Is John Piper's View of Final Justification Biblical? | Theocast Clips

But we're only referencing it now because it seems like there's a trend and we're connecting these trends to things that are starting to sound like Rome, which we're going to read some quotes from Rome here in a minute.

But this is the quote. It says from John Piper in his article, in justification, faith receives a finished work of Christ performed outside of us and counted as ours, imputed to us, and we'd say,

Amen. In final salvation, at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne.

So he's added a new category that doesn't exist. And we are saved through that fruit and that faith.

These works of faith, and he quotes passages here, 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.

So he's saying you can be in a right relationship with God, but it's not guaranteeing your final destination with the

Father. Again, this is not a category that Protestants have understood. This actually sounds very much like Trent, which

I'm sure you're pulling up to read right Well, momentarily. I mean, so how is it even that the final justification, you know,

John Piper, Mark Jones type camp, how is it that they sound like Rome? Well, I mean, listen to these words from Rome itself.

And this is from the Council of Trent, Session Six, Canon 24, in the year 1547.

Now if people don't know what the Council of Trent is, it's happening in the decades after the Protestant Reformation has begun.

It's a counter -reformation. It's a response to the Protestant Reformation. The Church of Rome has an ecumenical council that takes place over a number of years, a number of different meetings, sessions, right, that took place.

And those sessions, when they would meet, would write down canons or doctrines or standards, right, that they wanted to affirm.

And what I'm about to read is Session Six, Canon 24 on justification.

This was written in the year 1547. If anyone says that the justification received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works, but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof, let him be anathema.

I'm just going to read it again. If anyone says that the justice received, the justification received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works, but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof, let him be anathema.

In other words, what did Rome say? Rome said in response to the Reformation, it is not right to say that good works are simply an outflow of justification received or that good works are simply evidence of justification received, but that justification received is enough.

To say that is wrong. To say that means you are accursed. What you need to teach, what we understand is biblical sound doctrine is this, that you maintain and even increase the justification you have received through the good works that you do.

Now, we've said this a million times, we'll say it again. The danger in the final justification world and the danger in the federal vision world is not that we increase our justification through obedience.

Nobody's saying that. But they are functionally, if not formally saying you maintain your justification through obedience.

How? All right. I'm saved. Federal vision. I'm saved by baptism. I'm in by baptism.

How do I stay? Obey. Yeah. Final justification. You're justified by faith in Christ.

How am I finally saved? Obey. That's right. And whenever you redefine the terms of salvation and you start to redefine faith and you start to redefine this thing to include faithfulness and obedience, assurance is now impossible.

And we are at least flirting with giving away the good news because we now are introducing a

Jesus plus kind of theology, which as far as I understand it, John, is what the letter of Galatians was all about.

One of the earliest letters in the New Testament next to James, right? What is Paul defending there?

He's defending the clarity of the gospel and he's not, he's not fighting against works, righteousness, wholesale.

He's fighting against Jesus plus, like Jesus plus anything is wrong. It's Christ.