View fullsize

“Therewith [Errour] spewd out of her filthy maw / A floud of poyson horrible and blacke, / Full of great lumpes of flesh and gobbets raw, / Which stunck so vildly, that it forst him slacke / His grasping hold, and from her turne him backe: / Her vomit full of bookes° and papers was, / With loathly frogs and toades, which eyes did lacke, / And creeping sought way in the weedy gras: / Her filthy parbreake all the place defiled has.” (Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene)

Count the costs. It takes sweat. And blood. And tears. And a cramped hand. If you want readers to enjoy your work, you must suffer. The term "writer" is misleading, however. Rewriter is more adequate, for good writing requires rewriting. Great writers are not born great; they are forged by study and practice. Consider the words of ancient Greek rhetorician Isocrates:

In the art of rhetoric, credit is won not by gifts of fortune, but by efforts of study. For those who have been gifted with eloquence by nature and by fortune, are governed in what they say by chance, and not by any standard of what is best, whereas those who have gained this power by study and by the exercise of language never speak without weighting their words, and so are less often in error as to a course of action. (Antidosis, 15.292. See Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students)

So weigh every word, every sentence, every paragraph. Eradicate awkwardness, ambiguity, and bad grammar--unless it's warranted--at all costs. The more rhetorically effective and clearer you are, the more your readers will benefit. Heed therefore to reformer Martin Luther, who penned 60,000 pages, "enough to fill 102 huge volumes of the famous Weimar edition, making him the most prolific religious figure in history, as well as the most written about since Christ" (Merle Severy, "The World of Luther," National Geographic 164.4, Oct. 1983, pp. 429, 445):

So great a rhetorician and theologian ought not only to know, but to act according to, that which Fabius says, "An ambiguous word should be avoided as a rock." Where it happens now and then inadvertently, it may be pardoned: but where it is sought for designedly and purposely, it deserves no pardon whatever, but justly merits the abhorrence of every one. For to what does this hateful double-tongued way of speaking tend? . . . Let him rather be reduced to order . . . by abstaining from that profane and double-tongued vertibility of speech and vain-talking, and by avoiding, as Paul [the apostle] saith, "profane and vain babblings."

For this it was, that even the public laws of the Roman empire condemned this manner of speaking, and punished it thus.—They commanded, "that the words of him who should speak obscurely, when he could speak more plainly, should be interpreted against himself." And Christ also, condemned that wicked servant who excused himself by an evasion; and interpreting his own words against himself, said, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant." For if in religion, in laws, and in all weighty matters, we should be allowed to express ourselves ambiguously and insidiously, what could follow but that utter confusion of Babel, where no one could understand another! This would be, to learn the language of eloquence, and in so doing, to lose the language of nature!

Moreover, if this license should prevail . . . what would become of logic, the instructor of teaching rightly? What would become of rhetoric, the faculty of persuading? Nothing would be taught, nothing would be learned, no persuasion could be carried home, no consolation would be given, no fear would be wrought: because, nothing would be spoken or heard that was certain. ("Letter to Nicolas Armsdoff Concerning Erasmus of Rotterdam")

Strive for clarity and conciseness. The Elizabethan era of wordy embellishments is long gone; practice the Paramedic Method instead. Don't refer to yourself in the third person, as the present writer is currently doing to prove his point, as if depersonalizing oneself from one’s writing with the third person actually made one more objective. Nonsense! It's not a sin to be personal with your audience; it’s rather more personable. And let's be done with pretentious academic doublespeak, which mainly serves to bolster scholars' egos because no one else understands them, often not even they do. At the very least define the Latinate jargon and avoid it if possible.

Keep in mind that writers are accountable for what they write. They have a moral responsibility to be clear, understandable, unambiguous, honest. Especially leaders and teachers. But don't take my word for it; take it from one of the best teachers of all time, the apostle Paul:

If I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. (1 Corinthians 14:6-11)

This includes citing sources properly. "Give credit where credit is due" (Romans 13:7). Christian apologist James White often says that you disrespect not only the authors but your audience as well when you misrepresent sources or don't cite them at all. The straw man and abusive ad hominem fallacies are, after all, still fallacies.

Good writers are careful, voracious readers too. In other words, read! Especially works by good authors. Close, meditative reading helps you become a stylish, idiomatic writer. Examine the author's style and learn from it. Scrutinize your own writing by looking at your work through the eyes of your readers. And read books about writing, such as Strunk and White's Elements of Style, Brians' Common Errors in English, and Trimble's Writing with Style.

And don't forget to write! Every day! Even if it's a paragraph. Even if it's a sentence. It will pay off. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10).

May the pen be with you.

—Published June 1, 2012

On 12/15/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales was based on Romans 10:14-21.

We read the account of Christ’s birth:

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (‭‭Luke‬ ‭2:4-11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The church must remember her first love—Christ: “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Revelation‬ ‭2:4-5‬ ‭NKJV).

Pastors are called to preach the Word and not be concerned with trends to draw people in. We draw people in with the Truth. On the other extreme, Hyper-Calvinists deny the necessity of preaching the Gospel for men to get saved. But God ordains both the ends and the means, and uses means to achieve His ends:

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans‬ ‭10:14-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

Don’t expect for a voice from Heaven to come down and automatically convert the elect. In fact, the pastor noted that the preaching of God’s Word is the voice from Heaven! The reformers believed that faithful biblical preaching carries the same weight and authority as the Words of God Himself. Here’s Calvin:

The word goeth out of the mouth of God in such a manner that it likewise “goeth out of the mouth” of men; for God does not speak openly from heaven, but employs men as his instruments ….

When a man climbs up into the pulpit, is it so that he may be seen from afar and that he may have a higher place than the rest? No, no! But so that God may speak to us by the mouth of man and be so gracious to us to show himself here among us and will have a mortal man to be his messenger. (Qtd. in Glen Clary, “John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God,” https://reformedforum.org/john-calvin-servant-of-the-word-of-god/)

It’s also common for churches to stray whenever the founders pass away. If a strong biblical plurality of elders is not installed in the church, it’s only a matter of time till they fall away or close down, as some of the very first church plants in the Book of Revelation attest:

When Christ said, “I will build my church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it,” he was not speaking of any institutional church. The Gates of Hell have prevailed against thousands of institutional churches in the past two millennia. They have become apostate and in most cases have disappeared. The churches to which Paul wrote his letters—Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, Galatia, Philippi, Colosse—no longer exist as Christian churches. The Gates of Hell prevailed against the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Lutheran Church. Christ’s church is not be be confused with any visible organization. (John Robbins, “The Church Irrational,” http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=290)

The Apostle Paul lost some of his battles. When Paul preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the synagogues, he was persecuted by the original antichrist, Judaism. We do not know, but tradition says that Paul died a violent death. (Jesus himself was almost murdered on the Sabbath by devout synagogue-going Jews who did not like his sermon; see Luke 4.) Most of the Jews of the first century rejected Christ; only the remnant was saved. The wrath of God, exercised through an unbelieving and unwitting General Titus, ended the apostate Temple cult – the vaunted Second Temple Judaism of the New Perspective on Paul. It was only through the writing of new Scriptures, the divinely inspired New Testament, and the establishment of new institutions – churches to propagate the doctrines of the Scriptures, both Old and New – that the Gospel survived the first century. As a Christian, Paul did not use force (as Saul he had). He lost battles, but he won the war. (Robbins, “Why Heretics Win Battles,” http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=207)

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me, Amen."

    - Martin Luther

Here I Stand, A Life of Martin Luther by Roland Bainton (New York, New York: Meridian, 1995, 302 pages with bibliography, references, source of illustrations and index).

Many years ago, when first I began to read about the Reformation, I came across Roland Bainton's biography of Martin Luther and couldn't put it down. I thought then, and think to this day, that it is a classic on the subject of Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Born in England in 1894, Bainton lived most of his life in the United States, graduating from Yale University with a Ph.D., where he later served as the Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History. With a background like that, readers it may be tempted to suppose that Bainton's writing, while scholarly, would have little appeal to the non-specialist. He would be half right. While it is true that Bainton was a gifted scholar, Here I Stand is anything but a dull read.

"' 'St. Anne help me! I will become a monk,' " are the first words we hear from Luther in Here I Stand. Always with a flair for the dramatic, Luther, the young university student, was returning to his studies at the University of Erfurt when he was knocked to the ground by a sudden lightening strike. Convinced by this that God was calling him to life in the monastery, Luther would abandon his secular studies to join the Augustinian order of monks.

As the Apostle Paul, whose teachings he would one day expound so well, Luther excelled many in zeal for his calling. Bainton quotes Luther thus, "I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work."

As Bainton tells it, Luther was something of a holy terror in the confessional. "He confessed frequently," writes Bainton, often daily, and for as long as six hours on a single occasion. Every sin in order to be absolved was to be confessed...Luther would repeat a confession and, to be sure of including everything, would review his entire life until the confessor grew weary and exclaimed, 'Man, God is not angry with you. You are angry with God. Don't you know that God commands you to hope?' "

But while Luther's confessional zeal exasperated the poor brother unfortunate enough to be tasked with having to hear it, it was the young monk who had the correct understanding of God's holiness. In all this, God was teaching Luther the central tenant of Christianity, that justification comes not through the works of the law but through belief (faith) in Christ alone. Luther wrote, "I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, 'the justice of God'...Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that 'the just shall live by his faith.' Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheet mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the 'justice of God' had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven...."

But if the words of Paul served as a gate to heaven for Luther, the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church to his subsequent activities would soon show him the earthly price of faithfulness to Christ.

As one who understood that a man is justified by faith in Christ alone, Luther soon found himself at odds with the practice of selling indulgences. Exactly one year before his famous act of nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door, on October 31, 1516 Luther preached against indulgences in the hearing of his prince, the Elector of Saxon. According to Bainton, indulgences "were the bingo of the sixteenth century," and to the extent that they brought in revenue to the Elector, Luther displeased the prince for pointing out the fraud.

Continuing with his discussion of indulgences, Bainton brings out the interesting occasion for Luther's jeremiad against the practice: the construction of St. Peter's in Rome. It strikes this author as no small irony that the construction of the single best-known symbol of papacy - St. Peter's Cathedral - actually served as the spark that helped to set off the Reformation. To hear Bainton tell it, Pope Julius II had commissioned the building of the edifice to replace an old wooden basilica dating from the time of Constatine, but had died before the work could be completed. In Bainton's words, "The piers [of St. Peter's] were laid; Julius died; the work lagged; weeds sprouted from the pillars; [Pope] Leo took over; he needed money."

And to where does a pope in need of money turn in his distress? To the "bingo of the sixteenth century" of course. That is to say, indulgences. And who better to hawk these indulgences than a certain Dominican by the name of John Tetzel, who seemed to be something of a sixteenth century Elmer Gantry. Tetzel had a marvelously effective sales pitch, in which he pleaded with his hearers to release their loved ones from the torments of purgatory through the purchase of indulgences, promising them, "As soon as the coin the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

All this was too much for Luther, who in response wrote his 95 theses, nailing them to the Wittenberg church door, October 31, 1517. Concludes Bainton, "Luther took no steps to spread his theses among the people. He was merely inviting scholars to dispute and dignitaries to define, but others surreptitiously translated the theses into German and gave them to the press. In short order they became the talk of Germany. What Karl Barth said said of his own unexpected emergence as a reformer could be said equally of Luther, that he was like a man climbing in the darkness a winding staircase in the steeple of an ancient cathedral. In the blackness he reached out to steady himself, and his hand laid hold of a rope. He was startled to hear the clanging of a bell."

There is, of course, much more to Here I Stand than can be discussed in this short review. Suffice it to say that this book is a classic of Reformation history, one that both informs and inspires. All those interested in Reformation history, whether a novice reader or a seasoned scholar, will find value in Bainton's work.

On 10/6/2019, the sermon, “God’s Everlasting Love, Part 2,” preached by Pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 8:31-39, and continued from Part 1.

The pastor said that if we truly love God, then we would also love His bride, the church. Some claim they don’t need the church to love God. But that’s a lie; we need God’s people, in part so we can fulfill the numerous “one another” commands in Scripture:

“Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;” Romans‬ ‭12:10‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” 1 Peter‬ ‭4:9‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.” ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭5:11‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“This I command you, that you love one another.” John‬ ‭15:17‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The Christian life, I’ve often said, is not a solo enterprise.

Another excellent point the pastor made is that the gospel is not an invitation, but an effectual call. God’s love and purpose precede the call to repent and believe, just as regeneration precedes faith. Coming to Christ does not ultimately depend on us,

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls…. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans‬ ‭9:11, 16‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Contrary to advocates of the “well-meant offer,” which leads to contradictory Calvinism, the gospel is issued by God and the apostles first and foremost as a command, not an invitation, for

those who defend the “well-meant offer” are two-faced in that they seek to maintain conflicting aspects of two contradictory and mutually exclusive systems of salvation. While at times “well-meant offer” defenders appear to be Calvinistic in their belief in God’s sovereign election and particular atonement, they also maintain a belief in the universal desire of God for the salvation of those God predestined to perdition; the reprobate. It is this combination of particularism and pluralism, or simply Calvinism and Arminianism that make up the two faces of Janus. (Sean Gerety, “Janus Alive and Well: Dr. R. Scott Clark and the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel”)

God also “commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts‬ ‭17:30-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). Arminians are similarly inconsistent, though neither are necessarily heretical. “An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian,” writes Gordon Clark, “in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation. The places in which his creed differs from our Confession confuse the mind, dilute the Gospel, and impair its proclamation” (quoted in https://www.douglasdouma.com/2016/10/03/gordon-clark-and-the-salvation-of-arminians/).

This also relates to the use of theological labels derived from men in church history, i.e., Calvinism (John Calvin) and Arminianism (Jacobus Arminius). Labels can be used responsibly if they refer primarily to the doctrines they represent, rather than to the men who formulated or taught them, although it is still important to study church history and know who these men are and what they taught. Some prefer to use different labels, such as the Doctrines of Grace, or monergism (salvation is solely God’s work) and synergism (man cooperates with God to be saved). Either way, labels are necessary to make important theological distinctions, because everyone calls themselves Christians nowadays, even Mormons. When used responsibly, labels help to specify more precisely what you mean.

The pastor also touched on the means of sanctification. One of the means God uses is the church—people—to edify and build us up, as ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭5:11 and numerous other verses attest. In a similar vein Martin Luther said that marriage and family are a school of character. God used my own marriage early on to show me how selfish I was, like a well that draws out and brings to the surface deep-rooted sins that need to be mortified.

The pastor also explained that God uses different personalities to build up His church. Luther was a hammer, bold and aggressive enough to defy the emperor and to write the first principles and manifesto of the Reformation. And Melanchthon was the gentle scholar who smoothed out Luther’s rougher spots. But both men were deeply flawed. Luther never fully bridled his temper, which was so vicious that he condemned fellow Protestants like Zwingli as heretics because they didn’t agree with him on the Lord’s Supper, consequently fracturing the Reformation; and “in Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, Luther condemned the violence [of the peasant’s revolt] as the devil's work and called for the nobles to put down the rebels like mad dogs.” Towards the end of his life, Luther also became embittered towards the Jews after repeated failed attempts to evangelize them, and reserved some of his most ungodly expressions for them. As for Melanchthon, he

fell out of favor because of his compromises with the Papists and Reformed on matters of ceremonies, Christ’s presence in the Supper, and the role of human will in conversion. With regard to the compromises with the Papists specifically, Bente writes, “The plan of Melanchthon therefore was to yield in things which he regarded as unnecessary in order to maintain the truth and avoid persecution.”[5] Sadly, his sincere efforts at peace and compromise on matters that he considered insignificant ended up compromising the central truth for which he and Luther had fought. The price of peace with the world by waffling on the central article of faith, justification by grace through faith, also meant uncertainty regarding peace with God the Father in heaven. (https://lutheranreformation.org/history/philip-melanchthon/)

The pastor then defined sanctification as progressive conformity to Christ. There is a growing awareness of our sin as we grow in sanctification. But we also grow in holiness and sin less, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Philippians‬ ‭2:13‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). When you are truly saved, God regenerates you and “will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them” (Ezekiel‬ ‭36:26-27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). Even so, believers still sin, and should be corrected lovingly unless they stubbornly refuse to repent.

The pastor concluded with Assurance:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Romans‬ ‭8:31-34‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Christians have the supreme privilege of knowing God as Father and Christ as Advocate, rather than as Judge. There’s nothing left to prove! Christ has done it all and paid it all on our behalf.

This article is a continuation of Part I.

Fatal Flaw #4: The Active Obedience and Congruous Merit of the Believer

Piper further overrides Christ’s perfect active obedience—which he affirms[1]—at the last judgment with the believer’s own “inherent righteousness” or, in Roman Catholic terms, congruous merit, where “the individual who did their best could earn their translation into a state of grace, not on the basis of strict merit which was intrinsically worthy of grace, but on the basis of congruent merit, whereby God agreed to take their best as if it were really worthy of grace. Then, once in a state of grace, the individual could truly begin to perform works which were strictly meritorious.”[2] Martin Luther and the reformers adamantly rejected this type of merit since

works contribute nothing to justification. Therefore, man knows that works which he does by such faith are not his but God’s. For this reason he does not seek to become justified or glorified through them, but seeks God. His justification by faith in Christ is sufficient to him. Christ is his wisdom, righteousness, and so on, as 1 Cor. 1:30 has it, that he himself may be Christ’s action and instrument.[3]

Believers don’t seek to be either justified or glorified through their works, yet Piper diverges from Scripture on this point too, as we will see later. By teaching that God is going to evaluate the believer’s works as “necessary confirmation” for admission to heaven, Piper renders the imputation of Christ’s obedience utterly worthless to believers at the last judgment. What good is it to be credited with Christ’s full and perfect obedience if, in the end, God ultimately judges the believers’ own works to see if they’re worthy of heaven? Is Christ not enough? Not for Piper, whose “final salvation” doctrine contradicts the most well-known verse in the Bible: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Everlasting life—heaven—is attained by belief alone, not by belief and personal holiness present at the last judgment, as Piper claims. Verse 18 cements this because “he who believes in Him is not condemned,” not now nor at the last judgment.

Though he allegedly “holds to the historic, Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone”[4] and explains it correctly at times, are Piper’s nuances congruent with Protestant orthodoxy? That we are justified by faith alone but not finally saved by faith alone? Far from it, as we’ve already seen. He misleadingly defends his view as mainstream Protestantism, often without citing support:

So faith alone doesn’t mean the same thing when applied to justification, sanctification, and final salvation [because “final salvation” is not by faith alone, according to Piper]. 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.[5]

Piper is so far removed from historic Protestantism and Scripture that the Belgic Confession condemns his teaching as “enormous blasphemy”:

Article 22: The Righteousness of Faith

We believe that for us to acquire the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith that embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and makes him its own, and no longer looks for anything apart from him. For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely. Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God—for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we are justified "by faith alone" or by faith "apart from works."

However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us—for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness. But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits. When those benefits are made ours they are more than enough to absolve us of our sins.

If Christ did not accomplish our salvation entirely, then He is “only half a Savior.” Piper emphatically denies that “he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely,” and therefore can claim only half a Savior because he teaches that believers are not saved by faith alone, and that “final salvation” requires “inherent righteousness” and a “necessary confirmation” of good works for God to allow them into heaven. This is not the Savior, this is not the salvation, of the Bible; it rather resonates the error of the legalistic Jews, who, “being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:3-4). Piper affirms both inherent righteousness and God’s righteousness, but Scripture teaches that these are incompatible, mutually exclusive categories. To add even a smidgen of self-righteousness is to insult God and deny His righteousness, because God’s righteousness needs nothing added to it. Scottish Presbyterian Horatius Bonar likewise refutes Piper’s view:

What sort of justification does [God] give? Man's ideas of justification are vague and low; we must recognize God's thoughts upon the question. His justification is,—

(1)   Righteous. The adjustment of the question between us and God is a righteous adjustment…. The Just One suffering for the unjust makes the justification of the unjust a just and righteous thing.

(2)  Complete. It extends to our whole persons; to our whole lives; to every sin committed by us. The whole man is justified. It is no half-pardon, no semi-acceptance, that we receive, but something complete and divine; perfect as God can make it; so perfect as to satisfy conscience here, and to stand the test of the judgment seat hereafter. Nothing in us or about us that goes to make up our character as sinners, is left unjustified.

(3)  Irreversible. No second verdict can alter our legal position. God is not a man that He should lie. Pardoned once, then pardoned forever. "Who is he that condemneth?" "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"[6]

This, not Piper’s, is the Protestant doctrine of justification—God’s full, final, irreversible, perfect verdict, “so perfect as to satisfy conscience here, and to stand the test of the judgment seat hereafter.” Charles Spurgeon in a similar vein corrects Piper’s view of final salvation almost directly by first explaining that, in justification, “Christ takes our sins, we take Christ's righteousness; and it is by a glorious substitution and interchange of places that sinners go free and are justified by his grace.” Spurgeon then answers an objection which sounds much like Piper, that “no one is justified like that, till he dies,” by asserting, “Believe me, he is”:

“The moment a sinner believes,

And trusts in his crucified God,

His pardon at once he receives;

Salvation in full, through his blood.”

 If that young man over there has really believed in Christ this morning, realizing by a spiritual experience what I have attempted to describe, he is as much justified in God's sight now as he will be when he stands before the throne. Not the glorified spirits above are more acceptable to God than the poor man below, who is once justified by grace. It is a perfect washing, it is perfect pardon, perfect imputation; we are fully, freely, and wholly accepted, through Christ our Lord…. Those who are once justified are justified irreversibly. As soon as a sinner takes Christ's place, and Christ takes the sinner's place, there is no fear of a second change.[7]

Even the hymn Spurgeon quotes by Joseph Hart—“Salvation [Redemption] in full, through his blood”—shows that Protestants historically did not believe in a “final salvation” falsely dichotomized from justification.

For a modern corrective to Piper, Scottish Presbyterian Sinclair Ferguson writes, “Justification is both final and complete. It is final because it is the eschatological justification of the last day brought forward into the present day. It is complete because in justification we are counted as righteous before the Father as Christ himself, since the only righteousness with which we are righteous is Jesus Christ’s righteousness.”[8] Piper cannot claim his version of justification to be final or complete, not until the believer presents his works of obedience at the last judgment and is declared worthy of heaven. Innumerable other examples could be cited to show how Piper’s “final salvation” scheme contradicts historic Protestantism in general and sola fide in particular. Luther nails the point home:

Since then works justify no man, but a man must be justified before he can do any good work, it is most evident that it is faith alone which, by the mere mercy of God through Christ, and by means of His word, can worthily and sufficiently justify and save the person; and that a Christian man needs no work, no law, for his salvation; for by faith he is free from all law, and in perfect freedom does gratuitously all that he does, seeking nothing either of profit or of salvation—since by the grace of God he is already saved and rich in all things through his faith—but solely that which is well-pleasing to God.

……………………………….

My God, without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given to me, an unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature all the riches of justification and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of faith to believe that this is so.

………………………………

But we must always guard most carefully against any vain confidence or presumption of being justified, gaining merit, or being saved by these works, this being the part of faith alone, as I have so often said.[9]

Contra Piper, Luther repeatedly asserts that we are neither justified, nor gain merit, nor saved by works, because God gives us “all the riches” of both justification and salvation “in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of faith to believe that this is so.” The Protestant reformers never divorced justification from “final salvation” the way Piper does. His claim of deriving his view of final salvation from historic Protestantism is absurd, for that is what the Church of Rome teaches—that is what the reformers explicitly rejected. Even the Romish church acknowledges this to some extent in its “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”:

The doctrine of justification was of central importance for the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century. It was held to be the "first and chief article" and at the same time the "ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines." The doctrine of justification was particularly asserted and defended in its Reformation shape and special valuation over against the Roman Catholic Church and theology of that time, which in turn asserted and defended a doctrine of justification of a different character. From the Reformation perspective, justification was the crux of all the disputes. Doctrinal condemnations were put forward both in the Lutheran Confessions and by the Roman Catholic Church's Council of Trent. These condemnations are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing effect. For the Lutheran tradition, the doctrine of justification has retained its special status.[10]

Piper should and does know better and has no excuse, for teachers will incur a stricter judgment (Jas 3:1).

Fatal Flaw #5: Heaven’s Diaspora

As Piper attempts to reconcile his errors, more contradictions ensue with respect to the state of believers who die prior to judgment. If, according to Piper, believers cannot enter heaven until their works have been evaluated at the last judgment, what about believers who have already died? Where are they now? The Bible teaches that all departed believers are already in heaven with the Lord, “for we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body [dead] and to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:7-8). Departed believers have already “attained heaven”—without having to step foot in “Christ’s courtroom” and “stand before Christ as Judge” at the last judgment. For believers, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart [die] and be with Christ, which is far better.” (Phil. 1:21-24).

This simple doctrine refutes Piper’s absurd claim that all believers must first be evaluated at the final judgment before they can enter heaven. Following Piper’s logic would mean that not a single believer is in heaven now because they have not yet been deemed worthy to enter it at the last judgment. Piper cannot reconcile this with Scripture for the obvious reason that the final judgment will not come to pass until after Christ returns, which Piper acknowledges: “Our judgment will be after we die. That’s implied in the text, but Hebrews 9:27 makes it explicit. ‘It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.’ We don’t need to be more specific than that this morning. We need only say that before we enter the final state of glory with our resurrection bodies on the new earth, we will stand before Christ as Judge.”[11]

The Bible also describes men raptured by God and taken straight to heaven “by faith,” not by a “final salvation” requiring good works at final judgment: “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God” (Heb. 11:5). Note how the context of these verses regard faith as the means to reaching heaven. There is no mention of God judging the fruit of deceased saints to see if they’re worthy or holy enough to enter heaven. When believers die, their spirits go directly to heaven with God. Another example is the Transfiguration of Christ where Moses and Elijah appeared: “Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him” (Matt. 17:1-3). This reveals that Moses and Elijah were glorified spirits in heaven fellowshipping with God already, prior to final judgment.

If Piper were consistent with his view that believers cannot be “finally saved” and “get to heaven” until the final judgment when God publicly confirms their works, then heaven must be currently devoid of all deceased and raptured believers, who would instead have to be in a present state of soul sleep, or in some other midway realm, perhaps Rome’s limbo or purgatory. In 1993, however, Piper affirmed that believers go to heaven when they die: “What we have seen so far is that believers in Jesus go to be with him when we die. Verse 8: ‘We prefer to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord.’ For those of us who trust Jesus as Savior and Lord ‘to live is Christ and to die is gain’ (Philippians 1:21); ‘to depart and be with Christ is very much better’ (Philippians 1:23).”[12] So for Piper, believers who die prior to final judgment go straight to heaven, but when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead, evidently he’s going to evict all of them from their heavenly abode and put their works on trial to see if they’re worthy of re-entering heaven. This nonsense destroys Biblical eschatology and the assurance of believers, for how can they possibly know if they have enough holiness, enough works, enough obedience, to enter heaven and stay there—when even departed believers who already live in heaven are going to face final judgment to see if they’re worthy of readmission? To make any sense of Piper’s views requires embracing absurd contradictions; and his fatal flaws illustrate a reckless disregard for the whole counsel of God, since his view cannot reconcile the most basic Bible doctrines, “for though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). Piper should take a hard look in the mirror before admonishing seminary students to not be sloppy with Scripture and “Reformed slogans.”[13]

Fatal Flaw #6: Deadening the Resurrection

Piper’s theological debacle is still not fully accounted for. At times he correctly explains that believers will instantly receive their glorified, resurrected bodies when Christ returns: “When the church in Thessalonica lost believing loved ones, the main comfort that Paul offered was not that they were with Christ (as true and wonderful as that is), but that they would be raised bodily from the dead in time to participate physically in the coming of Christ. He said (in 1 Thessalonians 4:15), ‘We who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.’”[14] But as he attempts to harmonize the resurrection of believers with Christ’s return and the final judgment, he fatally blunders: “Before we enter the final state of glory with our resurrection bodies on the new earth, we will stand before Christ as Judge…. The deeds of this life will be the public criteria of judgment in the resurrection. Because our works are the evidence of the reality of our faith.”[15]

Because he emphasizes that believers will face “Christ as Judge,” and that their works “will be the public criteria of judgment in the resurrection,” that is, a necessary forensic demonstration that they are inherently righteous enough to enter heaven, Piper not only nullifies Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to them by overlaying it with their own “inherent righteousness” as a second layer of “final” justification—he also deadens the resurrection and glorification of believers. His view of the judgment of believers as “final salvation”—as a forensic judgment of good works—undermines the resurrection, for the resurrection itself will be “the evidence of the reality of our faith,” not our works. After all, what good is it for believers to receive glorified bodies prior to final judgment, if Christ is still going to evaluate their personal holiness to see if they’re worthy of heaven? The resurrection will be the glorious public demonstration that believers are already validated by God through faith alone in Christ alone, and therefore will not be judged, but rather vindicated, acquitted, and rewarded accordingly. Horton thus writes,

There is no future aspect to justification itself. In justification, the believer has already heard the verdict of the last judgment. Glorification is the final realization not of our justification itself but of its effects. Furthermore, this future event both discloses the true identity of the covenant people as an act of the cosmic revelation of the justified children of God (ecclesiology) and actually transforms the whole justified person into a condition of immortality and perfect holiness (soteriology). The great assize awaiting the world at the end of the age is therefore not with respect to justification but to glorification. All who have been justified are inwardly renewed and are being conformed to Christ’s image, but their cosmic vindication as the justified people of God will be revealed in the resurrection of the dead. “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Heb 9:27-28). Through faith in Christ, the verdict of the last judgment itself has already been rendered in our favor, but, as our meager growth in holiness and the unabated decay of our bodies attests, the full consequences of this verdict await a decisive future completion. We receive our justification through believing what we have heard, we will receive our glorification by seeing the one we have heard face to face.[16]

What happened after Christ’s death when “the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Matt. 27:51-53)—is but a foretaste of what will happen when He comes back. If those who witnessed Jesus’ death and the transitory resurrection of dead saints “feared greatly, saying, ‘Truly this was the Son of God!” (v. 54), how much more earth-shattering will the final resurrection and glorification of all believers be at Christ’s return? The only ones who will be looking to their “good” works as “public evidence” of their “faith” at the last judgment are the self-deceived legalists in Matthew 7:21-23, who’d rather cover themselves with useless fig leaves, the filthy rags of their own “righteousnesses,” than with the blood and perfect righteousness of the Lamb: “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!'”

Everyone will know who belongs to God at final judgment by the power of the resurrection, not by the works of believers, because Christ alone accomplishes the salvation and glorification of His people. “For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely.” The Scriptures tie the believer’s resurrection with Christ Himself, who is “the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (John 11:25-26; cf. Rom. 6:5-9, 1 Cor. 15). But Christ’s resurrection power and perfect righteousness imputed to believers by faith alone, as well as their resurrection, vindication, acquittal, reward, and glorification are not enough for Piper; instead, he nullifies them all by insisting on the “necessary” public, legal evaluation of believers’ works at final judgment for attaining 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 (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.”[17]

Piper further undermines these doctrines by contradicting himself when he suggests that glorification is a consequence of getting into heaven, based partly on the good works of believers, rather than a consequence of Christ’s return, based wholly on His perfect righteousness imputed to believers by faith alone: “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. But though our lived-out perfection only comes in heaven, Jesus really does transform us now, and this transformation is really necessary for final salvation.”[18] Earlier in 2002 he also claimed, “There are two great truths in [Romans 8:17]: one is that we are going to receive a great inheritance, including our own glorification, and the other is that we are going to have to suffer in order to receive it…. Our glory with him — our inheritance — is conditional upon our suffering with him.”[19] So he affirms the resurrection of believers prior to final judgment, but then undermines its power and significance by claiming that believers will still face “Christ as Judge” to have their works publicly, forensically confirmed before they can enter heaven. And he adds suffering as another necessary condition for believers to obtain their glorification, as opposed to the Biblical teaching that Christ blesses believers with glorified bodies upon his return—on account of their faith alone. The reason believers inevitably suffer in this life is because they must wait in a fallen world for Christ to return before they are glorified, not because it’s a condition they need to fulfill for their glorification: “but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23).

The Bible teaches that believers will receive glorified bodies immediately upon Christ’s return,[20] prior to the final judgment, as Piper himself noted in the verses he quoted. Note what these passages teach about that day: When believers are “changed” in the “twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:51-52) and receive their glorified bodies, death will be swallowed up in victory (v. 54), “and thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). That is, believers are going to walk into “Christ’s courtroom” at the final judgment in their glorified state—knowing that they will be neither judged nor condemned, and with full assurance of their heavenly destination, for Christ affirmed, “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. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:24-25). But Piper destroys this glorious assurance and once again contradicts Christ by insisting that believers will be still be judged in the end: “When we stand before Christ as Judge, we will be judged according to our deeds in this life… 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.”[21] This runs contrary not only to the Bible as we’ve already seen but also to historic Protestantism, which affirms that the final judgment for believers will not be a judgment, but rather a vindication and acquittal, along with a distribution of rewards according to good works done in this life. Italian scholastic reformer Francis Turretin thus wrote:

Christ will be the judge in that very visible nature in which he was condemned for us…. This he will do especially both for the greater consolation of the pious (who will look upon him as their defender and Advocate instead of their judge) and for the greater terror and confusion of the wicked… The process of the judgment is such that mention may indeed be made of good works, but not of their evil works…. The pious will not hear the publication of their sins, but the reward of their love and beneficence.[22]

Instead of misappropriating the Reformed tradition to defend his heterodoxy, Piper ought to weigh what expositors like John Calvin say about believers at the final judgment,

for it is impossible to think of the dread majesty of God without being filled with alarm; and hence the sense of our own unworthiness must keep us far away, until Christ interpose, and convert a throne of dreadful glory into a throne of grace, as the Apostle teaches that thus we can “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16)…. Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.[23]

Piper’s errors, on the other hand, destroy every assurance and legal status the believer has in relation to God. Even sonship is undermined, for believers are adopted into “the household of God” (Eph. 2:19) when they have faith, “and because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’ Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Gal. 4:6). However, because Piper teaches that Christ will judge believers by putting their works on trial as a Judge, which is how He will judge unbelievers, Piper contradicts the reality that God is no longer a Judge but a Father to them. In a recent attempt to clarify, Piper again came full circle to the logic of his teaching: “Glorification in Paul’s thinking is a process that begins at conversion. It doesn’t begin at the last judgment. It begins at conversion and includes sanctification. It’s consummated at final salvation.”[24] Now he states that glorification is a gradual process that will be “consummated at final salvation,” at the last judgment, which, as noted above, contradicts the Biblical teaching that glorification will be “consummated” when Christ returns and glorifies believers at the resurrection. If Piper meant that glorification is consummated when Christ returns, not to judge, but to vindicate believers and reward them for their good works, then he would agree with the Bible and historic Protestantism. But that’s not what he means. On the one hand he acknowledges that Christ will glorify believers at the resurrection upon His return; but on the other, he claims that believers will not be fully glorified until they pass the final judgment of good works and are deemed worthy of heaven, and further stresses that the transformation, or personal holiness, of believers “is really necessary for final salvation” and for the “lived-out perfection” that they will “finally obtain in heaven.”

Piper misleads his audience by claiming that “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.”[25] We’ve already seen how Piper’s answer instead contradicts both Scripture and “the entire mainstream of the Reformed tradition,” so it’s no surprise that the Westminster Larger Catechism gives a better summary of what will happen to believers at the last day, and corrects much of Piper’s Scripture twisting:

Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?

A. We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust: when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonour by him, as an offended judge.

Q. 90. What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment?

A. At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment.

Not only will Christians be glorified prior to final judgment, making it obvious to everyone that God “openly acknowledged and acquitted” them because of Christ alone; but the passages that many Evangelicals like Piper use to scare believers out of their assurance, such as Mathew 7:21-23, actually teach that believers, instead of being judged, “shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men.” Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? Know ye not that we shall judge angels?[26]

Prooftexting Holiness

One of Piper’s prooftexts to support his view of “final salvation” is Hebrews 12:14: “Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” According to him, “love and obedience—inherent righteousness—is…required for heaven,”[27] which is why “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).”[28] Striving for holiness without which no one will see the Lord is one thing; but believers being required to face “Christ as Judge” to present their good works in "Christ's courtroom" at final judgment to be deemed worthy of heaven, is a different gospel. John MacArthur properly expounds this verse and refutes Piper’s misinterpretation:

Scripture tells us that apart from holiness, “no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). God doesn’t merely justify us, clothing us with imputed righteousness, then leave us bound in the grave clothes of the flesh. He lovingly, graciously conforms us heart, soul, mind, and flesh to a standard befitting the lofty position he has elevated us to.

But don’t misunderstand. This is not to say our own personal holiness is the ground on which we are granted entrance into heaven or acceptance with God. If that were the case, none of us could ever gain enough merit to deserve heaven. We are graciously granted entry into heaven solely and exclusively because of Christ’s perfect righteousness, which is imputed to us in our justification. The holiness gained in our sanctification is by no means meritorious.

Moreover, the holiness our sanctification produces could never be sufficient to fit us for heaven by itself. In heaven we will be perfectly Christlike. Sanctification is the earthly process of growth by which we press toward that goal; glorification is the instantaneous completion of it. God graciously, summarily glorifies us and admits us into his presence.[29]

Puritan John Owen also properly reconciles these passages by first recognizing that while holiness is a command in which God “requireth universal holiness of us,”

yet he doth not do it in that strict and rigorous way as by the law, so as that if we fail in any thing, either as to the matter or manner of its performance, in the substance of it or as to the degrees of its perfection, that thereon both that and all we do besides should be rejected. But he doth it with a contemperation of grace and mercy, so as that if there be a universal sincerity, in a respect unto all his commands, he both pardoneth many sins, and accepts of what we do, though it come short of legal perfection; both on the account of the mediation of Christ.[30]

Some of Piper’s defenders claim that he is affirming the Westminster Confession of Faith on good works, that “these good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life” (16.II). But Sections V and VI run contrary to Piper’s teaching:

V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit, and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.

VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

Reformed theology affirms that the only reason the good works of believers are accepted and rewarded in God’s sight is because they are “accepted in Him [Christ],” which also maintains the doctrine of assurance in balance; yet Piper makes no mention of this when explaining his view. And these good works do not refer to a forensic evaluation of personal holiness for admittance to heaven, as Piper claims, but rather to the vindication and rewarding of believers who have already gained heaven by faith in Christ alone, because God, “looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere.” Yet Piper contradicts not only the Scriptures and the Reformed faith, but also himself by claiming on the one hand that “the reason no one will lose his justification is because God is the decisive worker,”[31] and on the other claiming that “people will ‘go away into eternal punishment’ because they really failed to love their fellow believers.”[32] Kauffman sums up the matter thus:

The mistake Roman Catholics, Piper, New Perspective on Paul, Auburn Avenue, and Federal Vision all make is to infer a causal relationship between holiness (sanctification) and seeing the Lord (justification). But Hebrews makes it clear by invoking Esau the reprobate—i.e., " Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau…" (Hebrews 12:16)—that the sanctifying "holiness" in view here is the effect of election and justification, not the cause of it. Hebrews 12:24 makes "the blood of sprinkling” effectual for salvation, received by "a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Hebrews 10:22), which speaks of imputation, justification by faith apart from our own works. The holiness of sanctification proceeds from that, and if we do not embrace that holiness that results from the Lord's chastisement of His elect children, it is because, like Esau, we are not His children anyway, and therefore did not believe, and therefore were never justified.[33]

Few and Far Between: Protestants who “Agree” with Piper

Some claim that well-known Protestants have held views similar to Piper’s “final salvation.” While this may be true to a limited extent, the reality is that those who agree with him lie outside the historic, confessional, Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone. The reason for quoting various authors from diverse Protestant traditions—Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Scottish Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Puritan, magisterial reformers—is to show that the orthodox doctrine of justification is by faith alone in Christ alone; justifies believers fully, finally, perfectly, and irrevocably, from the moment they believe to the final judgment and beyond, apart from their works; and is a pan-Protestant doctrine, crystallized in the Reformed confessions. And while some Protestants may sound like Piper at times, they are not necessarily as extreme or inconsistent as he is. Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Witsius, for example, wrote regarding believers at the last judgment:

The sentence of absolution will be entirely gracious according to the Gospel strictly so called. “The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.” This is manifest, … From the consideration of the connexion betwixt the good works of believers and the reward. Their good works will be mentioned, (1) As proofs of the faith of believers, their union to Christ, their adoption, their friendship with God, and of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord…[34]

This may sound like Piper, and though Witsius claims that good works are “proofs of the faith of believers” instead of the resurrection, he nevertheless is describing their vindication, “of the connexion betwixt the good works of believers and the reward,” not admittance to heaven or a “final salvation” that requires a forensic evaluation of inherent righteousness, for “the sentence of absolution will be entirely gracious according to the Gospel strictly so called.” Another example is the late American Presbyterian philosopher and theologian Gordon H. Clark, who wrote:

Let us be quite clear on the fact that the Bible does not teach salvation by faith alone. The Bible teaches justification by faith alone. Justification then necessarily is followed by a process of sanctification, and this consists of works which we do. It consists of external actions initiated by internal volitions. We must therefore work out our own salvation; and this, in fear and trembling because we must depend on God. What then does God do in our process of sanctification? The verse says God works in us.… First, he so works in us that we do the things that produce sanctification. God works in us so that we sing a psalm, or comfort the sick, or apprehend a criminal, or preach the gospel. These are things we do because God works in us to do them.… God not only works the doing in us, but he first works the willing in us. God works in us both to will and to do.[35]

Clark, however, is describing sanctification as the Christian life which necessarily follows justification, and uses the term salvation to include sanctification. He teaches that good works sanctify the believer but in a secondary or instrumental way, although in his treatise on sanctification he stresses that believers are sanctified by God rather than by their own efforts.[36] Either way, he’s describing the Christian in this life, not in a final judgment where good works and inherent righteousness are required for heaven, as Piper does. Clark even goes as far as to say, “It is true, but not sufficient to say, we are justified and we are also being sanctified; it is downright false to say, we are justified by faith alone but of course we must now do some good works; to express the relation with a minimum of adequacy we must drop the and and the but and use the conjunction therefore: we have been acquitted and pardoned of sin apart from any human merit, therefore we must do good works. Or, to quote Rom. 6:14, "Sin shall not have dominion over you (sanctification), for ye are not under the law but under grace" (justification). —‘He died to make us good.’”[37]

A major difference between these men and Piper is that the former are confessional, while the latter is not. Witsius and Clark subscribed to Reformed confessions, so even if they explained the doctrines of salvation and final judgment in a similar manner to Piper, albeit inconsistently, the resulting damage is mitigated by their confessional fences, leaving other relevant doctrines intact. They were thus not as imbalanced as Piper’s view of “final salvation.” Nevertheless, holding even small inconsistencies with respect to justification can lead to dangerous slippery slopes, but, because Piper is not confessional, rejects fundamental tenets of Reformed theology, and formulates heterodox views of ancillary doctrines that pertain to justification and final judgment, his false teaching is more far-reaching and deadlier.

The Root Cause and the Remedy

An underlying fatal flaw in Piper’s theology is his denial of both the covenant of works and of the works principle:

No book besides the Bible has had a greater influence on my life than Daniel Fuller’s The Unity of the Bible. When I first read it as a classroom syllabus over twenty years ago, everything began to change..... God’s law stopped being at odds with the gospel. It stopped being a job description for earning wages under a so-called covenant of works (which I never could find in the Bible).....”[38]

He contradicts the Biblical works principle, because “to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt” (Rom. 4:1), and “as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18-19). And by denying “that Adam and Christ, as federal heads of their respective races, were subject to the covenant of works before the court of God’s justice, not his grace, each Adam being required to fulfill the terms of the covenant, one failing miserably, and the other succeeding perfectly, the Neolegalists put all believers on probation, and make their salvation depend on their own evangelical obedience.”[39] Piper’s view of “final salvation” contains lethal traces of Romanism which crumble the entire foundation of Protestantism. A fatal chain of flaws is tied to Piper’s false teaching and others like it. Robbins provides warning signs for detecting Neolegalism (several apply to Piper), which

·         Denies or renders insignificant individual election to salvation (and zealously condemns individualism);

·         Denies that faith is assent to understood propositions (and belittles or denies propositional and literal truth);

·         Denies that faith alone justifies;

·         Denies that knowledge is necessary for salvation (and condemns those who insist on knowledge as “gnostics”);

·         Denies the covenant of works;

·         Denies the meritorious work of Christ;

·         Denies the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ to believers;

·         Asserts that water baptism regenerates, washes away sins, and is necessary for salvation;

·         Asserts that believers can lose their justification and salvation;

·         Asserts that the final justification of believers depends on their performance;

·         Asserts that God accepts less than perfect obedience for fulfilling the conditions of salvation;

·         Asserts that persons who are neither elect nor believers of the Gospel are nevertheless “members of the covenant”;

·         Asserts infant communion;

·         Asserts that good works are necessary conditions to obtain or retain salvation;

·         Asserts that chronological theology is superior to systematic theology;

·         Asserts that eschatology is soteriology.[40]

In these last days, perilous times have come, for Piper is not alone. Other influential Evangelicals and Protestants teach similar errors of a final justification or salvation. In addition to the aforementioned flaws, what often drives these men to make such heterodox assertions is a dire lack of confessionalism and failure to systematize Scripture. Modern Evangelicals have a hard time reconciling bookend doctrines which balance and complement each other, such as the justification of Paul vs. the justification of James, or the warnings of Hebrews and Matthew 7. Many as a result slide down the slippery slope back to Rome. And though the historic creeds and confessions, particularly from the Reformed tradition, clearly, concisely and accurately summarize the major doctrines of the Bible, Protestants have forgotten their conflict with Rome and their confessional heritage, which has been overtaken by ecumenism, irrationalism, Biblicism, and a “no creed but Christ” mentality. Christianity is a system of doctrine that is logically consistent, for God is not the author of confusion but of peace and has given us a spirit of power and of love and of a sound mind. He has placed these crucial bookend doctrines as checks and balances, so if one strays too far in one direction, to the point of affirming a final justification or salvation at the last judgment that requires inherent righteousness, it will create insuperable contradictions in other counterpoint doctrines. The remedy, therefore, to any form of legalism that affirms an initial and final justification or salvation, be it John Piper, Neolegalism, Roman Catholicism, Shepherdism, Federal Vision, Auburn Avenue Theology, or the New Perspective on Paul, is to return to the Old Paths, to remember our Reformation roots, to grasp the “first principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12)—justification, the afterlife, final judgment, resurrection, and glorification—to understand how these relate to each other and how they are tied together by the pillar of sola fide.

---

[1]  See John Piper, “The Sufficiency of Christ's Obedience in His Life and Death,” Desiring God, May 15, 2007, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-sufficiency-of-christs-obedience-in-his-life-and-death.

[2]  Carl R. Trueman, “Justification,” in T&T Clark Companion to Reformation Theology, Ed. David M. Whitford (New York: T&T Clark International, 2012), Logos edition, 60.

[3]  Quoted in Trueman, “Justification,” 60.

[4]  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, November 31, 2017.

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

[6]  Horatius Bonar, The Acts and Larger Epistles, Vol. 3, in Light and Truth: Bible Thoughts and Themes (London: Messrs. James Nisbet & Co., 1869), 208-9, http://grace-ebooks.com/library/Horatius%20Bonar/HB_Light%20%26%20Truth%20Acts%20and%20Larger%20Epistles.pdf, November 21, 2017. Emphasis mine.

[7]  Charles H. Spurgeon, “Justification by Grace,” The Spurgeon Center for Biblical Preaching at Midwestern Seminary, originally published on April 5, 1857, https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/justification-by-grace/, December 10, 2017. Emphasis mine. See also Chapel Library’s Free Grace Broadcaster, Issue 187, “Justification,” http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/justfg/justification--_-free-grace-broadcaster-187.

[8]  Sinclair Ferguson, The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, & Gospel Assurance–Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 200. Emphasis his. It is a shame, however, that Ferguson endorses Richard B. Gaffin Jr.’s books (see his endorsement of By Faith, Not by Sight at www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9781596384439.pdf). For more on Gaffin, see Stephen M. Cunha, The Emperor Has No Clothes: Richard B. Gaffin Jr.'s Doctrine of Justification (Unicoi: The Trinity Foundation, 2008), http://www.trinitylectures.org/emperor-has-no-clothes-the-p-182.html.

[9]  Martin Luther, “Part 3: Conclusion of the Treatise,” Concerning Christian Liberty, Trans. R. S. Grignon, The Harvard Classics, Vol. 36 (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1910), published by Project Wittenberg, http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-3.html, December 13, 2017. Emphasis mine. See also Aaron Matherly, “The Second London Confession and Justification,” Founders Journal 110 (Fall 2017), https://founders.org/2017/10/27/the-second-london-confession-and-justification/.

[10]  The Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” The Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html, April 11, 2018. See Richard Bennett’s critique of the Catholic-Lutheran Accord at https://bereanbeacon.org/the-catholic-lutheran-accord-2/.

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

[12]  Ibid.

[13]  Listen to minute 34:00 and following of John Piper, “Faith Alone: How (Not) to Use a Reformed Slogan,” Desiring God, September 13, 2017, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/sola-fide.

[14]  John Piper, “What Happens When You Die? The Dead Will Be Raised Imperishable,” Desiring God, July 25, 1993, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/what-happens-when-you-die-the-dead-will-be-raised-imperishable, April 17, 2018.

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

[16]  Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), EPub Edition, 1073-74. Emphasis his.

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

[18]  Piper, What Jesus Demands, 160. Emphasis his.

[19]  John Piper, “Children, Heirs and Fellow Sufferers,” Desiring God, April 21, 2002, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/children-heirs-and-fellow-sufferers, April 20, 2018.

[20]  Believers who have already passed away will receive resurrected glorified bodies, while believers who are alive at the time of Christ’s return will be instantly changed into their glorified bodies: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15-17).

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

[22]  Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vol. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992–97), 3.599, 602 (20th topic, Q. 6), qtd in R. Scott Clark, “Turretin On The State Of Believers In The Judgment,” The Heidelblog, October 18, 2015, https://heidelblog.net/2015/10/turretin-on-the-state-of-believers-in-the-judgment/, April 22, 2018. Emphasis mine.

[23]  John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xx.17; III.xi.1. Emphasis mine.

[24]  Piper, “Will We Be Finally ‘Saved’ by Faith Alone?”. See also R. Scott Clark, “Will We Be Finally “Saved” By Faith Alone (Sola Fide)?”, The Heidelblog, March 3, 2018, https://heidelblog.net/2018/03/will-we-be-finally-saved-by-faith-alone-sola-fide/.

[25]  Ibid.

[26]  The Bible does teach that everyone, including believers, “shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:12). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God” (2 Cor. 5:10-11). Since believers are already justified, regenerated, and adopted by God and will be resurrected and glorified by Christ upon his return, they will not face God and Christ as Judges but as loving Father and gracious Advocate (1 John 2:1), as explained above, not to see if they’re worthy of heaven, but to be reward for their good works, which will be “revealed by fire”: “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:11-15).

[27]  Taylor, “John Piper’s Foreword.”

[28]  Piper, “Faith Alone.”

[29]  John MacArthur, The Glory of Heaven: The Truth About Heaven, Angels, and Eternal Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 135-36. Emphasis mine.

[30]  John Owen, Pneumatologia (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), 555, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/pneum.html, April 16, 2018. Emphasis his.

[31]  Piper, “Will We Be Finally ‘Saved’ by Faith Alone?”

[32]  Piper, What Jesus Demands, 160. See Fatal Flaw #2 for a fuller explanation.

[33] Private exchange with Timothy Kauffman, April 6, 2018.

[34]  Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations on What Is Commonly Called the Apostles’ Creed, trans. Donald Fraser 2 vol. (London: Khull, Blackie & Co., 1823), 2.288–89, qtd in R. Scott Clark, “Witsius On The State Of Believers In The Judgment,” The Heidelblog, October 13, 2015, https://heidelblog.net/2015/10/witsius-on-the-state-of-believers-in-the-judgment/, December 10, 2017.

[35]  Gordon H. Clark, Predestination (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 120-121, qtd. in 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/, December 10, 2017.

[36]  See Clark’s What Is the Christian Life? and What Do Presbyterians Believe?, both available at The Trinity Foundation, http://www.trinitylectures.org/.

[37]  Gordon H. Clark, “Sanctification,” The Southern Presbyterian Journal (Dec. 15, 1954), published by The Gordon H. Clark Foundation in “Articles on the Westminster Confession of Faith in The Southern Presbyterian Journal,” April 20, 2015, http://gordonhclark.reformed.info/files/2015/04/Published-A.-Articles-on-the-Westminster-Confession-of-Faith-in-The-Southern-Presbyterian-Journal.pdf, September 16, 2018.

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

[39]  Ibid. For a Biblical explanation and defense of the Covenant of Works, see Charles Hodge’s Commentary on Romans 5, https://reformed.org/books/romans/rom_5b_hodge.html; Richard C. Barcellos, Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in Light of Christ (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2017); and Carlos Montijo and Tim Shaughnessy, “SRR 85 The Covenant of Works & New Covenant Theology, Part I,” Semper Reformanda Radio, https://thorncrownministries.com/srr/2018/6/24/srr-85-the-covenant-of-works-new-covenant-theology-part-1,  and “SRR 86 The Covenant of Works & New Covenant Theology, Part II,” https://thorncrownministries.com/srr/2018/7/15/srr-86-a-biblical-defense-for-the-covenant-of-works-part-2.

[40]  Ibid.

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.