SRR 99 John Piper and the Decline of Sola Fide at Final Judgment, Part 2

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast.

The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the air and combating the air.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing. It's not hate, it's history. It's not bashing, it's the Bible. Jesus said, woe to you when men speak well of you. For their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

As opposed to, blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

Piper, Horton, and the Charge of Ecumenical Compromise

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you back to the podcast. My name is Tim Shaughnessy and you are listening to Semper Reframanda Radio. So, today it's going to be me and Carlos again. And we are going to continue addressing the issues with John Piper.

But Carlos, I was listening to last week's episode and it's pretty clear to me that really this is so much bigger than just Piper. And I think that we need to talk about that a little bit more. And last week I played Devil's Advocate.

After listening to myself, I realized that I think I played Devil's Advocate a little bit too much with respect to the Michael Horton thing. And the reason that I played Devil's Advocate was because I knew that we are going to get those complaints and people are going to have an issue with what we're saying.

But I wholeheartedly agree with what you were saying about Michael Horton. I do think that it's a huge problem. I think that he needs to own up to it and he needs to stop things like that. And as you pointed out, it's not the first time that he's been called out for something like that.

But after listening to what you read from the quote, I want you to just read it again and then I just want to tell you what I think about it.

Yeah, so Horton's endorsement was this. Even when one disagrees with some of his conclusions...

Okay, so stop right there. Okay, so stop right there. He makes the disagreements sound trivial, tertiary, or secondary in nature. And that's... when I came away from this, I thought, even when one disagrees with some of the conclusions, well, our disagreement with Rome is a vast chasm to which no bridge can be made.

Our disagreement with Rome centers on the gospel itself. And so to make such a remark as that just trivializes it. And then to say that the Pope is an important theologian of our day... Go ahead and read the rest of it and I'll try not to interrupt you.

Yeah, but it's the difference between true and false religion, Christ and Antichrist. Yeah, it's very much a compromise, ecumenical compromise. It says, 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, Han 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.

So two things right there. He qualifies the book as remarkable. I just don't see any other way around that. That's high praise for the book. If I were to say, hey, here's a remarkable book, I'm going to give you the impression that this is a great book.

Even though I might disagree with some of the stuff in it, but it's a really good book and you can really be edified and learn a lot from it. And then to say that the Pope is an eminent or is an important theologian of our day is, I mean, just a gross misrepresentation of what the Pope is, of what the papacy is and who the Pope is.

The Pope is Antichrist. I would never say to somebody, I would say to somebody that, you know, even though I disagree with some of what John MacArthur believes, I think John MacArthur is one of the most important theologians of our day.

That's what I'd say with respect to John MacArthur. Even though, again, I disagree with some of the conclusions that he draws, but I would never say that about the Pope.

Or Scott Hahn.

Yeah, exactly. I was listening to our episode that I did with Steve Matthews and Timothy Kauffman, episode one of the Trinity Foundation Radio. And Timothy Kauffman points out the problem with Scott Hahn, that he basically followed the logic that Piper is presenting us.

He followed it out and it led him straight to Rome. And Timothy Kauffman mentioned Scott Hahn by name in that episode. And so I would encourage people to go back and listen to it. Scott Hahn, unfortunately, is not anybody that we would recommend.

We would warn people away from him to avoid him because he has sided with Rome. He has become an apostate. And so I wanted to make it very clear from the outset of this episode that I completely agree with what you said.

And, you know, the other thing, Carlos, that I want to back up here because I wanted to give you an opportunity to engage a little bit with the book. You actually read the book that Michael Horton recommended and Scott Hahn wrote.

And so if you could just give us your thoughts on that.

Yeah, I started reading over some of it. The reason this came up again, because the endorsement he gave a while ago, I don't remember the precise date, but, well, 2009 actually, is when he defended his endorsement.

But the reason this came up again is because, as you know, or as you might know, Logos Bible Software, Faithlife, they offer free books every month, a free e-book each month. And so they have a Roman Catholic subsidiary company called Verbum or Werbum.

And this company, it's a Roman Catholic version of Logos. And recently they offered Scott Hahn's book for free. So I got it, that's how I got a hold of it, and then I was looking at the endorsement page and there, like, Horton's was one of the first endorsements listed.

And so that led us to this whole thing that we've come to. But we already covered the whole situation, but what really struck me reading this book is that it is, I don't know how you can be a Protestant and not be bothered by just the whole feel for the book in the first place, because it's basically an act of idolatry.

It's an act of blasphemous idolatry because this guy, former Presbyterian, is praising and celebrating a man as the Pope. And it is really, really at odds. It's just so idolatrous, for one thing. And to some of the conclusions, here are some of the conclusions that he comes to.

I dug up some of the quotes, some of the more anti-Protestant ones. So in one of the chapters he says,. From these reflections it is clear that the Church's teaching authority, its magisterium, cannot be regarded as an extraneous or foreign element that constricts the freedom of the theologian.

The authority of the Church over the Word is part of the essential historical structure of God's revelation in the Church. As we observed in the previous chapter, historically speaking, scripture, tradition, and the Church's apostolic teaching authority are inseparable facets of the same reality, namely the revelation of the Word to the Church.

The authority of the Church as the, quote, primary, he's quoting Benedict now, the primary interpreter of the Word, end quote, is the auctoritas apostolica, the authority of the living Word communicated as viva vox, as the living voice of the apostolic preaching.

The Church's preaching, its proclamation of the faith, is quite naturally the normative criterion of theology, because this proclamation, the gospel, the Church proclaims, is the very object of theological reflection.

So there you see he's plainly stating that the Church has authority over the Bible. I mean, it's standard Roman Catholic theology. And to say that it's, you know, a conclusion that you would disagree with is a serious undermining of the entire premise of the book, which is an act of idolatry, because the guy praises, he's a Roman Catholic who praises the Pope.

So it's ironic that instead of calling him, rather than calling, he's calling him an important theologian when his own confession calls him antichrist. That's about as sharp of a contrast as you can get.

So it's pretty shameful for him to do something like that.

Final Judgment, Works, and the Fatal Flaw in Piper’s View

Right. You know, this just is so much bigger than Piper. And last time we didn't even touch on Piper. So we're going to do that now. But before we start, man, I really, man, I'm really struggling tonight because, man, I'm down.

Because there's a guy on Facebook, this guy by the name of Chris, and I like this guy. I mean, he seems like a nice guy. Sent him a friend request. But, you know, I was talking to him tonight, and we're going to start with number one in addressing the fatal flaw.

And this is what Chris writes. He says, God has justified me based on his undeserved favor on the grounds of Christ's death for my sins. And through my trust in Christ, his death and resurrection for his forgiveness without any consideration of anything I've done.

But that doesn't get rid of the fact that the New Testament clearly says that works will be the basis of the final judgment for every person. When the final judgment is talked about and the basis of the final verdict is given, works are clearly emphasized.

Including the works of believers. However, I don't believe any works are meritorious toward justification. Rather, they are going to be used as a judicial evidence of the reality of a person's justification or its absence.

And when I say works, he put works in quotations, I mean any word, thought, or action. How do you explain the emphasis of works of believers in passages about the final judgment such as those in Matthew 25, Romans 2, Revelation 1, 3, and chapter 22?

So, we're going to touch on some of the language that was used here because he's speaking in legal terms. And man, it just bothers me. And I have such a heavy heart right now because he's saying two completely contradictory things.

And I did address the judgment of works as it pertains to believers in my episode on the Trinity Foundation radio as well as on the article that I published with Tim Coffman. There is a judgment of works for believers, but that is for the basis of rewards, not for the basis of surviving through the courtroom of Christ and the last judgment in order that I might get into heaven.

So, on the one hand, he's saying the right thing and then he's just completely presenting something that's straight from Piper because this was in the context of talking about Piper. And it bothers me.

And it's like, I don't even want to... Man, I want to reach out to this guy. I don't want to beat these people up. I don't want to just hit everybody over the head with a Bible being unloving and uncaring.

I feel for these people. I feel horrible that people are being taken up by this. And I don't know, man. I don't know how to explain it. Going into this tonight, I'm sad by this. I don't even want to talk about this at church because it hurts to talk about this.

People don't agree with you. And it's a hard conversation to have. We've been accused of trying to make a name for ourselves. We've been accused of, you know, we're just out to get people. That's not what this is about at all.

It's almost like when we talked about Hank Hanegraaff. It's like, yeah, I mean, everybody's concerned about Hank Hanegraaff. But it's like, I'm also concerned about the people that are listening to Hank Hanegraaff when he affirms Roman Catholicism as a true church.

So I want to start with the fatal flaw number one. I want everybody to know that that's where my heart is. I mean, this is a gospel issue. Let's be super clear about that. This is a gospel issue. But Carlos, in fatal flaw number one, it's titled, Justified by faith at first, saved by works at last.

And some of the terminology that was used in this quote by this guy, Chris, was also, you point out the problem with Piper in the way that he uses these legal terms. So let's walk that out. I'm going to give you the floor and let you take it away.

Justification by Faith Alone Versus Final Salvation by Works

Yeah, so I'm going to restate the thesis so people can refresh their memory. We left off last time by stating the thesis of what the main issue is with Piper. Which is this. I'm going to quote the article.

In his attempt to reconcile passages like James 2 .14, which is, What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? And Hebrews 12 .14, which says, 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. It suffers from not one but at least six flaws, all of them fatal, for the doctrine of justification is fundamental to Christianity and affects all other doctrines.

To get justification wrong, to get salvation wrong, is to get Christianity wrong. So, as you read the first flaw, all of these flaws, basically each one of these flaws alone is enough to refute Piper's position and to show that it's utterly at odds with the Bible.

And they're not necessarily in a certain order, but the way I try to list them is by essentially the most obvious ones first. And these first three have, for the most part, already been, to some extent, been called out by other people who are concerned, who have the same concerns that we do.

So, these are basically the, these three flaws are essentially the three, some of the major areas that other folks that have already brought this to light and called Piper out on. So, the first flaw is, like you said, justified by faith at first, saved by works that last.

And so, here I start with a quote from Piper to show that his errors are not new. And the only difference, if any, is that he's becoming more explicit in twisting Protestant doctrine to make it fit his neolegalist mold.

So, going back as far as 1993, he states this, he says, 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.

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. Which sounds, this sounds very similar to the guy that you just read, the guy that you just quoted.

So, the issue now is that Piper is very clearly using legal terminology and describing how works relate to final salvation. He's claiming that our deeds, quote, Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation.

They are not foundation, they are demonstration. So, he's trying to get away with this by saying, They are not the grounds or the foundation of our salvation, but they are evidence. The only problem is that this is forensic evidence in Christ's courtroom.

In his own words, Christ's courtroom in the judgment hall of Christ. Forensic evidence, which as we will see, undermines the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers and every legal status a believer has in relation to God.

We're not just talking about, this is part of the conflation that Piper has with how works relate to our salvation. What James is referring to is, we've already made mention of this, we've explained this several times before.

Good works are an evidence to other people, to other, How do I know that you're a believer? Show me my faith, show me your faith by your works. That's what James is talking about. God doesn't need those works to prove or to show that you're actually a believer.

He doesn't need them. He gave them to you as gifts. They are not the basis, they are not even the evidence of our salvation at the last judgment.

Right. And going back to what this guy said, let me just read the important part again so that people get it. He wrote, this guy Chris, he wrote, When the final judgment is talked about and the basis of the final verdict, so he's in court, is given, works are clearly emphasized, including the works of believers.

So believers are on trial. They are going to be used as judicial evidence. And so they're the same legal terms. And people are going to be put on trial again. And this is so deceptive because, Carlos, when Piper is saying that these works are, like you said, they're not the grounds, they're the evidence of our justification.

In other words, unless you have enough forensic evidence when Christ judges you at the final judgment, you're not getting into heaven.

Right.

You're being put on trial again, a second time, in order to determine if you're going to heaven.

Right. And that's why it's so important to point out that this is deceiving. Because people hear that, oh, our works are not the grounds, they're the evidence. And yes, that's exactly right. But not at the last judgment.

So that it can achieve something that Christ already achieved. And so this is why it's so important to point out that justification is a once for all legal, judicial, final verdict of God declaring the sinner righteous at the moment of his effectual calling.

Both now and at the last judgment. So that's why this is so... Man, my heart just breaks for people like this. My concern is, are you going to appeal to your good works to present as evidence, like, here's what I did, Lord, on the final day?

Are you going to hope in that? Or are you going to hope in the finished work of Christ on the cross? And this error, and I'm not being dramatic here, this error is lethal. And this is what infuriates me.

This is what gets my blood boiling. And this is what, at the end of the day, man, it just breaks my heart that people are being swept away by this. So go ahead, man, go ahead and continue.

Yeah, so we're making very strong statements because this is a very serious problem that Piper has. And I state in the article, I'll state it again. This view undermines the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers and every legal status the believer has in relation to God, every single status.

Because it's now on the basis of your... See, they're trying, they say it's not the basis, it's not the foundation, it's not the ground. But unless you have, Christ is going to forensically analyze your good works at the final judgment to see if you have enough in order to get into heaven.

This is the sharp contrast that Piper keeps making. We're already justified, but in order to get into heaven, you need to be forensically evaluated by God on the final judgment. Present your good works as forensic evidence because if you don't have those present, you're not getting in.

And so it's a complete undermining of the justification that we have in the first place. That is what justification is. It is a forensic acquittal. The justification is a forensic legal acquittal and forgiveness and pardon of sins of the believer.

And this completely undermines that. So again, more recently he's been stressing that all believers will have to present their works on the final judgment, not just for heavenly rewards. So he does affirm that they're for heavenly rewards, but it's not just that.

It's as a quote, necessary confirmation that they are worthy of entering heaven. Otherwise they won't get in. And this is a quote from, the first quote was from a sermon series that he did on the resurrection and the final judgment.

It's called, What Happens When You Die? I'll Appear Before the Judgment Seat of Christ. This next quote is from the newer sermon or article, yeah it was a sermon, called Faith Alone, How Not to Use a Reformed Slogan.

And so here he says, Paul calls this effect or fruit or evidence of faith, the work of faith and the obedience of faith. 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. 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 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. Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin and the pursuit of holiness.

Mortification of sin, sanctification and 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 100 for us already by faith alone.

So again, he's stressing this to such an extent that now he's saying we're not justified by faith alone. We don't get to heaven by faith alone in the same way that we're justified by faith alone. Because in order for us to get to heaven, God has to forensically evaluate the works that we have as evidence to see if we have enough evidence to get to heaven.

So that is clearly putting him in the camp of those who hold to a final justification. That is exactly what final justification is. Just because you say it's not grounds, even if you say it's not grounds or salvation or foundation or basis, if you're still saying that there's evidence that is necessary in order to be presented at the final judgment, in order for you to get in, that contributes to your justification at the final judgment.

It's not settled with Christ alone. It's not settled by Christ alone. You still have to present it at the final judgment.

Right. And you know what these people are doing is that they're committing the word concept fallacy. They're saying, oh, the concept's not there because he's not using that word. And the concept is there and he's avoiding the word, I think, because of the obvious problematic implications of those.

A lot of the grounds, the basis, a lot of those terms are used in Roman Catholicism. And you use those words and they're going to be red flags, but the concept is still the same. And I've heard people say, Piper says final salvation, not final justification, and they try to draw this arbitrary distinction.

But Piper actually uses the terms interchangeably to describe his own view, which essentially captures the same concept, as you just put, of final justification, in which people are not completely, wholly, legally, forensically, judicially declared righteous now because we're still going to have to be put on trial.

And so he's used the term final justification before. Tom Schreiner, in which he wrote the forward to that book, uses the terms final justification. And Piper uses the term final salvation. And I believe that he uses them synonymously to capture his view.

So I do want to get to that a little bit later, but I want to take our time. This first point is a little bit long, so I really want to take our time and let's just keep chipping away at it.

Yeah, so I continue in the article. Basically, 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.

Why? Because believers also have to have good works, love, kill indwelling sin, and pursue holiness for God to allow them into heaven on the final judgment.

And again, let me interject here. Let me point out. When we say that faith is not enough for Piper, people oftentimes try to point to James chapter 2 and make a distinction between true and living faith and dead faith.

Living faith, which manifests itself in good works, is not enough in Piper's view. So people who are saying, I think Piper's just saying that works will be present. That's not what Piper is saying. You're misrepresenting Piper when you say that.

Piper is saying, because in Piper's view, the only faith that justifies a person is a true and living faith, which is made manifest in good works, so the good works are there. Now, what you're saying, Carlos, is that faith is not enough.

So we need to be super clear on this, because people keep citing James chapter 2 as if that's the argument, and that's not the argument.

Yeah, he's saying, quote, we won't enter heaven until we have it. All of those things that we just listed, that he himself listed, it's just so far removed from the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that it is far more in common in line with the Federal Visionists, the New Perspectivists, the Roman Catholic Church.

That is basically what they say. It may differ in degrees as to how explicit they are, but this is the same error. This is essentially the same error, just a little more subtle. Look at the word picture that he's painting.

He's saying, God is going to put us on trial. We are going to face the judgment hall of Christ and face Christ as judge. There is no escaping that God is forensically weighing our works as evidence to see if we have enough to get to heaven.

That's justification, folks. In case you didn't get it, that's justification. That justification was already accomplished at the cross, and when you believe that justification is applied to you legally, forensically, that is the doctrine of Protestant justification.

The eschatological justification or judgment is already solved and brought forward to the present day, the moment that you believe. There is no longer an evaluation period at the final judgment because Christ already satisfied it.

That is what the imputation of Christ's righteousness is all about. Before I get any more ahead of myself, we can continue on with the first flaw. Again, this is a Roman reversal of the Reformation because Protestants have only the same answer to both questions, and that is faith alone.

It's faith alone, not faith plus works and works present at the last judgment.

I don't know, and I want you to carry on, but I don't know if you quoted this verse, but it just really hits home what you're talking about right here. John 5, 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my words and believes him who sent me has eternal life.

He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. We do not go into judgment, but we pass from death to life. But Piper will have us go through a judgment in Christ's courtroom to be put on trial.

I believe that that blatantly contradicts what Christ himself teaches.

Yeah, that verse illustrates exactly the problems that I'm pointing out in the thesis of the article. Piper and these people who believe in a final salvation, final justification, they are very poorly failing to harmonize all of Scripture consistently and harmoniously.

Because there's several passages in the Bible that fly in the face of what Piper is saying. And we're also going to deal with the passages that seem to support what Piper and these folks say. But you have to account for all of Scripture, and that verse you just quoted completely contradicts everything that he's saying.

So even though he does correctly explain that we put sin to death and we pursue holiness from a justified position where God is 100 for us already by faith alone, Piper is nevertheless betraying Sola Fide because he's conflating it with sanctification.

Because he's stating that God requires good works or the sanctifying fruit of faith as necessary confirmation for believers to enter heaven at the last judgment. Again, quote, 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 first fruits to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. And this is not obscure.

Piper is not being confusing. He's not being vague. He's not being unclear. This is as clear as clear can be. There is no misunderstanding him. This is plain. And it's plain wrong. It's just flat out wrong.

Some people try to excuse Piper because he still affirms justification by faith alone. But again, if you're familiar with church history and heresies, the heretics constantly use biblical and orthodox terminology to affirm the very Christian doctrines that they themselves reject.

And they redefine them. They subtly redefine and undermine them by twisting the scriptures and isageating their own views into the text. And this is what Piper does. This is exactly what Piper is doing.

And John Robbins, he wrote an article back in 2002 warning about John Piper. It's nothing new. This is nothing new. And Robbins warns that, quote,. And it's ironic because Piper's own words mark him guilty when he himself gives his readers an admonition when he's extracting an application, a lesson learned from Athanasius and how he had to deal with the Aryan heretics.

Because they very subtly would undermine the doctrines. They would accept what the orthodox folks would say, but then they would undermine them by redefining them. So they would accept them at face value, but then they would redefine them completely.

And this is what Piper's doing with Protestant understandings of these doctrines. That is exactly what he's doing. He's twisting their meaning with heterodox interpretations of the biblical passages in a way that betrays both the Reformation and the scriptures.

And he says this, Piper says this, he says,. So there, you know, it sounds like a very pious, this reminds me a lot of New Covenant theology people, you know. We're only, we are biblical first and we're only reformed if it follows what the Bible says.

Well, yeah, that's what everybody would say. Everybody would say that. Methodists would say that. Baptists would say that. They all say that. They all claim that. So it doesn't, it means very little unless you state what you're saying and what you're saying harmonizes with scripture.

It has to line up with scripture.

Well, it's like Pastor Hines has rightly pointed out that every heretic in the history of the church has taught their heresy in the name of being faithful to scripture.

Exactly. That's basic. That is one of the most basic lessons of church history. And he says this too. He says,. And again, this is patently false. He's not, he is not saying, he's not affirming justification by faith alone.

We just explain how God evaluating our works as evidences, even if it's not the grounds or the basis or the foundation. As long as it's something, evidences, it doesn't matter. That is contributing to your justification at the final judgment.

So again, it's clear. It's so clear that he is utterly opposed to the Protestant Reformation and to the Protestant understanding of these doctrines.

Right. And I also want to point out to people that we are not antinomians. That we do believe that if a person is justified, that justification inevitably leads to sanctification. And that there will be evidence of that person's saving faith.

We believe that it's a necessary and inevitable consequence of saving faith. The difference is, is that those evidences are for people. And that's why in James chapter 2, it says,. Actually, let me just read it, because it's the best thing to do.

But those evidences are before people. They're not before God at the final judgment. And that's why the context of what James is talking about, he says, starting in verse 14,. So what he's talking about is a profession of faith.

How do we evaluate someone's profession of faith? Well, first, by what they teach and believe. We have to examine the substance of what they're saying in light of Scripture and see if it lines up. But then also, he's addressing the issue of hypocrisy.

And so we're not antinomians. We're not saying that a person will be completely devoid of faith. With the free grace movement, we do believe that it's a necessary and inevitable consequence of saving faith.

But that evidence is for people to really see if you're a hypocrite or if you're genuinely a Christian. Because that's all we have. We can't see inside of a person's heart. So I just wanted to make that clear, because I know that that keeps coming up as well.

Are you saying that a person can go to heaven and not have any works? We're not antinomian. But what we're saying is that you will not get into heaven because of your good works. And so when you say that you don't get into heaven by faith alone, when you say that, you're saying that inevitably that faith alone is not the alone instrument by which you get into heaven.

Your inherent goodness, not the goodness of Christ imputed to you through faith, but it's you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just wanted to throw that out there, because people keep leveling the charge of antinomianism against us.

Yeah, we're going to deal with that a little later with how works play a role. We've already explained, and we will explain in more detail, that the role of works in the final judgment is that God is going to evaluate them to see which ones he's going to reward.

They are not the necessary evidence that we have to present in order for God to allow us into heaven. That is contributing to your justification, and it utterly undermines the total perfect satisfaction and imputed righteousness that Christ already has imputed to us on our behalf.