SRR 106 John Piper and the Decline of Sola Fide at Final Judgment, Part 4

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast.

Justification by Faith Alone and the Charge Against Piper

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.

The new perspective on Paul of E .P. Sanders, James D .D. Dunn, and N .T. Wright also attacked justification by faith alone. These are popular in the Reformed communities. These teachings have become popular and Reformed in Presbyterian churches and have caused great spiritual harm to many.

As they are soul damning heresies. However, it is not just the Reformed and Presbyterian churches which have been afflicted with heresy. But even the Neo-Reformed or Neo-Puritan teachers and the Neo-Calvinist movement within the Baptist churches have begun to promulgate a similar teaching as seen in the writings of John Piper and Thomas Schreiner.

In the foreword to Schreiner's book, Faith Alone, The Doctrine of Justification, What the Reformers Taught and Why It Still Matters, John Piper writes,. As Thomas Schreiner says, the book tackles one of the fundamental questions of our human condition.

How can a person be right with God? The stunning Christian answer is, sola fide, faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely. He says, right with God by faith alone, but 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.

Schreiner, who wrote the book, Piper wrote the foreword, in the work already cited, also makes statements which undermine justification and salvation. In his chapter, Righteousness is Eschatological, Schreiner states, yet another piece of evidence points to the eschatological character of justification.

The Bible speaks of Jesus Christ being justified or acquitted at his resurrection, 1 Timothy 3 .16. Further on he writes, believers in Jesus Christ are now justified through faith in Jesus Christ. They are justified by faith alone by virtue of Christ's death for their sins and his resurrection for their justification, Romans 4 .25.

Still they look forward to the day when the declaration will be announced publicly and to the entire world. In this sense, as many scholars attest, justification is an already but not yet reality. Later in his chapter, The Role of Good Works in Justification, Schreiner continues to speak of final justification and salvation, meanwhile attacking faith as belief.

When some hear the Reformation cry of sola fide, faith alone, they assume that it means that good works are an optional part of the Christian life, or that they play no role at all in our final justification or salvation.

The New Testament clearly teaches that bare faith cannot save, and that works are necessary for final justification or final salvation. Here it is. Works are necessary for final justification. That once-for-all declaration isn't once-for-all, according to Schreiner and Piper.

Show Introduction and Listener Feedback

Alright ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the podcast. My name is Tim Shaughnessy, and I am here with my co-host Carlos Montijo, and you guys are listening to Semper Reformanda Radio. So, real quickly, if you would like to give us a call, you can call us at 915 -302 -0915, or you can email us at thorncrownministries at gmail .com.

So, as you probably already guessed, we are going to tackle the John Piper issue again. This is going to be number four in our series. And some people might be asking, why are you guys still talking about this?

And, you know, it's interesting to point out that the Norman Shepard controversy, I think it took like seven years for everything to, for them to actually go through the controversy, and then even then it wasn't handled correctly.

These controversies, they're not settled overnight, because it takes a long time to work out the implications of the false teaching. And that's really what we're doing. We're working out the implications of John Piper's false teaching.

We're trying to address a lot of our critics, and a lot of the defenders, and what they say. And so, there's a reason we played this clip, because we're going to make a point about this. But first, Carlos, let me hand it off to you.

It's great to be recording with you again. I've missed a couple of them. And big thanks to you for doing the interview with Ryan Denton, and also with Hiram Diaz. Both great guys, and big thanks to them for coming on.

I wasn't able to join you. But you've got some emails that you want to read, and some other things that you want to talk about, before we just dive right into the program. So, let's go ahead and take care of that first.

Yeah, it's good to be back on the show with you, Tim. And, as I mentioned last time, in our last part on the Piper issue, this is where we're going to get into even more severe flaws that a lot of people haven't really talked about that much, at least from what I've noticed.

So, I'm really looking forward to talking about this. And we received a few comments and emails about this issue, and so we wanted to take the time to go ahead and look at those right now. We got an encouraging comment from Tony Brown, in the SRR 101, which is part 3 of the Piper issue.

She says this, You have been appointed for just this time in church history. Hold the line, brothers. As I read through Jeremiah in my personal Bible study, I am comforted and reminded that God is glorified.

Even when no one will listen, He is glorified in a believer's faithfulness.

Amen.

So, yeah, amen. Thank you. Thank you very much, Tony, for your encouragement. It's been a controversial issue, so it's always encouraging to get positive feedback on this. And we also got another comment that I had overlooked from John Bradshaw.

He left a comment a couple months ago, actually, and I didn't catch it, so there was a... He says this, Very helpful discussion. Does Piper quote known Reformed teachers like Luther, Calvin, Owen, Spurgeon, Ryle, etc., to support his view of Scripture?

If not, who does he quote for support? So thanks for your question, John. And we are going to probably get into this a little bit more in this episode. And I think we've talked about it before somewhat, but the article does talk about how Piper basically makes blanket statements saying that his view is completely in line with the mainstream Reformed tradition.

And so we've shown how utterly false that claim is. And we're going to continue to show that. But he definitely does claim to be in line with the mainstream Reformed tradition. And he does quote the confession.

He quotes the Westminster Confession to support his view. I think he does quote other authors as well. But more often than not, from what I've noticed, Piper doesn't actually cite any evidence. He just sort of makes the assertion without really backing up his claim.

So we're going to get into that a little bit more. So thanks for your question there, John. We also got another very encouraging email from Jake that I wanted to read. He wrote us this. In response to you, Tim and Carlos, taking on John Piper's bogus position on justification, I must say you have done important work.

I had no idea he was this bad. I had no idea of the resources of the Trinity Foundation. I had no idea how much Michael Horton had wavered. As a direct result, I was able to inform my brother and sister-in-law as to how bad Piper and Keller were and why they should treat them as charlatans.

Please keep up the good work. From SRR to TCN, I am glad every time I see a new post. As a side note, Tim Kaufman is the boss.

Jake. Oh, man. Yeah, he's the eschatological boss and the boss on Roman Catholicism.

Yeah, so thanks again for your email, Jake, and for everybody else for your comments. Please continue to give us your feedback. We love to interact with people and let us know what you think. I'll read my response to Jake real quick.

It just says,.

Dear Jake, we're very encouraged to hear that. One of our goals is to warn people of dangerous ministries and also point them to more reliable ones. Sadly, many of the big-name ministries have overlooked men like Keller and Piper and often assume that they are sound without warrant.

And yes, Brother Tim Kaufman is definitely the boss. Thanks for tuning in. Blessings.

So, yeah, good stuff.

Final Justification Versus Final Salvation

Oh, man, that's good. Yeah. All right, let's go ahead and jump into this. The reason that we played that clip from Tom Giuditis, who is the president of the Trinity Foundation, is because we're going to make a point.

We keep hearing people try to defend Piper on the grounds of saying that he's not talking about final justification, that he's talking about final salvation. One person wrote, To be fair, Piper is arguing for final salvation, not final justification.

Here's what we want to point out. The question is, is final justification partly by works? Now, Piper's defenders will say he didn't say that or he didn't mean that. And Piper actually has used the term final justification, and he's also used the term final salvation.

We've already pointed this out. So that is precisely what he has said and that is precisely what he is talking about. Piper has used both terms and so has Tom Schreiner in his book on justification, which Piper wrote the foreword to that book.

And let's not forget that Piper said, Be sure to hear him, meaning Tom Schreiner, carefully and precisely. So I want to, again, just read from Tom Schreiner's book, which was already pointed out by Tom Giuditis in that little sermon jam there.

But let me go ahead and read this so that everybody is super clear. Piper wrote the foreword to this book. He said, Be sure that you hear Tom Schreiner carefully and precisely. Okay, so Tom Schreiner in chapter 16, he writes, The New Testament clearly teaches that bare faith cannot save and that works are necessary for final justification or final salvation.

These men are using the terms final justification and final salvation synonymously to capture the doctrine of double justification. So the complaint against us that we're misrepresenting him because he's not talking about final justification.

He is. Tom Schreiner wrote that in the book. John Piper wrote the foreword to it. He obviously has no problem with it. He's used that term before himself, which we've quoted in our article on the Trinity Foundation.

So Piper's view of the final judgment, which places believers on trial, is a view of final justification, which is basically by him for the most part been rebranded in the pious unbiblical expression of final salvation.

And Timothy Kaufman, talking about the boss, Timothy Kaufman, he points out that Rich Lusk, who is a, he's a, I would say he's masquerading, he's a Roman Catholic masquerading as a Presbyterian. He's a federal visionist guy.

Rich Lusk writes, this double justification doctrine, speaking of an initial justification by faith alone, followed by a second justification according to works in the eschatological judgment, is re-emerging as the consensus position among today's leading evangelical and reformed biblical theologians.

And then Tim points out, he says they're not even trying to hide it anymore. So, I would say this. I would say that some people have demonstrated such an incredible lack of discernment, along with an unwavering confirmation bias over this John Piper controversy that I honestly fear that will never persuade them of his errors.

And we have to acknowledge that the lack of discernment in the church, coupled with an ungodly confirmation bias, will always prove to be a formidable fortress of refuge for heretics. Therefore, we aim to assault it relentlessly with the Word of God.

So, here's one such example. There was a gentleman on Facebook who really took me to task and was accusing me of slander, was accusing me of sin, and I'm going to say falsely accusing me, because he believed that Piper's clarification video has basically exonerated Piper of any of the charges that we're trying to level against him.

And people keep sending us the Piper clarification video as if we haven't heard it or as if it hasn't already been addressed. I didn't really think that we were going to have to address this because Pastor Hines addressed it on our network and then also Paul Flynn addressed it and he did an outstanding job.

As a matter of fact, I would commend Paul Flynn's Megiddo radio episode to you as we're going to put that in the show notes, so be sure to listen to that. If you think that Piper's clarification video exonerates him or alleviates the tension that he's caused in this controversy, you're dead wrong and you need to listen to what these gentlemen say.

Before we get to that, I want to give a little bit of a Heretics 101, a lesson on how heretics and false teachers deal with these issues and how they obscure false teaching and false teachers. In order to do that, let me go ahead and play a clip from an episode on the Bible Answer Man.

This was dated back in April 10th of 2017. This is fascinating and I'm going to use this to show what Piper's doing as well. Let's listen to Hank Hanegraaff. A caller calls in to sort of challenge Hank on the idea that he's put out there that Roman Catholics are Christians.

This caller basically says they don't hold to the same essentials of the faith because they deny Sola Fide. Let me go ahead and play that for you. It's pretty short and it's very, very insightful. We're going to play the clip.

We're going to talk about what John Piper has said.

Hank, there's something that I tend to notice when listening that you maintain that Protestants and Catholics are the essentials. Hank, that's not true. Catholics do not hold to the core essentials of our faith.

In fact, they do not ascribe to Sola Fide. For that purpose, I don't think that we can call the Catholic Church a Christian church, at least not in its orthodoxy. When we say things like the Catholic Church, while they may differ on certain non-essential issues, they do differ on essential issues.

Well, let me simply say I appreciate your call. I've often defined the Roman Catholic position as best I know how with respect to Sola Fide. The Roman Catholic Church does not hold to a crass system of works righteousness.

They believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith. They believe that the faith are infused with works and those works are meritorious. So this is not a crass system of works righteousness. We may disagree with Rome on that position when you get to the minutia of how they define faith and how they render the distinction between faith and works.

But this has always been sort of a debate that Western Christians have had.

Alright, so that was a very short clip. This guy calls in to confront Hank Hanegraaff about his affirmation of Roman Catholicism as a true Christian religion. Notice at the end of that this is 101 how heretics this is their smooth speech that the Bible warns against.

Notice at the end that Hank Hanegraaff says that this is a debate between Western Christians. This is a debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants. And at the very end he affirms them again as Christians.

And this guy calls in to ask about Sola Fide. He says they deny Sola Fide. And what does Hank Hanegraaff do? Twice he does this. He says, oh, but they don't teach a crass system of works righteousness.

That's not the issue. We know that. Nobody's accused Roman Catholics of, this guy didn't accuse Roman Catholics of teaching a crass system of works righteousness. He said they deny justification by faith alone.

Now, I want to contrast that with what John Piper said in his clarification video. Because what these men are doing is that they are obscuring their own error. And they're setting up a straw man and they're attacking the straw man and they're not dealing with the real issue.

Let me go ahead and play the clip from Desiring God. And I'm going to start from where Piper says, because this is what was sent to me. Works to be saved. Let me go ahead and play this and then I want to point this out.

And then we're going to jump into your article.

So, we are not justified through sanctification. Let me say it again. We are not justified through sanctification. But we are finally saved through sanctification. That is, through a real change in our hearts and minds and lives, without which we will not see the.

Lord. Let me just go ahead and stop it right there and say, Piper has used the term final justification. Tom Schreiner used the term final justification. And so now he's trying to say, we're not justified through sanctification.

We're finally saved through sanctification. Well, if he's consistent and if he's going to acknowledge what he's actually said in the past, then he's going to have to acknowledge that he also believes that you're finally justified through sanctification.

And he's mixing justification with sanctification. I mean, it was clear in what Tom Schreiner said and he's not going to admit that. But this gets really good and that wasn't even the part that this gentleman had sent me.

I just wanted to play that for sort of a background. Let's go ahead and play the rest of it.

Now, people hear this. If they haven't been well taught on these things, here's what people do. They hear this, they say, whoa! Necessary? You say they're necessary for final salvation? And they draw two inferences from that statement.

And both of them are false. Number one, therefore, they say, final salvation is dependent on us. Decisively on us. And here's the next false inference. Therefore, it's uncertain. I could fail. I could lose my salvation.

I could be justified and then not be justified. A child of God might lose his justification. Now, both those inferences are dead wrong. Both logically wrong and biblically wrong.

Here is the problem with this. Piper and Hank Hanegraaff did the exact same thing. This is really, really interesting. Both of these inferences that Piper is trying to address, and keep in mind that this episode of Desiring God was put out to address Piper's critics.

To address the controversy. So, both of these clarifications, both of these points are completely irrelevant. The first one, he says, they say, final salvation then is dependent on us. Decisively on us.

I don't know of anyone who is involved in this controversy and has called him out who has argued that this is the issue. And remember, again, that this was put out to address the controversy that he caused but nobody in the controversy that I know of has actually argued against him on this point that it is decisively on us.

So, who are the they that he is referring to here? And he just did exactly what Hank Hanegraaff did. The man asked Hank Hanegraaff about Sola Fide and Hank's response was by saying that Roman Catholicism does not hold to a crass system of works righteousness.

Nobody said that they did. And nobody is saying here that Piper's teaching that salvation or final justification or final salvation is decisively dependent on us. That's not the issue. So, here's what's going on.

And this is, Carlos, this is crazy deceptive. And it's almost like you have to pause, rewind, pause, rewind, and listen to this a couple of times before it hits you. This is the smooth speech that we are warned against in the Bible.

Basically, we point out, Hey, you're denying Sola Fide or faith alone. They respond by saying, Oh, no, you're mistaken. We're not teaching Sola Opera or works alone. Do you see what they just did? We know that.

We know that they're not saying you're teaching works alone. And that's not the issue. The issue is that you're denying faith alone because you're teaching faith plus works. See, Hank Hanegraaff obscured Rome's false gospel in the same way that Piper obscured his false gospel.

The issue is whether or not you hold to faith alone, not whether or not you hold to works alone. Not even the Judaizers argued that it was decisively dependent on us, yet they still taught a false gospel.

That's why Paul says he condemns them first, and then he says in Galatians chapter 3, verse 3, he says, Are you so foolish, having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected in the flesh or by the flesh?

You see, they weren't told by the Judaizers that it was all by the flesh, or that it was decisively dependent on them, or that it was a crass works righteousness system. And I don't know of anybody who's drawing that inference.

So he's trying to address the people who are having an issue with him, and it's so insulting because he says if you haven't been well taught on this, and he completely misrepresents his critics by erecting a straw man and tackling an issue that's not even that nobody's even arguing.

So, here's point number two. He says here's the next false inference. They say therefore, it's uncertain. I could fail. I could lose my salvation. I could be justified and then not be justified. A child of God might lose his justification.

Well, here's what's interesting. Piper offers his readers a false assurance as we've already pointed out. And as we've already shown from previous episodes, Piper apparently contradicts himself on this point.

But here's the problem. It's not that we're trying to point out that his view of salvation or getting into heaven is uncertain. That the problem is, well, it's uncertain. That's not the issue. What we're saying is that it's completely unattainable.

If these people go into eternity thinking that they're going to get into heaven by or through their own inherent righteousness or good works, which is what Piper teaches, then they're trusting in a false gospel.

So, you can be certain that salvation is unattainable by this false gospel. So, Carlos, I want to know, do you have any thoughts on this? I mean, this is brilliantly deceptive to try to tackle these two points that nobody's arguing and to obscure the false teaching.

It's almost like, and I'm going to say this again, because I really want people to get this. We say, you're denying faith alone. And they say, oh, no, no, no, we're not teaching works alone. And it's like, okay, we didn't accuse you of teaching works alone.

We accused you of denying faith alone, because you're adding works. We know you're not teaching works alone. You're teaching. We know that you're not teaching, that it's decisively dependent on us. You'll give credit to God's grace and faith, and you'll say all those things, but you're adding works.

So, you're denying faith alone. So, did you have anything to say on that? Because if not, then I want to play the clip where Piper boasts that his view is right in line with Reformed Orthodoxy.

I remember we critiqued that clip from Hanegraaff in the previous episode that we did on Hank Hanegraaff, so if you want to check that out, you can go back and listen to that. And just to make a few distinctions, so I know, yeah, they're both sort of creating scarecrows and red herrings, but there's a slight difference with why Hank is doing it as opposed to why Piper is doing it, because Hank, the reason he's apostate now is because he has dethroned the doctrine of justification from a primary to a secondary issue.

So, he allows you.

To have.

Some works, not a crass system of works, right, just as if it was completely 100 works, but you can have some works, as long as it's not a crass works only system, which makes, he's making it a secondary issue, and that's why he's apostate, because justification is not a secondary issue that you can disagree on with respect to how much works contribute to your justification.

It's 100 Christ alone. Hanegraaff denies that. And so, another thing, so with, Piper doesn't agree with that, he would probably say that it's a primary issue, however, and we've already pointed this out, and I don't know why people have criticized us for denying that Piper acknowledges justification by faith alone, because he does.

The problem is that he's a both and kind of guy, and you can't have it both ways, because these are mutually exclusive systems. And so, Piper says, well, justification is by faith alone, but salvation is by, a final salvation is faith and works inherent righteousness required.

And so, that's a false dichotomy, like we've been pointing out repeatedly, and you can't have it both ways.

The Mainstream Reformed Tradition and Piper's Self-Defense

Yeah, that's good. So, let's go ahead and jump into this. I got another comment from somebody, and we're going to jump into your article now. Somebody posted on my timeline hashtag read Jonathan Edwards.

And then I joked with this individual, and I said, at least you didn't say Daniel Fuller, because Daniel Fuller just outright denied the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But then he says, Tim, I think that you're viewing this through the eyes of the reformers instead of the Puritans' view of justification.

Piper is using Edwards' language. So, we're viewing this through the lens of the reformers, and we should be viewing this through the lens of the Puritans. And I wrote back, and I said, well, then there shouldn't be an issue.

After all, it was Piper who boasted that his view is the view of the entire mainstream of Reformed theology. The other thing that I want to point out is just the obvious flaw in this thinking, because if the reformers and the Puritans are at odds with the doctrine of justification, then we've got some serious issues.

And you shouldn't have to go and read basically every Puritan to make a case for Piper. But I want to play the clip, and this is from the same Desiring God episode. Just listen to what Piper says about his position being right in line with Reformed theology.

Now the question rises, how do our good deeds then fit with justification and final salvation? And 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.

So you can't tell me I need to read Jonathan Edwards or I need to read the Puritans, because I'm viewing this through the lens of the Reformers. There should be no problem, because Piper himself boasts that this is the entire mainstream of Reformed theology.

And so Carlos, that's kind of what you alluded to earlier. And I want to get into your article, because I think that today in part four, you really hit this hard. And we're going to talk about is Piper really in line with Reformed orthodoxy?

We're going to basically point out that he's not. And I'm pretty much going to let you do most of the talking, since now you're going to be talking about your article. But I want to remind you first that you wanted to also talk about the debtor's ethic and double jeopardy.

So how should we do this? Did you want to tackle that first? Because I know that last time we kind of didn't really talk about that. So how do you want to play this?

Yeah, so I did want to tie up some of those loose ends that I didn't get a chance to go into much detail the last episode.

So.

I wanted to address first one criticism, another criticism that we've received. Basically some people have gotten upset that we've talked about or that we've criticized other prominent theologians in addition to Piper.

And that was always our intention. It was never our intention to just talk about Piper because Piper is not the only one committing this error. All you have to do is read the title.

Of my article and it says.

When Protestants err on the side of Rome. It's Protestants, several of them that are making an error similar to Piper. The reason that I'm focusing so much or that we're focusing so much on Piper is because Piper is more carefully nuanced his view.

And so if you refute his view, you refute the more blatantly contradictory or unbiblical views tied to final justification. It's just that Piper tends to be a lot more nuanced and careful and more dangerous consequently because of that.

And so that's why we talk about Horton and his ecumenical hypocrisy and all that other stuff too.

And.

The other people that we've also mentioned.

You're right because in today's episode, we've talked about Tom Schreiner. And so if you have an issue with somebody talking about final justification that's in accordance with works, then you should have a problem with Tom Schreiner.

But we're focusing on Piper. Well, I'm focusing on Piper because a lot of people in my church like him. And I want to make a case against him so that way I can mark him and avoid him. So yeah, carry on.

Yeah, so.

A couple of the things that I touched on in the third fatal flaw, which is the analytic justification of the believer. I'm going to read a quote in there from Piper. He says this, 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.

Grace gives salvation as a free gift to be received by faith, not earned by works. The reason I'm quoting this is because I failed to mention before that part of the reason why Piper ends up where he is in his false view of justification and final salvation is because he denies the covenant of works.

He also denies the works principle tied to Christ earning our salvation on our behalf. He derogatorily calls this the debtor's ethic, especially in his book Future Grace. We're going to touch on that a little bit more later towards the end of the article, but I wanted to point that out for people so that you can keep that in the back of your head because his position on this is where he says works can't earn your salvation and so that undermines the covenant of works completely and the biblical works principle.

So we're going to touch on that later, but I wanted to point that out to keep that in mind. And the other point that we discussed a little bit last time is this issue of double jeopardy. So I'm going to quote again in the article where I mentioned that.

So, even when he further contradicts himself by claiming that the latter will never happen, Piper nevertheless 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 for salvation.

Piper cannot legally eat his justified cake now and still have it at the last judgment.

So,.

I'm pointing this out again because every single false system of final salvation or justification, whether it's Roman Catholicism, whether it's John Piper, or Schreiner, or Federal Vision, New Perspective, all of these views make the same basic mistakes on a very fundamental level.

And one of those major mistakes, major flaws, is the problem of double jeopardy. Because if Christ already satisfied the entire punishment and made full satisfaction of the wrath of God on our behalf on the cross, then there is no longer an impending judgment awaiting us any longer.

And so that's where these men like Piper go fatally wrong. And it's a damnable heresy for this very reason. You're putting believers on trial once again to prove their way, to show that they have enough works to get into heaven, when in reality, Christ has already satisfied that completely 100 on their behalf, on all of their behalf.

So, I want to highlight that again because you'll see how this comes up later on as well, and why this is damnable heresy. I mean, it's not something that you can just dismiss as a secondary issue or as a minor variation of justification.

It is damnable false teaching. So, now we can get into the fourth fatal flaw. Fatal flaw number four is the active obedience and congruous merit of the believer. So I'm going to start out. The first sentence says, Piper further overrides Christ's perfect active obedience, which he affirms at the last judgment, with the believer's own inherent righteousness in his words.

Or, in Roman Catholic terms, congruous merit, where, quote, 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 they really were worthy of grace.

Then, once in a state of grace, the individual could truly begin to perform works which were strictly meritorious. So, that's a quote from from Carl Truman. And he's explaining the Roman Catholic view.

I'm going to read also where Piper affirms he affirms actually, yeah, so he does affirm he affirms the active obedience of Christ, which, again, is he's a both-and kind of guy, which is, it's a false teaching.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have it, those are mutually exclusive and incompatible ways of salvation. And so, Martin Luther and the Reformers adamantly rejected this type of merit. And this is a quote from Luther.

So, that's Luther. And there you go. You see very clearly how he contradicts the Reformers, like Luther and the Bible on this issue, because believers do not seek to be either justified nor glorified through their works.