiguous language of justification by "dependence alone on Christ alone." Absent, too, was the talk about how justification at the "beginning of the Christian life is by faith alone" but "maintaining a right standing with God" is "by faith along with ... works of love."

Had Piper finally become Protestant? Perhaps even Reformed? While reformed teachers were cheering his new work, Piper's mentor, Daniel Fuller, was deeply disappointed that he had wandered so far from the fold. "[I]s not such talk dangerous?" Fuller asked. In Fuller's eyes, Piper had stumbled into the Galatian heresy (Fuller, Daniel, Reformation & Revival Journal (vol 12, no. 4, Fall 2003, "Another Reply to Counted Righteous in Christ" 115-120).

The plants of Piper's pondering had apparently left Fuller's garden at last. Let the reader note that until he published Counted Righteous in Christ, Piper's formulations on justification did not elicit Fuller's disapproval. From his seminary years until the turn of the millennium, Piper still agreed with Fuller's erroneous construct on justification, and that status quo remained until Piper finally decided to defend "the historic Protestant view" instead of what Fuller had taught him. But the plant of Piper's pondering would soon return to its roots.

2006: What Jesus Demands from the World

Piper's 2006 work was written to instruct Christians on the need to obey Jesus' commands (Piper, John, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books (2006) 17). We agree that Christians are to obey Jesus. One rather disconcerting observation, however, is found in Demand #21, in which Piper explains that Jesus will send some believers to hell "because they really failed to love their fellow believers." We cited this same example above to show that Piper means "final justification" when he speaks of "final salvation." We return to it now to demonstrate that Piper's wavering on justification is due partly to Fuller's tutelage, and partly to his own confusion.

To arrive at his conclusion that Jesus will send some believers to hell, Piper combines Matthew 7:23 "depart from me, ye that work iniquity” and Matthew 25:41-46, "Depart from me, ye cursed ... Inasmuch as ye did it not...". Piper thus shows that Jesus will send some people "'away into eternal punishment' because they really failed to love their fellow believers" (Piper, Demands, 160). The two passages say nothing of the sort.

Piper's confusion is found in his assumption that the rejected persons in each passage—"Depart from me" (Matthew 7:23, 25:41)—are "fellowbelievers" with the children of God. Yet both passages actually portray them as unbelievers. In Matthew 7:23, those who are sent away from Him are "false prophets," "ravening wolves" dressed "in sheep’s clothing" (Matthew 7:15). In Mathew 25:41, those who are sent away from Him are goats, rather than sheep. As Christ explained in John 10:26, "ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep." Only sheep believe. The people Jesus sends away to damnation are unbelieving wolves and goats. To arrive at his conclusion that Jesus will send some believers to hell, therefore, Piper had first to read "believers" into "wolves" and "goats," something completely foreign to the text.

Compounding his confusion, Piper then attempted to justify his reading of Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 by appealing to Matthew 12. In doing so, Piper interpreted Jesus' reference to faith as a reference to works, and on that basis concluded that Christians will be justified by works at the last day. Piper explained his rendering of Matthew 7 and 25, in this footnote:

Though it may cause confusion, it is possible to use the word “justify” to describe how the fruit of good behavior works in the day of judgment. The fruits can “justify” us in the sense of proving that we are believers and belong to Jesus and have a right standing with God in him. That is how I understand Matthew 12:37, “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Piper, Demands, 161n (emphasis added))

Here Piper has read "works" into "words," completely foreign to the text. As we showed in our previous article, Jesus' reference to people being justified or condemned by their "words" on the last day was a reference to being justified by faith or condemned for unbelief, not judged by their "works." He was referring to the words of faith expressed by the Gentiles of Galilee ("Is not this the son of David?" (Matthew 12:23)) in contrast with the unbelieving words of the Pharisees ("This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matthew 12:24)).

To illustrate His point that people will either be justified or condemned by their words, Jesus gave two examples of people being justified by their words on the Last Day: the Ninevites who believed the preaching of Jonah (Matthew 12:41, Jonah 3:5), and the Queen of Sheba who believed the teaching of Solomon (Matthew 12:42, 1 Kings 10:9). Both would rise in judgment with this generation, and condemn it. The Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba had spoken words of faith upon the hearing of God's word, and this present generation had spoken words of unbelief, "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matthew 12:34). Jesus thus taught that we would be acquitted on the Last Day by the same righteousness we received when we first believed—just like the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba. Words here referred to "faith" or "unbelief." They do not refer to "works." To arrive at his conclusion that "the fruit of good behavior" justifies us "in the day of judgment" Piper erroneously substituted "the fruit of good behavior" for "words" and concluded that believers must be in some sense justified by their works of love on the Last Day.

Our concern with Piper's 2006 position is twofold. First, in his analysis of the role of works in justification on the Last Day, he distorted three separate passages from Jesus to get to his point. Second, it shows that the "plant of his pondering" never really left Fuller's "garden." He was still right where he was in 1999 when he explained repeatedly that initial justification is by faith alone, but it is our duty to maintain our right standing with God through works.

Piper's position in 2006 was not dissimilar to that of N. T. Wright, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews and proponent of the controversial New Perspective on Paul. The year after What Jesus Demands from the World, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) rejected Wright's formulations on the same grounds that Robertson and Godfrey had rejected Fuller's:

It would appear that Wright is inconsistent when it comes to his means for receiving present and future justification. In the present, Wright argues that the badge of justification is faith alone and that no works are involved in this (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 132). However, in reference to “final” justification, Wright argues that it is “on the basis of the whole life led.” But this is a contradiction: how can one be assured of “final justification,” if the final verdict is based on the whole life led (i.e. faith plus faithfulness/works)? Is there such a case as a person receiving present justification and not final justification?These inconsistencies seem to shift the means for receiving justification to works, since the only difference between one who receives present justification from one who receives final justification is that the latter works. (34th PCA General Assembly, Report of ad interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective and Auburn Avenue Theology (2007) 2228n)

We would ask Piper the same questions because of his own inconsistencies. Is there such a case as a person receiving present justification and not maintaining right standing with God through good works? Piper assures us that that could never happen: "None who is located by faith in God’s invincible favor will fail to have all that is necessary to demonstrate this in life" (Piper, Demands, 210). If so, then in what way does Jesus "really" send some of our "fellow believers" to hell on the Last Day?

2007: The Future of Justification

In his critique of N. T. Wright, Piper ironically criticized him for his ambiguous use of "the obedience of faith," the very thing for which Robertson had critiqued Fuller. Piper wrote,

Adding to the ambiguity of how our works function in justification is Wright’s apparent conflation of “faith,” on the one hand, and “faithfulness” (or faithful obedience), on the other hand. ... The issue is whether justification by faith really means justification by works of any kind, whether provided by God or man. That is the issue, and Wright again leaves us with the impression that human transformation and Spirit wrought acts of obedience are included in the term “faith” when he speaks of present justification being by faith alone. (Piper, The Future of Justification, 130-131).

We remind the reader that only eight years earlier, in his attempt to harmonize James and Paul, Piper was advocating for "justification by dependence alone," as noted above, explaining that our initial right standing with God is by faith alone, but our ongoing and final right standing with God is maintained by both faith and works. Both were collapsed into the single construct, "dependence alone." Like Wright, Piper was including "Spirit wrought acts of obedience" in the term "dependence," holding to justification by "dependence alone" (meaning faith alone) at the beginning of the Christian life, and justification by "dependence alone" (meaning faith and works of love) throughout the life of the believer. Piper too, had been "adding to the ambiguity of how our works function in justification" less than a decade earlier.

2009: Piper, meet Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson, meet John Piper

Back in 2003, Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, suddenly began "to suspect that what he has believed for many years may actually be a truncated form of the truth, particularly when the subject concerns the gospel and salvation" (Wilson, Douglas, “The Objectivity of the Covenant,” Credenda/Agenda, volume 15, issue 1, p. 4, 2003). Wilson had recently bought into the controversial Federal Vision theology and appeared to be expressing the gospel in terms of justification by faithfulness alone, instead of by faith alone, the very construct for which Piper had criticized Wright in The Future of Justification. The Federal Vision would eventually be judged erroneous at the 34th PCA General Assembly (2007) mentioned above. The PCA report on Federal Vision expressed concern that its adherents were creating confusion about the gospel by combining justification and sanctification together:

[T]he way Federal Vision proponents collapse the distinct benefits of this mediation (i.e. justification, adoption, sanctification) into “union with Christ” creates significant confusion. Similarly, Federal Vision’s appeal to “the biblical usage” of justification as a way to collapse forensic and transformative categories also confuses doctrines that our Standards rightly distinguish (i.e., justification and sanctification). (2225-2225)

In 2009, John Piper invited Douglas Wilson to speak at the annual Desiring God Conference because he was deeply "persuaded that Doug Wilson gets the gospel right" (John Piper, Why So Many Presbyterian Speakers This Year). Wilson's gospel is "very complicated," Piper conceded, but it is not "another gospel," and he just "gets a bad wrap from a lot of PCA guys who aren't careful about the way they think" (John Piper on Doug Wilson). [Disclosure: this writer is a member in a PCA church]. In the same discussion, Piper insisted that, for all of his criticism of him, "I don't think N. T. Wright preaches a false gospel, either. I think N. T. Wright preaches a very confusing gospel."

What is so remarkable and ironic about Piper's embrace of Wilson is that Wilson was drifting away from "the [ostensibly truncated] historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience" by conflating faith and obedience in the instrumentality of justification, at precisely the time that Piper felt compelled to distance himself from Fuller's gospel and write Counted Righteous in Christ to defend "the historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience so that the two are not conflated in the instrumentality of justification." And yet, in 2009, Piper returned to his Fullerian roots and concluded that Wilson had actually gotten the gospel right, even though he was expressing it in the same terms as Fuller and Wright—men from whom Piper had ostensibly been distancing himself since 2002.

2012: Still fine-tuning his understanding of justification

In 2012 Piper revised Future Grace, acknowledging exactly what we have been highlighting in this timeline: the inconsistent, wavering announcement of justification by [something] alone, and Future Grace's imperative of forward looking faith. Because of the latent ambiguities in his constructs on justification in the 1995 edition, and (we believe) because of the uncertain trumpet he had sounded over the years, Piper felt compelled to clarify his teaching once more:

In the never-ending question of how Christians, who are counted righteous in Christ by faith alone, should nevertheless pursue righteousness, this book is my answer. It is my fullest attempt to explain why the faith that justifies also sanctifies, without mingling or confusing those two glorious works of God.

Since publishing the first edition of Future Grace in 1995, I have walked through extended controversies surrounding the nature, ground, and instrument of justification. These controversies have sharpened my own grasp of what the Bible teaches. Some of that sharpening is captured in Counted Righteous in Christ (Crossway, 2002), The Future of Justification (Crossway, 2007), and Finally Alive (Christian Focus, 2007). Some people have felt tensions between the first edition of Future Grace and the message of those books. I hope that this revised edition will remove those tensions. (Piper, John, Future Grace, Preface to the 2012 edition (Multnomah, 2012)).

We are not convinced, however, that Future Grace can actually be corrected to fix the problem of "mingling or confusing" justification and sanctification. Just as Piper's 1999 sermon on James and Paul showed that he was still at that time in Fuller's garden, Future Grace, written four years prior, was based entirely on chapter 18 of The Unity of the Bible in which Fuller attempted to work out the implications of "faith’s futuristic orientation" and Edward's view that the sinner's perseverance is contemplated by God in His verdict of justification. We do not believe that Piper can truly extract himself from Fuller's garden while consuming the fruit that grows there. For all of his protestations, shifting positions and subsequent clarifications, Piper appears only briefly to have departed from his Fullerian roots circa 2001, and has long since returned to them.

2013: Bethlehem Baptist Church updates What we believe about the five points of Calvinism

In 2013, Piper updated his church's 1985 position on Calvinism. Correcting some of the tensions that had existed in previous expressions of justification, just as he did the previous year with Future Grace. He deleted "God justifies us [with] a view to all subsequent acts of faith," and simply stated,

God justifies us completely through the first genuine act of saving faith, but this is the sort of faith that perseveres and bears fruit in the “obedience of faith.”

Also, instead of God justifying us because He can see in our first act of faith "a life of faith with its inevitable obedience," the focus was shifted now to Christ's righteousness: "The first time we believe in Jesus we are united to Christ. In union with him, his righteousness is counted as ours, at that moment." Nevertheless, the statement on obedience being required for final salvation remained: "Obedience, evidencing inner renewal from God, is necessary for final salvation."

2017: Does God Really Save us by Faith Alone?

In 2017, Piper showed that although he was trying to resolve the tensions present in his previous formulations on justification, the ambiguous construct Robertson criticized in Fuller was still present in his thinking: "In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith." As Piper expressed back in 1995, "Final salvation" is salvation "from future judgment," and in 2009, "Future justification is ... This final judgment." He is still advancing a double justification doctrine—and initial justification by faith alone, and a final justification by faith plus works.

Conclusion

In The Future of Justification, Piper recalled that Richard Gaffin had spoken at the Pastors Conference in Monroe, Louisiana in 2005 (the namesake of the Monroe Doctrine and by some reckoning the origins of the Federal Vision). At the Pastors Conference, Gaffin had expressed what Piper believed, upon further study, to be "the true biblical understanding of the function of works in the final judgment" (Piper, The Future of Justification,115-16).

In the 1970s, throughout the Westminster Theological Seminary justification controversy surrounding the teachings of Norman Shepherd, Gaffin was Shepherd's ardent defender. At the heart of the controversy was Shepherd's view of the role of works in the justification of the believer, and Gaffin had sided with Shepherd. Shepherd's views were eventually  determined to be out of accord with the Westminster Confession and he was dismissed from the seminary in 1982. We provide here three of Shepherd's theses that were so offensive to the reformed community:

Thesis 21: The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).

Thesis 22: The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).

Thesis 23: Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9). (from Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works, November 18, 1978.)

After an extensive review of Piper's teachings on justification, we cannot see how Piper's current views differ in any substantive way from Shepherd's offensive theses on justification. Thus, we stand by our original assessment of Piper's views on "final salvation" and "final justification."

We extend two closing comments for the consideration of our readers on this controversial issue. First, one of our critics agreed that even in a charitable reading of Piper, his language could still be understood to be problematic. We appreciate that even some who disagreed with us understood that it was possible that we were reading Piper charitably.

Second, some critics have suggested that we have engaged in controversy for the sake of controversy. Although, from our perspective, we are zealous to maintain the purity of the church, we nevertheless understand that we should as zealously strive to maintain its peace. We are happy for the reminder to pursue both, and concede that we are not immune to the temptation to pursue controversy for its own sake.

That said, we offer to our critics a matter for reflection: those who seek the peace of the church are just as susceptible to the opposite temptation to avoid controversy for the sake of avoiding controversy. As we examine the history of the justification controversy—it now spans two generations of theologians—we have seen the damage that is propagated when error is tolerated in order to maintain the peace of the church.

To that end, we remind our readers that this controversy did not start with Piper's 2017 article. It is by no means a new controversy. It started in 1970s when the faculty of Westminster failed to respond timely to Shepherd's errors and allowed them too long to fester within its walls. The controversy has long since metastasized and we are now dealing with the second generation of the fruit it has borne.

The history of this long standing controversy may be explored profitably starting with O. Palmer Robertson's essay, "The Current Justification Controversy." And while Piper has on occasion expressed his disagreement with the Roman Catholic view of justification, after examining his decades of attempts to express the doctrine, we are not entirely sure that Piper really understands the essence of the Roman Catholic view, much less the implications of the justification controversy itself.

To all of our readers—to those who disagree, and to those who do not—enjoy October 31, 2017 tomorrow, the 500th anniversary of the birth of the  Protestant Reformation.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Written By Tim Shaughnessy and Timothy F. Kauffman

Introduction

In every generation there arise men from within the church who stumble into the Roman Catholic view of justification, and having stumbled, then attempt to import that Roman Catholic error into the Church of God so that the children of God might stumble with them. John Piper is just the latest in a long line of such men, and he will not be the last. Remarkably, on the eve of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, Piper attempts to show that neither the Scriptures nor the Reformers held to final justification by faith alone apart from works. On September 25^th, 2017, Piper published an article entitled Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone? In the article, he maintains that initial justification is by faith alone, but introduces a concept that is completely foreign to the Bible: the concept of “final salvation” on the basis of our works and obedience. He writes,

In justification, faith receives a finished work of Christ performed outside of us and counted as ours — imputed to us. … In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.[i]

In Piper’s new view of final salvation, he makes a distinction between justification and salvation in which we are justified by faith alone apart from works at the beginning, but we are saved by faith plus works at the end. He writes,

These works of faith, and this obedience of faith, these fruits of the Spirit that come by faith, are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness, no heaven (Hebrews 12:14). So, we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone.

Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin (Romans 8:13) and the pursuit of holiness (Hebrews 12:14).[ii]

Before we address Piper’s statements in detail, it is important to establish that when Piper says, “final salvation,” he means “final justification” or “future justification,” as evidenced by his summary of his position in the “Justification Debate” with N. T. Wright in 2009. Piper said,

"Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation." (Piper, John, and N.T. Wright. “The Justification Debate: A Primer.” Christianity Today June 2009: 35-37 (emphasis added))

We must, therefore, caution those who would otherwise be prone to vagueness and ambiguity when responding to such serious doctrinal error. It is never helpful to duck and dodge or hem and haw over issues concerning the gospel. Paul asks the question, “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8).[iii] When the gospel is at stake we must take to the battlefield to defend it, but who will get ready for battle if we give an indistinct sound. Therefore, it is necessary that we be emphatically clear in our response lest we give an indistinct sound with respect to this gospel issue.

Final Judgment, Justification & Salvation

Let’s first consider what Piper says about final judgment, final justification and final salvation. Piper has put forth the notion of a “final justification” or a “final salvation at the last judgment [in which] faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith.” He has further stated that “works of faith,” and “obedience of faith… are necessary for our final salvation.” Piper is correct about there being a final judgment which is a judgment of works. Dr. Robert Reymond writes,

Now it cannot be denied that the Scriptures uniformly represent the final judgement as a judgement of works. (Ps. 62:12; Eccles. 12:14; Matt. 16:27; 25:31-46; John 5:29; Rom. 2:5-10; 1 Cor. 3:13, 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:7-9; 1 Pet. 1:17; see also Westminster Confession of Faith, XXXIII/i) and that they hold forth the promise of rewards for faithful living (Exod. 20:5-6; Prov. 13:13; 25:21-22; Matt. 5:12; 6:1, 2, 4, 16, 18, 20; 10:41; 19:29; Luke 6:37-38; Col. 3:23-24; 2 Tim. 4:7-8: Heb. 11:26).[iv]

But while Piper is correct about there being a final judgment of works he is wrong to suggest that it has anything to do with our “future justification” or our “final salvation.” Rather, the works by which the believer is to be judged are merely the basis for rewards. John Murray writes,

We must maintain… 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.[v]

In the Biblical view, this final judgement of works has absolutely nothing to do with our justification or our salvation. The concept of a future justification or a final salvation that is dependent upon our works or obedience is completely foreign to the Bible and the Protestant tradition, but it is not foreign to Roman Catholicism. In Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics Ron Rhodes writes,

Certainly, Catholics deny that their Church teaches a works salvation. They will talk about how salvation is impossible apart from the grace of God. But though things start out by grace in the Roman Catholic system of salvation…works do indeed get mixed into the picture. By virtue of the fact that a life of meritorious works is necessary to gain final salvation, it is clear that in reality, the Roman Catholic view of salvation is works-oriented. Salvation may involve grace and faith, but it is not by grace alone (sola gratia) or by faith alone (sola fide).[vi]

As we will see upon further examination of Piper, Rhodes’ assessment of Roman Catholicism— “that a life of meritorious works is necessary to gain final salvation”—is an adequate rebuttal of Piper, as well. What Piper writes is strikingly and eerily similar to what Ron Rhodes rightly identified as the Roman Catholic works-oriented system of salvation. He would talk about how salvation is impossible apart from the grace of God. But though things start out by grace in Pipers system of salvation… works do indeed get mixed into the picture. In Piper’s view, works are necessary to gain "final salvation" and works will be necessary for our “future justification.” In his view, future justification or final salvation may involve grace and faith, but they are not by grace alone (sola gratia) or by faith alone (sola fide). For Piper to say that “these works of faith, and this obedience of faith… are necessary for final salvation” is to say that works and obedience are necessary for justification and salvation. This is pure Romanism at its heart and it directly contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9 which reads, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Again, Dr. Reymond writes, “’[Salvation] is of faith, [apart from works], in order that it may be according to grace’ (Rom. 4:16). If God were to permit the intrusion of human works into the acquisition of salvation to any degree, salvation could not be by grace alone.”[vii]

Alien vs. Native Righteousness

When Piper speaks of “final salvation,” he is referring to a “future justification” that is based on faith plus works, a righteousness that is our own, not Christ’s. It is a justification based on our own personal moral improvement. It is important to point that out because in the foreword to Thomas Schreiner’s book Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series), published on September 15, 2015, Piper appears to deny that our personal righteousness is the required for “justification.”:

Such faith always “works by love” and produces the “obedience of faith.” And that obedience— imperfect as it is till the day we die—is not the “basis of justification, but… a necessary evidence and fruit of justification.” In this sense, love and obedience—inherent righteousness—is “required of believers, but not for justification”—that is, required for heaven, not for entering a right-standing with God.[viii]

In reality, Piper is only denying that personal righteousness is required for initial justification. Regarding our future justification, Piper explicitly says that “obedience—inherent righteousness,” is required of believers for heaven, and is, in fact, a righteousness that is considered in our final justification. But Jesus taught that we are justified and saved, wholly and completely at the end by the same righteousness we possessed at the beginning. He did not teach an initial justification that is comprised of an alien righteousness plus a final justification based on a native righteousness developed over time through personal sanctification.

When we examine Christ’s admonition that “in the day of judgment,” the individual will be either justified or condemned “by thy words” (Matthew 12:36-37), we find that He gave two very remarkable illustrations about what He meant: the Ninevites (Matthew 12:41) and the Queen of Sheba (Matthew 12:42). Both would face “judgment with this generation” but would be justified based on their words, whereas the men of “this generation” would be condemned based on theirs. The key to understanding the passage is to examine which words Jesus contemplates in the acquittal of the Queen and the Ninevites, and He actually tells us which words they are: the words they spoke from the heart upon their first hearing and believing of the Word of God, for the Ninevites “repented at the preaching of Jonas” and the Queen of Sheba believed “the wisdom of Solomon.” “[T]he people of Nineveh believed God” upon the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3:5) and the Queen of Sheba exclaimed, “It was a true report that I heard” (1 Kings 10:6).

When Jesus says that the believer will be justified “by thy words” on the day of judgment, the two examples He gives are the words spoken by the Queen of Sheba and by the Ninevites at the moment they first believed, and their final justification is based on the very same righteousness they possessed at the moment they first believed. Notably, Christ explained this truth at the same time He taught that a man speaks “out of the abundance of the heart” (Matthew 12:34) and also admonished the Pharisees that the only sign they would receive is the sign of Jonas, for “so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Here Jesus has taught to us the very concept Paul would one day restate in his Epistle to the Romans:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 10:9-11)

The Queen of the Sheba and the Ninevites will be justified by their words on the last day, and those words were the overflow of the faith of their hearts—a faith that was lacking in the Pharisees.

Such men as Piper often appeal to the famous passage in which the sheep are separated from the goats in Matthew 25, desiring by the recitation of the believer’s works to prove final justification (see, for example, Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006) 276). The problem with such an appeal to Matthew 25 for final justification based on works is that the sheep and goats are separated into two groups before anyone’s works are evaluated. In other words, they are separated into two groups based on whether they are sheep or goats. Since sheep are defined as those who believe (John 10:16,26), the scene of judgment in Matthew 25:31-33 actually has the sheep separated based on faith, not works, which is to say that the sheep were separated based on a righteousness apart from works. Neither the sheep nor the Shepherd has entertained works in the separation of “His sheep” from “the goats.” Even when the works of the sheep are recited, the sheep are unaware of them and clearly had not anticipated a discussion about their works, i.e., “when saw we thee …? … when saw we thee …? … when saw we thee?” (Matthew 25:37-39). The sheep had arrived at the throne of judgment without their own personal holiness or moral improvement in mind.

The precise language of Matthew 12 and 25 is worth examining for these reasons. Whereas in Matthew 12, we have the concept of final justification on the Last Day, Jesus curiously omits works in His discussion of the verdict. Faith is what He has in mind. In Matthew 25, we have the concept of works being contemplated on the Last Day, but we do not find those works contemplated in the separation of the sheep from the goats, for sheep are separated based on faith before works are contemplated, and further, the sheep did not have their works in mind. It is a curious reality to discover that when Jesus does mention justification on the last day (Matthew 12), He leaves out works. When He mentions works (Matthew 25), He mentions them only after the sheep have already been separated based on righteousness apart from works, and the sheep had not arrived expecting to offer their works in exchange for eternal life. In both chapters of Matthew, it is clear that on the Last Day, the sheep will be set apart based on faith alone apart from works, which is exactly what the sheep are expecting.

Our point in highlighting these facts is to show what is missing in the Gospel of Jesus and Paul. What is missing is Piper’s Roman Catholic construct that with the heart man believeth unto initial righteousness and then by the accumulated holiness of works the man arriveth at the judgment seat to determine whether his personal holiness is sufficient to merit eternal life, and then entereth into final salvation that he has earned by his works. In other words, Piper has now adopted a different gospel than the one Jesus taught to Paul.

Not only is Piper’s position heresy; it is damnable heresy. It is, in fact, the Roman Catholic system of salvation by works through the gradual accumulation of the merit of personal holiness. But according to Jesus, there is no distinction to be made between one being justified and being saved, and there is no difference between the righteousness contemplated when we first believed and righteousness by which we will be acquitted on the last day. It is all, and only, Jesus’ righteousness.

Works That Follow Justification by Faith

To be sure, the works that Piper is referring to are post-justification works which every Christian ought to exhibit to some extent. The problem, however, is that Piper says these post-justification works are necessary for salvation or necessary in order to attain heaven. Again, it is highly revealing to note the consistency of Piper’s theology in what he wrote two years prior in the foreword to Thomas Schreiner’s book,

"The stunning Christian answer is: sola fide—faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely: He says right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions."[ix]

We should take notice of the consistency of Piper's statements over the years. What he recently wrote was not simply a slip of the pen. Here he makes the distinction between being right with God and entering into heaven. He states there are “other conditions,” besides faith, that one must meet in order to attain heaven. In making his distinction he presents faith as a “condition” we meet. In Reformed orthodoxy however, faith is not a condition we must meet to receive the righteousness of Christ. We are not declared righteous because we believe. Instead, faith is the instrumental cause of justification that God uses as the means to apply or impute Christ's righteousness to us. Through faith alone we appropriate Christ and his righteousness which is why the Larger Catechism provides the following answer to question 73. “How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?”

"Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it (Gal. 3:11; Rom. 3:28), nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification (Rom. 4:5; Rom 10:10); but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness (John 1:12; Phil 3:9; Gal 2:16)."

Not only does Piper error in making faith a condition but he suggests that there are other conditions that one must meet after being justified in order to attain heaven. What “conditions” must the believer meet in order to attain heaven? Piper is suggesting that post-justification works are necessary for us to attain salvation and heaven. John Robbins responded emphatically to this notion when he wrote,

Paul damned the Judaizers for teaching that post-[justification] works of righteousness are necessary for entrance into Heaven. The contention of both the Roman Church and the Judaizers [and now Piper] is that one cannot be saved without post-[justification], that is post-regeneration, works of righteousness. The Judaizers taught that one must be circumcised and obey other parts of the Mosaic law; the Roman Church teaches both the necessity and meritoriousness of good works of Christians for salvation;” [and now Piper teaches both the necessity of works and obedience of faith for salvation].[x]

James on Justification and Works

Piper appeals to James chapter 2 for support of his view of a final salvation that is in some way dependent on our works and obedience. He writes,

Especially as it pertains to final salvation, so many of us live in a fog of confusion. James saw in his day those who were treating “faith alone” as a doctrine that claimed you could be justified by faith which produced no good works. And he vehemently said No to such faith… The faith which alone justifies is never alone, but always bearing transforming fruit. So, when James says these controversial words, “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24), I take him to mean not by faith which is alone, but which shows itself by works.[xi]

Piper is correct to point out that the faith which justifies is a faith which shows itself by works. However, he is wrong to think that these works have anything to do with our final salvation. Piper fundamentally misunderstands the point that James is making with respect to justification and works. James is speaking about bearing fruit before men, not about being declared righteous or justified before God at the final judgment. The faith that justifies is not a faith that is alone, but rather it is made manifest in works which in turn justify our profession of faith before men; not before God. Therefore verse 18 of James chapter 2 says, “I will shew thee my faith by my works.” This demonstration of faith is before men, not before God at the final judgment. To suggest or even imply that the works James is referring to have anything to do with our final salvation is to venture headlong into the citadel of Rome. This is why John Calvin wrote,

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists [the Romanist], we must take notice of the two-fold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, “Show my thy faith,” etc.[xii]

Unfortunately, there is much confusion surrounding what James meant about justification and how it relates to what Paul meant by justification. When we compare James 2:24 with Romans 3:28 we see that both Paul and James are speaking of being justified, but we must ask, “justified in what sense?” James is referring to justification with respect to one’s profession of faith being justified or (validated) before man while Paul is referring to justification with respect to one being justified or (declared righteous) before God. James is answering the question how does one justify their profession of faith before others while Paul is answering the question how does one stand justified before God.

The reformers correctly recognized, based on Scripture alone, that a person is wholly and completely justified and saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Romans 4:5 states, “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness..” Here we notice that righteousness unto salvation comes by faith, not by works. In the preceding verse, it reads, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” (Romans 4:4 ESV). If one were to work in order that they might receive salvation then they would be receiving their due wage not a gift. But the Bible makes it clear that salvation is a gift and it is not of works. In Ephesians 2:8,9 it reads, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Some theologians however, have stated that we are saved by faith alone but that works are part of faith. As O. Palmer Robertson notes, “According to [Norman Shepherd’s] view, faith is united with works as a single response to the Gospel call for justification. As a consequence, justification is by faith and by works, or by faith/works, or by the works of faith.”[xiii] This is an egregious error for if we “hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Roman 3:28 ESV) then works cannot be part of faith. Works are not part of faith nor are they united with faith but rather they are a consequence of faith. Dr. Reymond writes,

Whereas Paul is concerned with the question of how a man may achieve right standing before God, and turns to Genesis 15:6 to find his answer, James is concerned with the question of how a man is to demonstrate [before others] that he is actually justified before God and has true faith, and turns to Genesis 22: 9-10 as the probative fulfillment of Genesis 15:6 to find his answer.[xiv]

Paul condemns works added to faith while James commends works which are produced by faith. We have to be discerning here because our salvation does not rest on what we do but rather it rests entirely in what Christ has done for us. James asks the question in verse 14, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” This is the issue James is confronting. If someone says he has faith but does not have works, then he is a liar and the truth is not in him. He is a false convert, a hypocrite who is self-deceived. James is asking what good is that profession of faith. Can that profession of faith save him? The answer is no because that is merely a false profession of faith rather than a true and living faith. James says in verse 17 “so also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” A true and living faith will inevitably manifest itself in works but it does not add anything to our salvation. Not now or ever! Unfortunately, Piper is wrong and this teaching of his is not only heretical but dangerous.

Listen to our podcast discussing this topic – HERE

[i] Piper, John. “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” Desiring God. September 25, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2017. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone.

[ii] Piper, John. “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” Desiring God. September 25, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2017. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone.

[iii] All scripture passages are quoted from KJV unless otherwise noted.

[iv] Reymond, Robert L. A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. p. 750

[v] Murray, “Justification,” Collected Writings, 2:221 quoted in Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of The Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001; p. 750 emphasis mine

[vi] Rhodes, Ron. Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics. Harvest House Publishers, 2000. pp. 121-122

[vii] Reymond, Robert L. A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. p. 735

[viii] Schreiner, Thomas R. Faith alone– the doctrine of justification: what the reformers taught … and why it matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015 (emphasis added).

[ix] Schreiner, Thomas R. Faith alone– the doctrine of justification: what the reformers taught … and why it matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015 (emphasis added).

[x] Robbins, John. “The Gospel According to John MacArthur.” Trinity Foundation. May & june 1993. Accessed September 20, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193.

[xi] Piper, John. “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” Desiring God. September 25, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2017. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone.

[xii] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Eerdmans, 1948, 314 f. quoted in Robertson, O. Palmer. The current justification controversy. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003. p. 18

[xiii] Robertson, O. Palmer. The current justification controversy. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003. p. 24

[xiv] Reymond, Robert L. A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson, 2001. p. 749

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Keller, Timothy. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. New York: Dutton, 2008. Kindle edition. Although Keller is a Reformed pastor in good standing with the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), he strays considerably from sound biblical doctrine and compromises the gospel in one of his better-known publications, The Prodigal God. More unfortunate is that few seem to realize this. This review will apply Scripture to correct the doctrinal errors in Keller’s The Prodigal God, for “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tm 3:16).[1]

It is not enough to simply recognize doctrinal errors; they must be corrected publicly. Any pastor who recognizes such errors, especially ones that pertain to the essentials of the faith, yet remains silent is derelict in his duty to uphold sound doctrine. This is why Paul tells Titus that an elder is to “give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Ti 1:9). It is important to examine popular and influential works like The Prodigal God in light of what the Bible mandates in places such as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and Acts 17:9-11.

The purpose and target audience of The Prodigal God are clearly stated by Keller in the introduction:

THIS short book is meant to lay out the essentials of the Christian message, the gospel. It can, therefore, serve as an introduction to the Christian faith for those who are unfamiliar with its teachings or who may have been away from them for some time.

This volume is not just for seekers, however. Many lifelong Christian believers feel they understand the basics of the Christian faith quite well and don’t think they need a primer. Nevertheless, one of the signs that you many not grasp the unique radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do.

This book, then, is written to both curious outsiders and established insiders of the faith both to those Jesus calls “younger brothers” and those he calls “elder brothers” in the famous Parable of the Prodigal Son.[2]

Keller states that his book “lays out the essentials of the Christian message,” which he correctly identifies as the gospel, and it is for this reason that we will examine what Keller teaches about the gospel. The reader should keep in mind that Keller wrote this book for “seekers” and “curious outsiders” as well as “established insiders of the faith.” That Keller is writing to non-Christians as well as mature Christians is troublesome, considering the book’s doctrinal errors. We can also wonder why there aren’t more Christians calling Keller to give an account of his many false teachings in this book.

Throughout The Prodigal God Keller identifies the “curious outsiders” as the younger brother and the “established insiders of the faith” as the elder brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. While Keller rightly identifies the elder brother in the parable as the Pharisees, he also calls them “established insiders of the faith,” which is confusing and misleading because the Pharisees adamantly rejected Christ. And while Scripture states that we are to “examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith” (2 Cor 13:5), Keller nevertheless calls them “established insiders of the faith.” One has to ask: What is the criterion Keller uses to identify the Pharisees as “established insiders of the faith?” And what “faith” is he referring too? We will take a closer look at this too and show from Scripture that in order to make this portrayal, Keller has to ignore—and often blatantly contradict—what the Bible teaches concerning the Pharisees.

One of the most troubling statements made by Keller in the introduction is that “one of the signs that you may not grasp the unique radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do.” Not only is this absurd, it is troubling in light of what Keller says regarding the believer’s assurance of salvation in later chapters of the book. This statement is for the “established insiders of the faith” who “think they don’t need a primer” on the Christian faith. If it is true, though, that one of the signs you may not grasp the gospel is that you are certain that you do, then you can never be certain of your salvation. If you are certain that you have grasped the gospel message, then that is one of the signs that you may not have grasped it at all! This is a serious problem because understanding the gospel is necessary for salvation. Why else did Paul write, “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ”? (Gal 2:16). Is Paul’s confidence in having grasped the gospel to be taken as a sign that he has not grasped it at all? Why did John “write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God”? Answer: “That you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 Jn 5:13). The truth is that believers can be certain of their salvation because of what Christ has done on the cross. We will compare this statement further with what Keller describes as assurance later in this review.

The Elder Brother and the Pharisees

Keller’s portrayal of the elder brother is sure to leave his readers with an unbiblical understanding of the Pharisees. We will first look at what Keller says about the elder brother and then what he says concerning the Pharisees. We also need to consider why he portrays the Pharisees the way he does.

Keller and the elder brother

Keller correctly identifies who the elder brother in Jesus’ parable represents and to whom the parable is directed. He knows Jesus is using the elder brother as an illustration of the Pharisees and that he is directing his parable at them:

The second group of listeners was the “Pharisees and the teachers of the Law,” who were represented by the elder brother. (7)

So to whom is Jesus’s teaching in this parable directed? It is to the second group, the scribes, and Pharisees. (7)

It is because the real audience for this story is the Pharisees, the elder brothers. Jesus is pleading with his enemies to respond to his message. (27)

The elder brother gets no harsh condemnation but a loving plea to turn from his anger and self-righteousness. Jesus is pleading in love with his deadliest enemies. (74)

So while Keller correctly identifies the elder brother as representative of the Pharisees and even correctly calls them the “enemies” and the “deadliest enemies” of Christ, he also calls them “insiders of the faith”:

This book, then, is written to both curious outsiders and established insiders of the faith both to those Jesus calls “younger brothers” and those he calls “elder brothers” in the famous Parable of the Prodigal Son.” (Introduction)

The targets of this story are not “wayward sinners” but religious people who do everything the Bible requires. Jesus is pleading not so much with immoral outsiders as with moral insiders.” (8)

Keller identifies the Pharisees as both the “moral insiders” and “established insiders of the faith,” the same Pharisees who were the “deadliest enemies” of Jesus. While it may be true that many churches today have legalistic “elder brother Pharisees,” no legalistic Pharisee is “in the faith.” Keller applies the illustration of the elder brother to modern-day Christians, even though it’s impossible for a true Christian to be a legalistic Pharisee. Jesus is not directing his teaching to “insiders of the faith.” It appears that from Keller’s perspective it is possible to be an “established insider of the faith” and yet at the same time be an “enemy” of Jesus. Of course, a person can “profess” to be a Christian, attend a church every Sunday, and yet be a legalistic Pharisee, but Keller never makes this distinction.

Keller and Pharisees

So what does a Pharisee look like from Keller’s perspective? Keller identifies the Pharisees as the moral conformists who believe and obey the Bible and put the will of God and the community first. He blurs the line between a Christian believer and a Pharisee, which seems hard to do since they are polar opposites. In other words, Keller portrays the Pharisee as a picture of what Christians should be! He argues that the second group of listeners was the

Pharisees and the teachers of the law, who were represented by the elder brother… They studied and obeyed the Scriptures. They worshiped faithfully and prayed constantly. (7)

So to whom is Jesus’s teaching in this parable directed? It is the second group, the scribes, and Pharisees… The targets of this story are not “wayward sinners” but religious people who do everything the Bible requires. Jesus is pleading not so much with immoral outsiders as with moral insiders. (8)

Jesus’s teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing religious people of his day. (15)

So from the quotes above, we have the Pharisees depicted as the Bible-believing religious people of Jesus day who studied and obeyed the Scriptures and did everything the Bible requires. Let’s compare this with how the Bible describes the Pharisees and ask some basic questions.

First, even though the Pharisees read and studied the scriptures, did they believe and obey them? Note that the “Scriptures” the Pharisees had at the time was the Old Testament.

Jesus said to the Pharisees, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (Jn 5:46)

Jesus also said, “But you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (Jn 10:26-27).

The Pharisees did not believe Jesus and therefore did not believe what Moses wrote. They did not believe the Scriptures and they were not the “Bible-believing religious people of [Jesus’] day.” John Robbins writes, “It is a complete fiction to say that Orthodox Jews believe the Old Testament. Those who assert that unrepentant Jews believe the Old Testament call Christ a liar.”[3] In passages like John 10:26-27 Jesus plainly says that they did not believe because “You are not part of my flock.”

Second, did the Pharisees obey Scripture as Keller asserts? It is clear from Jesus’ own words that they did not obey. Jesus said they were lawless hypocrites: "Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Mt 23:26). Just as the reprobate cannot be the elect, a person cannot be both lawless and obedient at the same time. The Pharisees had an outward expression of obedience but they did not actually obey the Scriptures: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men… You have a fine way of rejecting the commandments of God in order to establish your own tradition” (Mk 7:8-9). Unfortunately, Keller does not point any of this out and contradicts what the Bible says by stating that they were “religious people who do everything the Bible requires.”

And while Keller says that “they worshiped faithfully,” the Bible says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me” (Mk 7:6-7). The Pharisees may have been devoted false worshipers but Keller makes it appear as if they were faithfully worshiping the one true God.

Keller also knows that he can’t press every single detail literally from the metaphor:

Let me be careful to avoid a misunderstanding here. This story is a great metaphor of sin and salvation, but we can’t press every single detail literally. Neither Jesus nor any author of the Bible ever implies that any human being is flawless, without sin or fault, except Jesus himself.” (74)

While Keller gives this disclaimer he nevertheless continually draws out details from the parable that contradict the Bible. He is correct in saying that no “human being is flawless, without sin or fault, except Jesus himself,” yet he neglects what the Bible actually teaches concerning the true condition of man’s depravity. This is only part of the truth; which he continually betrays in what he writes about the Pharisees. This “Reformed” pastor undermines the Biblical doctrine of total depravity, especially when he attempts to make a distinction between the Pharisee and the true believer by claiming that the Pharisees are “being good”:

They key difference between a Pharisee and a believer in Jesus is inner-heart motivation. Pharisees are being good but out of a fear-fueled need to control God. They don’t really trust him or love him. To them, God is an exacting boss, not a loving father. (85)

So while Keller virtually erases the line between a Christian and Pharisee and actually applies the elder brother image to true Christians, he does make a distinction between Pharisee and true believer. Normally this would be helpful but unfortunately, he once again ignores what the Bible says and creates false distinctions and contradictions.

It would appear by and large that many young, restless, and reformed readers are not even batting an eye when they read this book. Let’s compare again Keller’s teachings with the Bible. He says that the Pharisees are “being good” but Jesus said, “no one is good except God alone” (Lk 18:19).

One might argue that Keller doesn’t exactly call them good in the quote, but rather he just says they are “being good.” This is still baffling! When were they ever “being good?” Was it when they “were persecuting Jesus” (Jn 5:16)? Or how about when they “were seeking all the more to kill him” (Jn 5:18)? Were they being good when Christ called them lawless hypocrites (Mt 23:26)? Or when he told them they were doing the desires of their father the Devil (Jn 8:48)? Were they being good when they were going to stone him (Jn 10:33)? Or was it when they cried, “Crucify him!” (Lk 23:21)?

Keller argues that the “key difference” is “inner-heart motivation.” It’s not repentance, it’s not faith in Christ, it’s not that one has Satan as their father and the other is the child of God, it’s not that one is in the kingdom of darkness and one in the kingdom of light, and it’s not even their unconverted human depravity. No, it’s just their “heart motivation.” Keller says that the “inner-heart motivation” is the problem but then identifies this inner-heart motivation as a “fear-fueled need to control God.” Yet the Bible clearly says that “there is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom 3:18). Jesus said, “Out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks,” and the inner heart-motivation of the Pharisees was revealed when “they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” (Lk 23:21). The true difference between a Christian and a Pharisee is repentance and faith in the redemptive work of Jesus that bears fruit in keeping with repentance (Lk 3:8).

Keller also says “they don’t really trust him or love him,” and he is correct but he fails to mention the true disposition of the unconverted sinner, which is that they’re all “haters of God” (Rom 1:30). Perhaps this would be too offensive to his curious outsiders. He writes, “to them God is an exacting boss, not a loving father,” suggesting that the problem rests in their perception of God rather than identifying man’s actual relationship with God as the real problem. To them, God is not a loving father because they have a different father, as previously mentioned.

Such a trivial distinction doesn’t matter though because the Bible makes it clear that “no one does good, not even one,” (Rom 3:12) as long as we remain unconverted. Only after we are made alive in Christ can we do any good works “which God prepared beforehand, that we should just walk in them” (Eph 2:10). The Bible thunderously denounces all merit placed in man outside of faith in Christ: “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23), for “all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Is 64:6).

So from the Bible we can see that the Pharisees were not the Bible-believing religious people of Jesus day. They did not obey the Scriptures, they did not do everything the Bible required, and they did not put the will of God first. Keller abuses the text and wrongly portrays the Pharisees as what Christians should look like, while at the same time misapplying the illustration of the elder brother to this same group of “Christians,” or, as he puts it, “insiders of the faith.” Why does Keller distort the Biblical view of the Pharisees so much and equate them with conservative Christians? Keller claims that “if our churches aren’t appealing to the younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we’d like to think” (14). He seems to think that because our churches have “conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people” (14) in them, that is why “the licentious and liberated or broken and marginal avoid church” (14). Dr. E.S. Williams writes:

Keller uses the image of the elder brother to caricature conservative Christians as judgmental, hostile bigots. In Keller’s mind, the reason that conservative churches are so unpleasant is because they are filled with elder brothers (conservative Christians), who speak out against liberal, immoral values on sex and politics. Keller is profoundly hostile towards conservative Christians, whom he regards as the major cause of most problems in the world. So we have the remarkable paradox of a leading Presbyterian theologian who is vehemently opposed to the Reformed Christian faith. Even more amazing is the fact that he is the leader of The Gospel Coalition.[4]

Keller’s motive for writing such things is irrelevant if he is unfaithful to Scripture. It is egregious that Keller makes the Pharisees look like Christians, applies the elder brother image to Christians, and then makes a false distinction between the Christian and Pharisee. In so doing he contradicts the Bible repeatedly. This, however, is not the only problem with the book.

Redefining Sin

The title of Chapter 3 is “Redefining Sin.” Keller here distorts the biblical view of sin and attaches his own view to the parable of the prodigal son while at the same time appealing to the authority of Jesus. It is not uncommon for liberals, heretics, and false teachers to use orthodox language only to redefine the language in their teachings. Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses use the name of Jesus only to redefine the biblical doctrine of Christ. It is also very common for false teachers to make appeals of authority to Jesus in an attempt to pass off their unbiblical teachings. Many false prosperity preachers likewise appeal to Jesus’ own words in John 10:10, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly,” to preach their false health, wealth, prosperity gospel. In this chapter Keller once again injects his own views into the biblical text, contradicts the Bible, and makes a false appeal to Jesus as the one who is teaching what Keller is teaching:

Why doesn’t the elder brother go in? He himself gives the reason: “Because I’ve never disobeyed you.” The elder brother is not losing the father’s love in spite of his goodness, but because of it. It is not his sins that create the barrier between him and his father, it’s the pride he has in his moral record: it’s not his wrongdoing but his righteousness that is keeping him from sharing in the feast of the fathers.” (33)

Keller says that it is because of the elder son’s “goodness” that he is losing the father’s love and that creates a barrier between them, rather than his sins. Keep in mind that the elder brother represents the Pharisaical moral insiders of the faith and the father is a representation of Jesus. Can we lose God’s love because of our goodness? What else but sin could create a barrier between us and God? Can goodness and righteousness separate us from God?

Keller contradicts what Jesus said to the rich young ruler in Luke 18:19. While Keller affirms that the elder brother is good and righteous, Jesus, on the other hand, tells the rich young ruler, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Once again Scripture says, “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10). What definition of righteous and good is Keller using if not a Biblical one? Apart from Christ, we have no righteousness or goodness. Keller identifies pride as the real problem but this pride is nothing less than sinful and is, therefore, wrong. Therefore, it would be the elder son’s wrongdoing, not his “goodness” that keeps him from sharing in the feast.

But Keller claims the opposite. He says that “the elder brother is not losing the father’s love in spite of his goodness, but because of it.” Yet when the rich young ruler boasted of his own goodness by saying, “All these [commandments] I have kept from my youth” (Lk 18:21), Jesus did not tell him that he was losing the father’s love because of his goodness. Instead, Jesus pointed him back to the first commandment by showing him that he loved his money more than God when he told him to “sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” (Lk 18:22). Jesus’ response to the young man was consistent with what he said in response to the question about the greatest commandment to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Mt 22:36). By loving his money more than God he was violating the first and greatest commandment. The young man left very sad because he was very rich (Lk 18:23). Notice that Jesus didn’t affirm the rich young ruler’s goodness in Luke 18, nor did he affirm the Pharisees’ goodness through the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus tells the Pharisees in Luke 16:15, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” So Jesus in no way intended to affirm the “goodness” of the Pharisees in the parable because they are “an abomination in the sight of God.”

And Jesus certainly did not intend to teach that it was “not his sins that create the barrier between him and his father.” Keller is a terrible expositor. Of course, it is our sin that creates a barrier between us and God! This is why Jesus pointed the rich young ruler back to the law to show him his sin. This is why Galatians 3:24 says the law was our schoolmaster, and why Paul says in Romans 7:7, “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” Jesus showed the rich young ruler it was his sin that was the problem, not his goodness. So while Keller says it was not his sin that created a barrier, Isaiah 59:2 reads, “It's your sins that have cut you off [created a barrier] from God. Because of your sins, he has turned away and will not listen anymore.” Clearly then, the real problem is the elder brother’s sin, not his “goodness” and “righteousness.”

Keller unravels his false teaching further:

Each one [of the sons], in other words, rebelled—but one did so by being very bad and the other by being extremely good.

Do you realize, then, what Jesus is teaching? Neither son loved the father for himself. They both were using the father for their own self-centered ends rather than loving, enjoying, and serving him for his own sake. This means that you can rebel against God and be alienated from him either by breaking his rules or by keeping all of them diligently.” (36)

How can a person rebel against God by being extremely good? If a person is rebelling against God at all then they clearly are not being good in any sense. It is impossible to rebel against God by being extremely good because the qualities of rebellion and goodness are contradictory. That is, unless you equivocate on the terms good and evil, in which case you should consider Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

In the second part of the quote, Keller attributes his false teaching onto Jesus. He says that Jesus is teaching that “you can rebel against God and be alienated from him either by breaking his rules or by keeping all of them diligently”; yet this is not what Jesus told the rich young ruler, and it’s not at all what Jesus is teaching in the parable. He did not tell the young ruler that he was “alienated” from God for keeping all of the laws since his youth, but instead showed the man that he was in trouble for not keeping the law. Perhaps it’s true that both sons in the parable were using the father but the conclusion Keller draws is false. While Keller says that we can be alienated and can rebel against God by “keeping all of the rules diligently,” the Psalmist writes, “You have commanded your precepts to be kept diligently” (Ps119:4)! Keller contradicts the Bible yet again, for God commands us to keep his moral laws diligently! The real problem is that we fail to keep them, and this is sin.

Here is another of Keller’s false appeals to Jesus:

With this parable, Jesus gives us a much deeper concept of “sin” than any of us would have if he didn’t supply it. Most people think of sin as failing to keep God’s rules of conduct, but, while not less than that, Jesus’s definition of sin goes beyond it.” (34)

Here, then, is Jesus’s radical redefinition of what is wrong with us. Nearly everyone defines sin as breaking a list of rules. Jesus, though, shows us that a man who has violated virtually nothing on the list of moral misbehaviors can be every bit as spiritually lost as the most profligate, immoral person. Why? Because sin is not just breaking the rules, it is putting yourself in the placed of God as Savior, Lord, and Judge just as each son sought to displace the authority of the father in his own life.” (42)

It’s hard to imagine that one of the founders of the Gospel Coalition could be such a terrible expositor. Keller wants us to believe that Jesus told the parable to provide us with a much deeper concept of sin, even though Jesus himself said, “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Mt 13:13). Jesus spoke in parables to confuse his hearers and to keep them from understanding, and the prodigal son parable was meant to mock the Pharisees’ self-righteousness and total ignorance of God (Lk 15:1-3). How is it that Keller thinks that only in this parable do we have access to this deeper understanding of sin when Jesus magnified the law and gave a deeper understanding of sin in Matthew 5 when he discussed anger and lust?

Keller wants his readers to believe that Jesus is redefining sin, but Jesus was always consistent and in perfect harmony with Scripture. Jesus is not redefining anything at all in this parable. Keller wants us to believe that “sin is not just breaking the rules [commandments], it is putting yourself in the place of God.” But putting yourself in the place of God is breaking the very first rule! “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3). This is exactly what Satan did when he said, “I will make myself like the Most High” (Is 14:14). Sin, whether in thought or deed, is a violation of God’s holy standard. This is why the Westminster Confession (which Keller is also fond of contradicting) reads in Chapter VI.6, “Every sin—both original and actual—is a transgression of the righteous lawof God and contrary to it.” What Keller writes is nothing short of confusion, yet he intends this book to be an introduction to the Christian faith for outsiders and a primer for “established insiders.” No, thank you. Paul tells Titus to “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Ti 2:1), but Keller’s teaching does not accord with sound doctrine.

Keller’s Gospel

While Keller intends The Prodigal God to be a sort of primer which “is meant to lay out the essentials of the Christian message, the gospel,” it is Keller himself who distorts the biblical doctrine of atonement and compromises the gospel.

Keller writes that “one of the signs that you many not grasp the unique radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do,” but he later writes, “The inevitable sign that you know you are a sinner saved by sheer, costly grace is a sensitive social conscience and a life poured out in deeds of service to the poor.” (112)

Keller suggests that you really can’t know if you're saved by believing in what Jesus has done, but that you can have assurance of your salvation based on what you have done. This is Romanism at its heart: “The Romanists held that a man is to believe in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ, but that this belief brought with it no assurance of justification; though possibly, if the man lived a very holy life, God might before he died reveal his grace to him, and give him assurance.”[5] The Protestant view of assurance is rooted in the knowledge of the historical redemptive work of Jesus on the cross.

It is also wrong to say that the “inevitable sign” that you are saved is a “sensitive social conscience and a life poured out in deeds of service to the poor” simply because many who are not saved do this. What about repentance and faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins?

Keller contradicts himself still further and betrays the gospel of justification by faith alone when he writes, “As long as you are trying to earn your salvation by controlling God through goodness, you will never be sure you have been good enough for him. You simply aren’t sure God loves and delights in you” (61). This is a lie. By making the problem of a works-based salvation one of assurance, Keller compromises the gospel and allows his readers to keep the idea that the only thing lacking is assurance of salvation, not salvation itself when they attempt to earn salvation. The problem for those who are trying to earn their salvation is not a lack of assurance but a forfeiture of the gospel. If a person is trying to earn their salvation, then they are not saved because they are not trusting in the finished work of Christ. Keller blurs the true distinction between the true gospel of justification by faith alone and a false gospel which includes works. Paul writes, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). In fact, it is the one who does not work but believes that is justified. “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

Keller also seems to think that if we are not attracting people to our churches then it must mean that we are not preaching the same message as Jesus.

The kind of outsiders Jesus attracted are not attracted to the contemporary churches, even our most avant-garde ones.

If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on the people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. (14)

Paul warns Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me,” (2 Tm 1:13), and he commands Titus to “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Ti 2:1), but never does he attribute the lack of success in ministry to a compromising of the message of Jesus. In fact, we see just the opposite. Those who compromise sound biblical doctrine often have the biggest ministries, which is why Paul warns, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Tm 4:3). Paul does not say that if you are not filling your churches then you must not be preaching the same message as Jesus. This kind of thinking leads to tampering with the message of Jesus, which is exactly what Keller has done in this book. Keller reduces the gospel to a message of feigned humility:

Jesus says: “The humble are in and the proud are out” (see Luke 18:14). The people who confess they aren’t particularly good or open-minded are moving toward God because the prerequisite for receiving the grace of God is to know that you need it. The people, who think they are just fine, thank you, are moving away from God. “The Lord… cares for the humble, but he keeps his distance from the proud” (Psalm 138:6 – New Living Translation).

When a newspaper posed the question, “What’s Wrong with the World?” the Catholic thinker G.K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: “Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton.” That is the attitude of someone who grasped the message of Jesus. (45)

Keller once again attributes his false teaching to Jesus by misquoting him from the text in Luke 18:14. The verse actually reads, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” The reader should note that Jesus never says, “The humble are in and the proud are out.” Keller misleads his readers on two accounts here. First by misquoting Jesus and second by the conclusion he makes from the text he misquotes. The verse says that “this man [the tax collector] went down to his house justified,” but why was he justified? It was not simply because he was humble, as Keller claims. It is true that the man showed humility but that was only part of the whole message, and Keller substitutes the part for the whole in order reduce the gospel to an issue of humility. Jesus was speaking the parable to “some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Lk 18:9), but it was the tax collector who said, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” (Lk 18:13). Furthermore, the Greek word for “be merciful” is hilasthēti, which literally means “be propitious.” The tax collector cried out and asked God to be propitious—to turn away His wrath from him. This is not just a depiction of humility but rather a depiction of saving faith. We see that the Pharisees trusted in their works and good deeds but it was the tax collector who was justified by rightly understanding his depravity and expressing saving faith.

Keller’s false gospel manifests itself by giving as an example someone who did not believe in the gospel of justification by faith alone. Keller, a Reformed pastor, affirms G. K. Chesterton, a Roman Catholic, as “someone who grasped the message of Jesus” on the basis of nothing more than a feigned expression of humility. The message of Jesus was, “Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15), but as a Roman Catholic Chesterton did not believe the true gospel of justification by faith alone. He was hostile to the Protestant faith, became an apostate, and affirmed the false gospel of justification by faith and works. He was nothing less than an Antichrist who opposed the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Mt 12:30), and those who oppose the true gospel set themselves against Christ himself. It is remarkable that Keller affirms a Roman Catholic who affirmed a false gospel as someone who grasped the message of Jesus. This is the necessary consequence of Keller's false gospel that the “humble are in.”

Keller also has a history of ecumenism and fondness for Roman Catholicism. Timothy Kauffman has made mention of this on his blog:

Tim Keller (PCA Minister): “The best things that have been written [on meditation] almost are by Catholics during the counter-reformation—Ignatius Loyola, Francis de Sales, John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila—great stuff!”[6]

These people whom Keller endorsed to his own church led the Counter-Reformation and wanted nothing more than to rid the world of justification by faith alone. They vehemently opposed Luther and Calvin and despised the true gospel. Keller has been known to frequently use and even endorse those who preach a false gospel. He quotes N.T. Wright liberally in The Reason for God, yet Wright teaches a works-based salvation. Paul wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom 16:17 KJV). Yet we have the leader and co-founder of the Gospel Coalition endorsing and affirming those who preach a false gospel. Shame on Keller.

Unfortunately, that isn’t all. Keller distorts the gospel further by substituting the biblical doctrine of atonement for heresy.

He came and experienced the exile that we deserved. He was expelled from the presence of the father, He was thrust into darkness, the uttermost despair of spiritual alienation – in our place. He took upon himself the full curse of human rebellion, cosmic homelessness, so that we could be welcomed into our true home. (101)

This is heresy. “The full curse of human rebellion” is not “cosmic homelessness”; it is God’s wrath. Keller only talks about exile, alienation, and homelessness in his book as the sole punishment that befalls wicked sinners. He never mentions the wrath of God that abides on sinners and instead eliminates it by claiming that the full curse is “cosmic homelessness.”

This distorts the gospel by denying the doctrine of propitiation. The word propitiation refers to the satisfying of God’s wrath against the sinner through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus on the cross. If we exclude propitiation by excluding God’s wrath, then we forfeit the gospel, and that is exactly what Keller has done in this book. Jesus did not redeem us from the curse of the law and become a curse for us (Gal 3:13) by merely being forsaken or becoming spiritually “homeless”; He suffered and bore the full wrath of God.

Paul tells us that we were by nature “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). If propitiation is removed from the gospel, then the wrath of God still abides on the sinner’s head and we have no gospel at all. If Jesus only saved us from exile, then He did not ultimately satisfy or propitiate the wrath of God on behalf of his people. Paul tells us that it was Jesus “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith…. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:25, 26). Without propitiation, there can be no justification. Jesus, therefore, did not just experience exile or homelessness as Keller teaches, for “it was the will of the Lord to crush him” (Is 53:10) as well.

Keller distorts the gospel in The Prodigal God along with various other doctrines and must be held accountable for what he teaches. I, therefore, do not recommend this book or its author.

________________________________________

[1] Scripture references are ESV unless otherwise noted. All emphases in Scripture quotations are mine.

[2] Brackets and emphases are mine.

[3] John W. Robbins, “The White Horse Inn: Nonsense on Tap,” The Trinity Review 271 (September/October, 2007), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=245.

[4] E.S. Williams, “The Prodigal God,” review of The Prodigal God, by Timothy Keller, The New Calvinists, accessed March 10, 2014, Keller’s books, http://www.newcalvinist.com/tim-kellers-false-gospel/the-prodigal-god/.

[5] Horatius Bonar, “Assurance of Salvation,” The Trinity Review (April, 1994), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=185.

[6] Timothy Kauffman, "And the Diviners Have Seen a Lie," accessed June 1, 2014, http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/05/18/and-the-diviners-have-seen-a-lie/.

[7] See E.S. Williams, “Keller redefines the gospel,” The New Calvinists, http://www.newcalvinist.com/tim-kellers-false-gospel/keller-redefines-gospel/.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]