John Piper and Gospel Confusion

Brothers I am troubled!

There’s no doubt that John Piper is one of the people God has used to impact my theological journey in a significant way. Much could be said about that. This blog is filled with many references to John Piper’s works.

However, in recent days I have become increasingly concerned about what Dr. Piper is teaching. He makes a distinction between initial justification and entering heaven, to the point that the gospel is confused, and some would even say, denied.

It is because I have greatly admired Dr. Piper that I have really tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I really have. But the more I have read and the more I have re-read Piper’s material, the more troubled I have become. I would have expected the opposite to be true – that the more I read of his, the more clarity I would find to set my concerns aside. However, that is not the case in any way at all.

I am deeply troubled. John Piper is abundantly clear in what he is saying and that is what bothers me greatly.

Here’s a video by Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, Kingsport, Tennessee, responding to Piper in his own words.

Update: Since this video was made, Dr. Piper has posted the following article: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no-love-lost

I shared this article with Pastor Hines (the maker of the above video) and here is his reply:

Pastor Hines: The vast majority of what he says is, again, very biblical and sound. The problem is this: “There is no final salvation without the confirmation of justification in a life of holiness (2 Peter 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).” & “In our conversations with Roman Catholics, it will always be wise to emphasize how seriously we regard the necessity of sanctification for final salvation. It will not be surprising if they are puzzled.

Many evangelicals stumble over the claim that justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28), and yet final salvation has the prerequisite of holiness (Hebrews 12:14). But this is centuries-long Reformed teaching.” What does “prerequisite of holiness” mean? What does “final salvation” mean? How does “final salvation” differ from “justification?” Clearly, in Piper’s thinking, it does differ. The Reformers and their successors all taught that our justification IS what “finally gets us to heaven.” Our justification is that eschatological verdict brought back in time and once and for all eternity made concerning our status before God’s law.

John Piper is not a stupid man. But surely he is well aware of the fact that the way he is stating this is going to upset the apple-cart. He needs to define what he means by “final salvation” and “prerequisite of holiness.” He doesn’t – and hence the danger of this ambiguous teaching. One Reformer, John Calvin, taught us: “Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics.”

Remember also that in his sermon, he said that “it is the surveyors who are confused because they asked ‘How do you get into heaven?'” John, I seriously have to wonder what Piper’s answer to that surveyor’s question would be now. Based on what Piper said, “You don’t get into heaven by faith alone,” Piper would have to say in response to that question: “By putting sin to death and pursuing holiness.” And that’s the problem with all of this.

John Samson: I believe the key question that STILL needs to be answered (regarding Dr. Piper’s teaching) is this one – “will there be people who were justified who do not enter heaven at the final judgment?” Because Dr. Piper makes a big distinction between the two things, I am not sure how he would answer, and that is especially concerning.

(Gal. 1; Jude:3)

Update: Patrick Hines’ interchange with someone on facebook:

Here are a couple of posts I’ve (Patrick) done in response to someone who is defending John Piper:

No one is reducing “salvation” to only justification. However, the usages of the term “salvation” have to be determined by each context in which they are used. Romans 5:9, Ephesians 2:8-10 – these passages are clearly using the term “saved” in the context of what is the legal grounds upon which we are saved from God’s wrath – i.e. the legal grounds upon which we are justified before God and thus are not subject to the avenging wrath of God. True faith in Christ is never alone in those justified – never. It is always accompanied by all other saving graces. But those other saving graces – the new birth, repentance unto life, and progressive sanctification are not and never could be the legal grounds of “final salvation” – i.e. the legal grounds upon which the wrath of God does not come against us. That’s what Piper is violating.

People can fuss all day long about “salvation” is broader than merely justification. That’s true. However, when you look at the specific usages of “salvation” and “saved” in Scripture, when Paul uses the terms he is usually speaking of the legal grounds upon which the sinner is saved from God’s avenging wrath. That legal grounds cannot ever, ever be our works, our sanctification. That’s why Paul is clear: Romans 5:9 “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” Ephes. 2:8-10 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, [9] not of works, lest anyone should boast. [10] For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

Your criticisms here, Michael Foster, are not against me, they are against the way in which Paul himself speaks of how sinners are saved. I get the impression you’d say to Paul himself when you look at those two key texts, Romans 5:9 and Ephesians 2:8-10, “Paul, I refuse to reduce salvation down to justification.” Your argument really isn’t with us, it’s with Paul. “Salvation” in theological discourse does refer to all of the other graces God brings about in the life of the redeemed and justified sinner, but when people speak of “final salvation” as being NOT by faith alone, but rather by our works – they are, in point of fact, talking about the very same thing Paul is in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 5:9 – i.e. what it is that gets us past the judgment of God into heaven. And to say that we are saved from wrath NOT by Christ but by our works is a false gospel. That’s the problem here. And Piper needs to be denounced for it.

My opponent then asked: “Let me back away from the particulars of Piper’s statement for a moment to ask a clarifying question: Do you guys (Patrick & Rudy) believe that good works are necessary to salvation?”

To which I responded:

Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics. Necessary in what way? In the way Piper is teaching? As the legal grounds of our final salvation from God’s wrath? No. Do works necessarily accompany true faith? Yes. Because true faith is never alone in the person justified but is always and ever accompanied by all the other graces God brings about in the lives of His children: adoption, sanctification, the new birth, being conformed to the image of Christ. But those other saving graces are not the grounds upon which we are saved at the last judgment. You see, Piper is emphatic: “You don’t get into heaven by faith alone.” If he had said, “You don’t get into heaven having only been justified. You are also, if you have true faith, being renewed in the whole man after the image of God. God puts a beating heart of flesh in you in place of the heart of stone! God creates a hunger and thirst for righteousness. God starts a war in your against remaining indwelling sin! And that war will never end in this life. So, you don’t get into heaven having merely been justified. If you’ve been justified, that is the basis upon which you enter heaven – praise God. But God also conforms us to His image and makes us alive in Christ. And He does this without fail in every single person He justified by faith alone!” But, we both know, that’s not what the man said. He yelled, “You don’t get into heaven *by* faith alone,” which is to say, “You don’t get into heaven by the blood and righteousness of Christ alone.” And therein lies the problem.

Mastering the Doctrine of Justification

From the 2005 Shepherd’s Conference, Dr. R. C. Sproul on the subject “Mastering the Doctrine of Justification.”

I wish every preacher alive could hear and master the content here (me included) and in doing so, may each be awakened to preach the Gospel as if heaven and hell depended on it, because surely it does. And may God be pleased to bring a new Reformation in our day.

Mastering the Doctrine of Justification (1)

Mastering the Doctrine of Justification (2)

Justification According to Rome

This excerpt is adapted from Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism by R.C. Sproul.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is always at risk of distortion. It became distorted in the centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. It became distorted at innumerable other points of church history, and it is often distorted today. This is why Martin Luther said the gospel must be defended in every generation. It is the center point of attack by the forces of evil. They know that if they can get rid of the gospel, they can get rid of Christianity.

There are two sides to the gospel, the good news of the New Testament: an objective side and a subjective side. The objective content of the gospel is the person and work of Jesus—who He is and what He accomplished in His life. The subjective side is the question of how the benefits of Christ’s work are appropriated to the believer. There the doctrine of justification comes to the fore.

Many issues were involved in the Reformation, but the core matter, the material issue of the Reformation, was the gospel, especially the doctrine of justification. There was no great disagreement between the Roman Catholic Church authorities and the Protestant Reformers about the objective side. All the parties agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary, and that He lived a life of perfect obedience, died on the cross in an atoning death, and was raised from the grave. The battle was over the second part of the gospel, the subjective side, the question of how the benefits of Christ are applied to the believer.

The Reformers believed and taught that we are justified by faith alone. Faith, they said, is the sole instrumental cause for our justification. By this they meant that we receive all the benefits of Jesus’ work through putting our trust in Him alone.

The Roman communion also taught that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. At the seminal Council of Trent (1545–1563), which formulated Rome’s response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic authorities declared that faith affords three things: the initium, the fundamentum, and the radix. That is, faith is the beginning of justification, the foundation for justification, and the root of justification. But Rome held that a person can have true faith and still not be justified, because there was much more to the Roman system.

In reality, the Roman view of the gospel, as expressed at Trent, was that justification is accomplished through the sacraments. Initially, the recipient must accept and cooperate in baptism, by which he receives justifying grace. He retains that grace until he commits a mortal sin. Mortal sin is called “mortal” because it kills the grace of justification. The sinner then must be justified a second time. That happens through the sacrament of penance, which the Council of Trent defined as “a second plank” of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls.

The fundamental difference was this. Trent said that God does not justify anyone until real righteousness inheres within the person. In other words, God does not declare a person righteous unless he or she is righteous. So, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, justification depends on a person’s sanctification. By contrast, the Reformers said justification is based on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus. The only ground by which a person can be saved is Jesus’ righteousness, which is reckoned to him when he believes.

There were radically different views of salvation. They could not be reconciled. One of them was the gospel. One of them was not. Thus, what was at stake in the Reformation was the gospel of Jesus Christ. Though the Council of Trent made many fine affirmations of traditional truths of the Christian faith, it declared justification by faith alone to be anathema, ignoring many plain teachings of Scripture, such as Romans 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”