Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses Part VI: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia

This week we continue our look at Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII's 1952 apostolic constitution which has been called "The Church's Magna Charta for Migrants." This exposition was inspired by the recent remarks of then Mexican presidential candidate, and now president elect of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who, during his presidential campaign, promised to defend the right of every person in North America, indeed, every person in the world, to migrate to the United States.

Lopez Obrador's comment struck at least one writer as not only a slightly bizarre campaign promise, but an actual invasion threat toward a neighboring sovereign state. 

But as strange as Lopez Obrador's comments were, he didn't arrive at his statements on his own.  Rather, his belief that everyone has a right to migrate to the United States, regardless of the cost to American taxpayers, is one implication of the Roman Church-State's doctrine of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement as set forth most completely in the afore mentioned apostolic constitution Exsul Familia.     

Thus far, we've looked at what an apostolic constitution is - according to a number of Roman Catholic source, apostolic constitutions are the most authoritative of all papal documents, outranking even papal encyclicals in importance - and have begun to examine the erroneous foundational economic doctrine that undergirds all of the Roman Church-State's claims that mass, taxpayer funded immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement are consistent with Christian teaching.  That doctrine is called the universal destination of goods.  The universal destination of goods holds that when God created the world, he gave it to humanity in common, that is to say, collectively.  In other words, Rome believes in original communism. 

But God did not give the Earth the men to men corporately.  As John Robbins notes, "God, holding ultimate ownership of the Earth, gave it to men severally, not collectively.  The argument for this may be found in the words of the seventeenth-century Christian thinker, Robert Filmer" (Ronald Sider - Contra Deum).   Contrary to Rome, the original economic order was not communism, but private property.  To put it another way, the Bible teaches original capitalism.  Lord willing, I shall present a more complete case for this in a future installment.  Readers who admire the work of John Robbins, as does this author, will be interested to know the basis for my argument for original capitalism is Dr. Robbins 1973 doctoral dissertation, The Political Thought of Sir Robert Filmer

But for this week's installment, I would like to show another implication of Rome's evil doctrine of the universal destination of goods, tyrannical world government. 

 

The Universal Destination of Goods, the Destruction of National Sovereignty, and Institution of World Government

As we noted in Part 4 of this series, the doctrine of the universal destination of goods holds that need, not possession, is the ultimate and only moral title to property.  One of the implications of this teaching is the welfare state, and it should come as no surprise that prelates of the Roman Church-State have been long been among the most ardent proponents of socialism and are largely responsible for the erection of the enormously expensive welfare bureaucracies imposed upon the formerly free nations of the West.     

But Rome isn't satisfied merely with setting up welfare state tyrannies in individual nations.  No, Rome's program of socialism is a scalable tyranny.  Rome's intends to use citizens of the wealthy nations of the West as tax donkeys to pay welfare benefits, not just to the native poor of their own nations, but to foreign migrants as well. 

It is my contention that Rome intends to use these welfare migrants as a means to disrupt the societies into which they come, socially, politically and economically with the ultimate goal of making them ungovernable and thus easily folded into a system of world government headed by the Roman Church-State and her Antichrist popes.     

For proof of this, let's turn to Pope Pius XII's words in Exsul Familia.  He wrote,

You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.

The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people.  For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all [n.b. this is the universal destination of goods].  Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate reasons, denied to needy [n.b. need is explicitly cited as the basis for Rome's migration policy] and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this (emphasis mine).

Note well the implied globalism in this statement.  Rome claims that the sovereignty of the state must be respected, but that it, "cannot be exaggerated to the point," that needy migrants are denied access to the resources of its people.  But who decides whether a nation state is exaggerating its sovereignty or not?  Though not explicitly stated here, in the eyes of Rome the pope is the ultimate decider. 

When one speaks of Rome's desire for world dominion, he runs the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist.  But while Rome's thirst to rule the world is a conspiracy, it's an open one, and perhaps the world's worst kept secret.  In fact, it's really not a secret at all.  The pope's have grown so bold in recent decades that they explicitly and very publically call for it.

Guadium et Spes, one of the major documents of Vatican II reads,

it is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent.  This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of a universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights (quoted in Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 187).

More recently, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace released a document titled Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority. As Reuters reports,

The Vatican called on Monday for sweeping reforms of the world economy and the creation of an ethical, global authority to regulate financial markets...

The Vatican called for the establishment of "a supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions.

Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield "excessive power over the weaker countries"...

One section of the document explained why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary and called for specific reforms such as taxation of financial transactions...

"In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of 'central world bank' that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks"...

"Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of part of each nation's powers to a world authority and regional authorities..."

This naturally raises the question, So just who will be in charge of this "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction," not to mention who will run the "central world bank"?

Again, the papal document doesn't come right out and say so, but given that the statements are coming from the Vatican, there can be no doubt but that the Church has in mind the popes of Rome.  Consider, if you will, the symbolism of the papal tiara.

As the Vatican itself acknowledges, "The Triregnum (the Papal Tiara formed by three crowns)" symbolizes "the triple power of the Pope:  father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ."   Apart from any other argument or statement, the arrogant claims of the popes of Rome as symbolized by the tiara ought to be enough to remove all doubt about who Rome sees as controlling the envisioned apparatus of world government. 

Rome's hatred of sovereign nations that do not bow to the pope can be traced at least as far back as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.  This treaty established what has come to be known as the Westphalian World Order, an international system in which national governments were the highest level of civil authority.  "The Westphalian peace...relied on a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power...[E]ach state was assigned the attribute of sovereign power over its territory.  Each would acknowledge the domestic structures and religious vocations of its fellow states as realities and refrain from challenging their existence" (Henry Kissinger, World Order, 3).   One could say that the Westphalian World Order was the application of the Biblical principle of MYOB (Mind Your Own Business) to international politics (see 2 Thessalonians 3:11, 12).

Of course, this is antithetical to the teaching of Rome, which holds that the pope is the "father of kings and governor of the world."  Rome's reaction to the Treaty of Westphalia is instructive on this point.

In his papal bull Zelo Domus Dei, Pope Innocent the X raged against the articles of the Treaty of Westphalia,  calling them, "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time." Given Rome's severe and historic case of ecclesiastical megalomania, such a statement should come as no surprise.

That said, it probably does come as a surprise to most 21st century Protestants, who have been taught from their youth up that the pope is a brother in Christ, that he is their friend, and that he is a fellow soldier in the culture war.  All this is an enormous lie. 

In truth, in the pope's raging one hears the voice of Antichrist.  It is the voice of the little horn of Daniel which speaks pompous words and makes war against the saints of God, prevailing against them.    

The popes of Rome are megalomaniacal James Bond villains in clerical garb.  They have never given up their desire to rule the world.  And, as Revelation teaches, they temporarily will succeed in doing so.  One of the ways the popes aim to effect this world wide rule is through mass, taxpayer funded immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement. 

Antichrist has laid out his program for world domination in very clear language in numerous papal documents.  Mass, taxpayer funded migration, immigration, and refugee resettlement is one of Rome's principle tools for effecting this outcome.  The program outlined in the apostolic constitution Exsul Familia has, by admission of the editor of Rome's official commentary on the document, "enormous financial implications."  More to the point, Rome's doctrine of migration, if followed to its full extent, will result in the financial bankruptcy of the host nations.    

But in addition to financial implications, Rome's program also has significant political implications.  When Rome calls for millions upon millions of migrants, refugees and immigrants - people who have no knowledge of the doctrine of Justification by Belief Alone on which those societies are built and thus no knowledge of the economic and political implications of that doctrine, namely, free markets and limited government -  to flood the formerly Protestant nations of the West, the effect is to Romanize those nations and to prepare them to be folded into Rome's planned system of "supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction," with the effect that, no one will be able to buy or sell except one who has the mark or name of the beast, or the number of his name.    

When popes of Rome speak of respecting national sovereignty, they lie and enormous lie.  The only sovereignty they respect is that of their own pretended authority. 

Mexico, Mass Migration and the Example of Moses Part IV: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia

Have you ever stopped to think about your property?  Specifically, have you ever considered the question, By what right do  I own anything? 

Since this is a blog post, you're probably reading these words on some sort of electronic device.  Maybe you're using a smart phone or a tablet or a desktop or laptop computer.  So let me ask my original question to you in a little different way, By what right do you claim ownership of the electronic device you're using to read this post?

Suppose you're reading this post on your tablet.  Perhaps you'd say to me, "I own this table, because I went to the store and bought it." 

Okay, but let's take that back another step and ask this question, By what right did the store sell you the tablet?  You may say to me, "Well, the store bought it from an electronic wholesaler."

But then that raises a further question, Where did the wholesaler get the right to sell the tablet to the store where you bought it.  "From the manufacturer or course," you may reply. 

Alright, so how did the manufacturer rightfully get the parts to assemble the tablet?  "The manufacturer bought them from a supplier," you may retort.

This is really becoming tiresome, I know.  But still, I can't help asking, Just where did the parts supplier get the materials, the silicon for example, to manufacture the integrated circuits that are essential to making your table work?

"Well, quite obviously, the parts manufacturer bought the silicon from a silicon supplier," you would answer.

"Very well," I'd reply, "but let me ask you this, Since the base materials for silicon metal used to make your device's integrated circuits are gravel and items such as coke, coal and wood chips, where did the supplier of silicon get the right to use these items?" 

"They bought them from gravel and coal miners and from suppliers of wood products," would likely be you answer.

Alright already.  So where did the gravel miners, the coal miners and the suppliers of wood products get the right to use the land from which they took the raw materials? 

"Naturally, they bought the land from Old MacDonald, who figured he could do better by selling his land to the coal miners than spending the rest of his life raising chickens and cows and pigs."

Okay, okay, okay.  Lest this become overly wearisome for the both of us, let me ask just one last question.  Where did Old MacDonald get the title to his farm in the first place?

"Well, I guess he bought it from the previous owner, maybe it was the bank or some other farmer."

But, BUT, BUT!...No, I'm not going to go there.  I promised that would be the last question, and I'll keep my word.

I hope, though, that this somewhat annoying line of questioning has raised your curiosity about the issue of ownership.  Just how is it that we can claim the right to own something?  Is it even possible to rightly claim ownership, that is, the exclusive right to use and dispose of a particular good or service, or should we all be collectivists holding all things in common? 

Now you may be thinking at this point, "Steve that's all very interesting, but just what on earth does any of this have to do with your main point of refuting Exsul Familia, Rome's position paper on immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement? 

The short answer is, quite a lot.  Let's take a look at it.

 

Secular/Philosophic Theories of Property

As you may already suspect, there are a number of competing theories that attempt to explain the institution of private property.  This is an important question.  John Robbins called private property, "the central economic institution of civilized societies," (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 30) and the present author agrees with this assessment. 

Although it's beyond the scope of the series of posts to analyze all the various non-Christian theories of property out there, it may be helpful to review a few of them, paying special attention to Rome's unbiblical theory of property and showing how it manifests itself in Exsul Familia and undergirds Rome's onerous and false assertion that Western nations not only have a duty to accept all immigrants migrants and refugees who wish to come to them regardless of their reason for coming, but also that Western citizens have an obligation to pay the expenses of said immigrants, migrants and refugees through social services, the money for which comes from taxes levied upon the citizens.

In his journal article "Theories of Property," George B. Newcomb asserted that the Romans had a very individualistic view of property, but that this view was, "due, in part at least, to the influence of the time when the claim to private property was especially founded in the personal prowess of the warrior."  Apparently in Rome the right of ownership rested, to some degree, on the ability to beat someone up and take his stuff.

John Locke, on the other hand, took a more peaceful approach to acquisition of private property.  In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke wrote, "God gave the World to Adam and his Posterity in common" (Laslett ed., 286).  In other words, Locke believed in original communism. 

But how did it come about that individual men claimed to own land, which was given in common to all by God?  Lock explained, "Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.  The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.  Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property" (Laslett ed., 287, 288). 

In short, if you, for example, clear a field which is not, as far as you know, claimed by anyone in particular and begin farming, you've mixed your labor with the field and it rightfully belongs to you. 

But, one could ask Locke, by what right does someone mix his labor with the commons?  That's a good question.

Perhaps a more recent writer can help us understand and defend the institution of private property.  Ludwig Von Mises, widely considered the greatest of the Austrian economists, seems like a promising place to turn.  What says Von Mises?

Writing in Chapter 24 of Human Action, he explains private property this way,

Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again, proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts that were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoliation of their predecessor.

To Von Mises way of thinking, private property, "originated out of acts that were certainly not legal."  In essence, he argues that all of us are guilty of receiving stolen property. 

This doesn't seem like a very promising defense of private property.      

 

Rome's Theory of Property

Rome derives its theory of property from the work of Thomas Aquinas, which theory is masterfully explained by John Robbins in his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania.  Rome rejects the Bible's view of private property, substituting in its place a doctrine called the Universal Destination of Goods.  To understand Rome's doctrine of the Universal Destination of Goods, Robbins tells us we first must first understand Thomas' view of the law.

According to Thomas, there are four kinds of law.  First, there is eternal law, which is God's plan for the universe and all its inhabitants.  Thus it is part of the eternal law that rocks, for example, fall to the ground when dropped; and plants, for example, grow toward the light.  Second, there is natural law, which is the participant of rational creatures in the eternal law.  Thus man is by nature a social animal.  When men speak to each other and live in societies, they are doing what is natural to them, just as rocks and plants do.  Third, there is positive law, which is customs, laws, and regulations made by rulers attempting to apply the natural law to individuals and societies.  Finally, there is divine law, such as the Ten Commandments. 

Private property, according to Thomas, is neither part of the natural law nor an absolute right, but an invention of human reason.  It is a creation of and regulated by positive law.  Rather than private property being part of the natural law, the possession of all things in common is the natural law [note that John Locke, supposedly a defender of limited government and private property, also believed in original communism as can be seen from the quote above].  Thomas wrote: "... 'the possession of all things in common and universal freedom' are said to be of the natural law because, to wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit of human life." The institution of private property, like slavery, is a positive, not a natural, institution, and  therefore rightfully subject to human regulation.  The "community of goods," wrote Thomas,

is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own, but because the division of the possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement, which belongs to positive law...Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.

It is important to keep in mind that according to Roman Catholic economic thought, here represented by its greatest and only official philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, that communism (with a small "c") - what Thomas called the community of goods - is part of the natural law; and that private property is part of the positive law.  Private property is an "addition to" the natural law.  Though private property is not contrary to the natural law, it is not itself natural, and it does not enjoy the same metaphysical or ethical status as the community of good.  While men cannot change the natural law - rather, they are required to conform to it, according to Roman Church-State thought - they can change positive law,  and they may do so in whatever manner is expedient and moral.

Now several things might make such a community of goods expedient, but one makes the community of goods morally imperative:  need.  Thomas wrote:

Things which are of human right cannot derogate [stray from] natural rights or divine right...The division and appropriation of things which are based on human law do not preclude t he fact that man's needs have to be remedied by mans of these very things.  Hence, whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor.

Because the goods of some are due to others by the natural law, there is no sin if the poor take the goods of their neighbors...[A]ccording to Thomas:

...it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property by taking it either openly or secretly; nor is this, properly speaking, theft and robbery.... It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need; because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.... In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need.

In Thomas' philosophy, need is the moral criterion for the rightful and lawful possession of property:  Whoever needs property ought to possess it.  Need makes another's goods one's own.  Need is the ultimate and only moral title to property.  Neither possession, nor creation, nor production, nor gift, nor inheritance, nor divine commandment (with the exception of Roman Church-State property) grants title to property that is immune to the prior claim of need...

The Thomistic notion of original communism - the denial that private property is part of the natural law, but that common property is both natural and divine - is foundational to all the Roman Catholic arguments for various forms of collectivism, from medieval feudalism and guild socialism to twentieth century fascism and liberation theology.  The popes refer to this original communism as the "universal destination of all goods" (Robbins, 30-32, 38).

To sum up, Rome supports private property up to a point.   When things are going well, it's all well and good for you to own your house or your farm or your car.  But when push comes to shove, when things get serious, need overrides your title to your property.  It, therefore, is right, proper and moral for those in need to take what is yours.  The assertion that need is the ultimate and only moral title to property is based on Rome's mistaken assertion of original communism, the idea that God gave the world to all men in common.  This original communism, what Thomas called the community of goods, is referred to by the popes as the Universal Destination of Goods.      

Earlier I quoted Robbins saying that private property is the central economic institution of civilized societies.  But that's not all Robbins had to say.  The quote continues, "and it is the Roman Church-State's rejection of private property that contributed to the establishment of several varieties of destructive anti-capitalism throughout the world.

One of the manifestations of Rome's anti-capitalism is its teaching on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.  The next section will demonstrate this from the text of Exsul Familia

(To be continued...)

Mexico, Mass Migration and the Example of Moses, Part I

"Mexican Presidential Candidate Calls Mass Migration to US a 'Human Right' " read a recent headline on The Daily Caller website. The piece quotes leading Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) as saying mass migration to the United States is "human right" for all North Americans.

But our buddy AMLO was just getting warmed up. He continued, "And soon, very soon - after the victory of our movement - we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world who, by necessity, have to leave their villages to seek life in the United States, it is a human right that we are going to defend" [combined quotation from The Daily Caller article and Google translation of the original Spanish language report].

These are shocking words, and it may be tempting to chalk up AMLO's speech as just another example of overheated campaign rhetoric. After all, the Mexican presidential election is coming up on July 1, and doubtless Mexican politicians are tempted, as are politicians everywhere, to demagogue if they think it will help their election chances. Admittedly, there may be some truth to this. But in the opinion of this author, it would be a mistake to simply dismiss AMLO's speech as sound and fury signifying nothing.

It would be a mistake, because AMLO's rhetoric is not original with him. For the notion that migrants from one nation have the right to impose themselves and their attendant costs on citizens of another nation is straight out of the playbook of the Roman Catholic Church-State, of which AMLO was, and may still be, a member.

It's important to point this out. For it is the political activity of the prelates of the Roman Church-State, following Rome's political and economic philosophy, and their allies in the civil governments of various nations, that is substantially responsible for fomenting the current migrant crises both in Europe and in the United States. Further, Rome's purpose in fostering the migrant crisis is not, as they claim, to bring about the end of human suffering on the part of the migrants, but rather to advance Rome's agenda of world government by destabilizing the nations of the West, thus making it easier to fold them into a system of world government with Rome running the show.

In these series of posts, it is my intention to look at what Rome teaches about property rights, in particular, its unbiblical notion of the Universal Destination of Goods. Second, we will look at Rome's doctrine of migration as set forth in the 1952 apostolic constitution Exsul Familia
(The Émigré Family) and, closer to home, Rome's 2003 joint statement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and their counterparts in Mexico, the Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, titled Strangers No Longer Together on the Journey of Hope. Finally, we shall look at what the Bible has to say about migration, in particular, the example of Moses as he led Israel on a mass migration through the wilderness. As we shall see, Moses' stance on private property was much different from the snake oil being promoted by the papal Antichrist and his minions in the Church of Rome.

The Universal Destination of Goods

"That's not the Bible," said the supervisor to my friend. Previously, my friend's boss had asked if she had a copy of the Bible. My friend, being a Protestant, had gladly handed over her copy of the New King James Version only to have her boss return it a few minutes later in frustration.

You see, her boss was a Roman Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Bible is not the same Bible as is used by Protestants. The Protestant Bible has 66 books, whereas the Romanists use a Bible of 73 books plus some fragments.

I relate this incident to highlight the fact that much of what passes for agreement among Protestants and Roman Catholics can be described as verbal agreement. That is, we use many of the same words, "Bible" in this case, and assume that we attach the same meaning to them, when in fact we do not. When Roman Catholics and Protestants say "Bible," they are not talking about the same book. As the fundamentalists of a hundred years ago used to say about the liberals of the day, "We have the same vocabulary, but a different dictionary."

This one example of verbal agreement could be multiplied many times over when it comes to Protestants and Roman Catholics. "Private property" is another term of this sort. When Protestants talk about private property, they mean that which one both owns and has the exclusive right of use. When Protestants hear representatives of the Roman Catholic Church talk about private property, they tend to assume the Romanists mean the same thing. But this is not the case.

Rome teaches a doctrine called the Universal Destination of Goods (UDG), which to undiscerning ears can sound something like the Biblical doctrine of private property (Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?), but is, in fact, far from it.

If you were to ask most Americans, regardless of their religious background, why they both own, and have the right to use, their car, they'd probably answer something like, "I paid for it, it's mine." That's a good and Biblical answer. Probably most people would even say it's common sense. So it may come as a surprise to them to find out that Rome has a very different take on private property. .

For Rome, the right to own and to use private property ultimately does not rest on the fact that you paid for it, that you have legal title to it, but upon need. If someone needs your property more than you do, he has the right to take it himself, or to vote for politicians who promise to do the taking for him. And that right to take your property, either by himself or by the ballot box, based upon perceived need can be traced to Rome's unbiblical belief that when God made the world, he gave it to men in common, not individually as the Scriptures teach.

"Outrageous!," you may say. "Rome doesn't teach that!" Well, Rome's doctrine of original communism, or the UDG, is outrageous. I won't argue that point for a moment. But this is, in fact, Rome's position on private property. And it is the UDG which is foundational to all Rome's teaching on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement. Ultimately, it is the UDG that undergirds AMLO's assertion that migration to the United States is a human right which he, and apparently his government if elected, will defend.

This is the critical point that Protestants must understand: Rome's teaching about immigration, migration, and refugee resettlement is based upon an unbiblical understanding of private property.

In this author's opinion, the best explanation of the UDG is by John Robbins in his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church. This book, among the most important books ever written by a Protestant on the Church of Rome, is a treasure trove of information about the critical subject of Rome and its economic and political ideology, which could be summarized and collectivism and tyranny respectively.

Regarding the subject of the UDG, Robbins wrote,

The Thomistic notion of original communism - the denial that private property is part of the natural law, but that common property is both natural and divine - is foundational to all the Roman Catholic arguments for various forms of collectivism, from medieval feudalism and guild socialism to twentieth century fascism and liberation theology. The popes refer to this original communism as the "universal destination of goods." Take, for example, John Paul II's expression of it in his 1987 encyclical On Social Concern:

    It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social     doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right of private     property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle.     Private property, in fact, is under a "social mortgage," which means that it has an     intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of     this     universal destination of goods.

This principle - the universal destination of goods - is so important in Catholic social thought that all rights are to be subordinated to it. Paul VI made the point quite clear in his 1967 encyclical On the Progress of Peoples:

    ...each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself.     The recent Council [Vatican II] reminded us of this: "God intended the earth and all     that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow     justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable     basis." All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free     commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.

Please note the words: "All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle." "All other rights whatsoever," of course, includes not only the right to private property and the right to free enterprise, but the rights to worship, speak, teach, write, think, and publish freely - indeed, the right to life itself. In Roman Catholic economic thought, there is a hierarchy of principles, and the most important of these principles, to which all others are subordinate, is the principle of the universal destination of goods. This is the economic corollary of the principle of solidarity (Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 38, 39).

For Rome, private property is a nice convention and something the Magisterium is willing to tolerate, at least up to a point. But when push comes to shove, need trumps title. And Rome isn't shy about making this point known.

Take, for example, a recent speech given by San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy at the World Meeting of Popular Movements [somewhat ironically, Pope Francis recently denounced populism as "not the answer" to Europe's immigration crisis, apparently there's a good populism and a bad populism] in Modesto, California on February 18, 2017.

Actually, McElroy's address was more of a rant than a speech. But what he had to say was very instructive for Protestants who have ears to hear what the Antichrist Roman-Church State believes about economics, politics, and immigration, migration and refugee resettlement. As the National Catholic Register reports,

It took all of six minutes for San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy to rouse a crowd of nearly 700 community organizers and social justice "protagonistas" by calling them to become disrupters and rebuilders amid current American politics...

"We must disrupt those who would seek to send troops into our streets to deport the undocumented, to rip mothers and fathers from their families [now you know where all the emotional rhetoric you've heard over the past two weeks about how President Trump's policies have caused child migrants to be ripped from their parents comes from, it's the propaganda of the Roman Catholic Church-State]...

He [McElroy] urged people to never be afraid to speak the truth, which lay in empirical [n.b. Rome's Thomistic empiricism is showing through] reality and the "realities and marginalization that confront our nation...

The San Diego bishop said that "the fundamental political question of our age" was whether current U.S. economic structures will receive greater freedom or be directed in a way "to safeguard the dignity of the human person and the common good of our nation" [n.b. The bishop contrasts freedom with the sort of socialist government controls favored by Rome, in truth Rome hates capitalism and liberty and loves collectivist economics and the governmental oppression required to enforce it].

"In that battle, the tradition of Catholic social teaching is unequivocally on the side of strong governmental and societal protections for the powerless, the worker, the homeless, the hungry, those without decent medical care, the unemployed," McElroy said to rolling applause.

"This stance of the church's teaching flows from teaching of the Book of Genesis, that creation is the gift of God to all humanity. Thus in the most fundamental way, there is a universal destination for all the material goods that exist in this world. Wealth is a common heritage, not at its core a right of lineage or of acquisition" [emphasis mine].

This is among the clearest statement's of the UDG this author has seen. And please note, the statement was made in the context of a speech that included the issue of immigration.

As we shall see in future installments of this series, Rome makes it very clear that the UDG lies at the heart of its nation-breaking program of mass immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.

(To be continued...)

Steve MatthewsComment
The Great American Bailout of 2008: Where We Were, Where We Are, and Where We're Going, Part IV: The Plunge Protection Team

Well, what I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the various efforts that are going on in public and behind the scenes by the Fed and other government officials to guard against a free-fall in the markets...

- Former Clinton advisor George Stephanopolous on Good Morning America 

 

Last week's post served as an introduction to the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, better known to the public as the Plunge Protection Team.

It seemed good this week to spend a little more time on the same subject, as the existence and the activities of this organization are perhaps the most important, least understood and most underreported factors driving financial markets today.

Financial markets such as the New York Stock Exchange are presented to the public as the very essence of free market capitalism.  But in the opinion of this writer, the reality is something quite different. 

Far from being a place where buyers and sellers meet to determine fair value for financial assets, today's financial markets are a rigged game designed to mislead the public about the true nature of the financial condition of the West.

Some may wonder why a Christian blogger would delve into the subject of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT).  It seems on the surface as if it's a bit conspiratorial, a topic more appropriate for some tin foil hat blogger than for someone intent and spreading the light of truth.  But to see the discussion of the PPT in this light is, at least in my view, a serious mistake.

That the PPT is a real entity with real power is a very easy matter to prove.  The case that it has been and is being used by the powers that be to prop up favored markets and suppress those out of favor, though circumstantial in nature, is quite strong.

Exposing such chicanery is among the most important tasks a Christian financial writer can undertake.  As University of Austin finance professor John Griffin recently noted, the Bible's command to "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them," can be applied to outing the lies and fraudulent activities of powerful financial and governmental interests in the same way it can be applied to other evil deeds. 

With that in mind, let's take a closer look at the PPT.    

 

The Establishment of the Plunge Protection Team

Perhaps the most sensible place to begin our discussion of the PPT is with Executive Order 12631 of March 18, 1988.  You may find it here in the Federal Register.  But since it's only a few hundred words long, I'll reproduce it in full below.

Executive Order 12631--Working Group on Financial Markets

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12631 of Mar. 18, 1988, appear at 53 FR 9421, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 559, unless otherwise noted.

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish a Working Group on Financial Markets, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is hereby established a Working Group on Financial Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee;

(2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;

(3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and

(4) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or her designee.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, shall be the Chairman of the Working Group.

Sec. 2. Purposes and Functions. (a) Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence, the Working Group shall identify and consider:

(1) the major issues raised by the numerous studies on the events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987, and any of those recommendations that have the potential to achieve the goals noted above; and

(2) the actions, including governmental actions under existing laws and regulations (such as policy coordination and contingency planning), that are appropriate to carry out these recommendations.

(b) The Working Group shall consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants to determine private sector solutions wherever possible.

(c) The Working Group shall report to the President initially within 60 days (and periodically thereafter) on its progress and, if appropriate, its views on any recommended legislative changes.

Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of Executive departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Working Group such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out this Order.
(b) Members of the Working Group shall serve without additional compensation for their work on the Working Group.
(c) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of funds therefore, the Department of the Treasury shall provide the Working Group with such administrative and support services as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.

So what can we glean from this short but not so sweet E.O.? 

For one, it's a high-powered group.  As Section one tells us, it is comprised of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. 

In fact, one would have a hard time coming up with a higher powered group of financial overseers than the officers referred to above. 

But it's not just the group's power that's impressive.  It's also highly secretive.

Consider the US Treasury Department, home to a powerful and secretive group known as the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).  The ESF was, as it were, born in monetary sin and shapen in financial iniquity, the seed capital of which was extracted out of the hides of the American public by the iniquitous Gold Reserve Act of 1934.  As Investopedia notes,

The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 is an act that took away the title of all gold and gold certificates that were held by the Federal Reserve Bank.  The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 made the trade and possession of gold a criminal offense for the citizens of the United States.  Sole title of this gold was given to the U.S. Treasury.  It was not until 1975 that Americans could again own or trade gold.

Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution reads, "No state shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts," but the after less than 150 years, the federal government decided it was proper to criminalize the possession of real money.  In this writer's opinion, that's about all you need to know to properly assess the authoritarian character of the members of Congress who drafted the legislation and of Franklin D. Roosevelt who signed it in to law.  

Worth noting is that Gold Reserve Act completed the transfer of wealth from the American people to the federal government that had begun the previous year with Executive Order 6102, which required Americans to turn in, "all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by  them to a Federal Reserve Bank."  Roosevelt's Executive Order required that this be done by May 1, 1933, with criminal penalties of a, "$10,000 fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both."

"The main rationale behind the order," Wikipedia notes, "was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve which prevented it from increasing the money supply during the depression."  In other words, the Fed couldn't rob people effectively enough when they had gold in their possession.  First they had to take the gold, then the powers that be could go about the nefarious business of plundering the people.

Once the government had the gold, it didn't take long for them to finish their act of robbery.  Another feature of the Gold Reserve Act (GRA) was that it revalued gold.  Prior to the passing of the GRA, gold was valued at $20.67 per ounce.  The GRA set the price of gold at $35 per ounce, meaning that upon its passing, Americans immediately suffered a loss of about 69% on the gold forcibly taken from them by the FDR's 1933 Executive Order. 

Question: So if the American people lost 69% on their gold, did that wealth just disappear?  Answer: Of course not! The stolen wealth was merely transferred to the Treasury where it was used as seed capital for the ESF.

As Wikipedia rightly notes, "The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934."

The ESF has now been in business for 84 years, making it one of the longest running and egregious criminal enterprises in Washington D.C.  And given the many outrageous crimes committed daily in the Swamp, that's saying quite a lot.

The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, while more in the public eye than the ESF, still manages to operate to a large extent in secrecy.  Several attempts have been made to audit the Fed over the years, but to date, the Fed has successfully resisted all attempts to open its books to public scrutiny. 

Then Fed Chairman Janet Yellen's letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is instructive on this point.  In her letter dated November 16, 2015, Yellen objected to auditing the Fed, saying that subjecting the Fed to an audit would, "politicize monetary policy decision...undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve," and was, "based on the false premise - that the Federal Reserve is not subject to an audit." 

While the Fed may be audited in some sense as Yellen argues, it's not the type of thoroughgoing audit Ron Paul and Rand Paul have argued for over the years. 

Yellen, as Fed Chairmen before her, and doubtless as those who will come after her such as current Fed Chairman Jay Powell, was jealous to guard the Fed's "independence."  Translated into plain English, she wants to continue the ability of the Fed to serve the interests of the financial elite, principally the big banks that own the Fed, at the expense of the American people.   

 

Evidence of the PPT's Handiwork

For our purposes, I will not go in to a great deal of technical detail in an attempt to prove the case that the PPT manipulates markets.  Rather, I shall rely on quotes from those who would know.  Considering that these quotes come from highly placed and well-qualified individuals, their comments deserve serious consideration.

The term Plunge Protection Team can be traced to a 1997 article in the Washington Post of the same name.  According to the piece, "The government has a real role to play to make a 1987-style sudden market break less likely."  So just how does the PPT do this? Well, the article doesn't say specifically.  It talks about ensuring communication between government agencies remains open.  But does mere communication help stabilize markets in the midst of a crisis? Imagine the following conversation:

            Treasury Secretary:  Hey, the S&P's off 5% already and it's only 11am!!  What do you think?

            Fed Chairman:  Yep, darn if it's not.

Talk, as they say, is cheap.  And very obviously stabilizing markets requires more than just talk.  Implied, though not explicitly stated, is that the Fed and probably the ESF will intervene in the financial markets to produce the sort of "almost miraculous" recovery that occurred the day after 1987's Black Monday.  After all, no one can see what the Fed or the ESF are doing with their vast financial resources.  "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," is not just a famous line from the Wizard of Oz, it's the M.O. of these two groups.  And they both have better curtains than did the wizard. 

In short, of course the Fed and the ESF are rigging the markets.  The Washington Post all but said so back in 1997.  "But," as the cheesy infomercials like to put it, "wait, there's more!"

Consider the statement at the top of this post by George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America.  I've seen the date of his appearance as alternatively September 17, 2000 and September 17, 2001.  If it was the later, this was the first day that the NYSE reopened after 9/11.  In either case, this Clinton insider very clearly hints at governmental intervention in the financial markets to "guard against a free-fall."

The quote from Stephanopoulos continues, "the Fed in 1989 created what is called the Plunge Protection Team, which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges and they have been meeting informally so far, and they have a kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem."

In 2015, Dr. Pippa Malmgren who actually served on the PPT and whose father was a high level presidential advisor and scholar made this telling remark," [T]here's no price discovery anymore by the market...governments impose prices on the market."

The New York Post's John Crudele has written critically of the PPT for years.  Typical of his work is this story from 2014, " 'Plunge protection' behind market's sudden recovery."

In 2007, Crudele expressed his frustration with the lack of transparency by the US Treasury on the workings of the PPT, writing,

After a year and a half of stalling, the US Treasury finally complied with The Post's requests for information about The President's Working Group on Financial Markets - delivering 177 pages of crap. 

In essence, the Treasury's Freedom of Information  officials said that the Working Group - affectionately nicknamed the Plunge Protection Team - doesn't keep records of its meetings. 

How interesting and convenient!

PhD. economist Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and former Wall Street Journal Associate Editor, is another highly placed individual whose written extensively on the activities of the PPT.  In his article "Do Financial Markets Still Exist?" he wrote, "For many decades the Federal Reserve has rigged the bond market...and for about a century, central banks have set [rigged] interest rates...It appears that...the Fed is rigging the stock market by purchasing S&P equity index futures in order to arrest stock market declines driven by fundamentals."

In December 2008, widely watched market commentator Nouriel Roubini was quoted as saying, "The Fed (or Treasury) could even go as far as directly intervening in the stock market via direct purchase of equities as a way to boost falling equity prices."

Nouriel Roubini was formerly an advisor to New York Fed governor Tim Geithner, a major figure in the 2008 financial crisis.

Market analyst Charles Biderman commented in 2009 that while the market cap of US stocks soared by more than $6 trillion, "We cannot identify the source of the new money that pushed stock prices up so far so fast."

In the same article, Biderman quotes former Fed governor Robert Heller's 1989 Wall Street Journal opinion piece where Heller wrote,

Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.

Do you think a former Fed governor just might know a thing or two about what it takes to rig the stock market? 

In a 2017 appearance on CNBC's Smart Money, "Legendary vulture investor Asher Edelman, the 1980's model for Gordon Gekko," argued that, in his view, the PPT was the only thing propping up the market.  He also expressed his concern about being in the market, saying that "I don't know when the plug is going to be pulled."

Finally, I come to my main man Dr. Ron Paul.  Paul has commented many times over the years on the activities of the PPT. In a May 4, 2018 appearance on CNBC's Futures Now, the good doctor had this to say,

I think the plunge protection team is alive and well.  I think they're involved and they do provide some protections.  The world is engaged in that type of maneuvering.  But eventually though, the market rules.

More examples could be provided, but I hope the above citations, all taken from prominent and respected people, will help the reader to see the PPT less as a myth or conspiracy theory and more as a reality, one which influences the public perception of the stock market and, hence, the entire US economy, and one that accomplishes this end by very dishonest, deceptive and immoral means.

 

Closing Thoughts

Investopedia, a mainstream, and in many ways helpful, provider of investment information, dismisses any notion of the PPT's manipulating markets as conspiracy theory.  As its article on the PPT puts it, "The name PPT was coined by the Washington Post in 1997.  Although the team had a viable purpose when initially created, conspiracy theorists suspected that the team was created to shore up, or even manipulate, the markets."

Now where would anybody get such an absurd idea?  As the quotes above demonstrate, it's not whackadoo weirdo conspiracy theorists who are the ones talking about the PPT's market manipulations, it's of the most mainstream, most connected, most market savvy voices out there who believe this.  

If the PPT is, in fact, manipulating financial markets, and it is the conviction of this author that this is what is happening, the PPT and its constituent organizations such as the US Treasury Department and the Fed are guilty of violating any number of Biblical and Constitutional principles of government.

The origins of the Fed and of the ESF should immediately alert anyone jealous of his liberty that these groups are up to no good.  The Fed's origin can be traced to a secretive meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia in November 1910.  The ESF was created by open fraud on the part of Congress and the Roosevelt administration with the cooperation of the previously mentioned Federal Reserve.

The Bible demands open meetings, but the Fed and the ESF love the darkness and will not come to the light,  lest their evil deeds be exposed. 

Such agencies, based as they are on lies and theft, never can bring forth good fruit.  As Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, "A bad tree bears bad fruit."  And if the Fed and the ESF work evil on their own, what shall we expect when they combine forces in the PPT? 

Is it much of a stretch to suppose that such agencies, having worked financial evil on their own, would produce even more evil when they combine forces as part of the PPT? 

Should Americans expect transparency and honesty from such bad actors?  Or would it be more reasonable to expect that they, like the rulers of the Gentiles in Jesus' day, would "lord it over" the people.

In the opinion of this writer, the answer very obviously is the latter.  And one of the ways these organizations "lord it over" the American people is to continually give them a false picture of the real economy by rigging markets to support the official narrative that everything in the economy is awesome, that the stock and bond markets are safe and stable and the best places for your money, and that you should never consider being so foolish as to put your money elsewhere such as gold and silver.    

This official rosy scenario was encapsulated in Janet Yellen's comment in June 2017 when she said that another 2008 like financial crisis is not likely "in our lifetime."

To this I would reply, that really depends on whose lifetime you're talking about.

 

(To be continued...)

The Great American Bailout of 2008: Where We Were, Where We Are, And Where We're Going, Part III - The Plunge Protection Team

"There's no price discovery anymore in the market...governments impose prices on the market."

- Dr. Pippa Malmgren, former member of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

 

When I began writing this series on the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the 10th anniversary of which we marked last month, it seemed best to provide the reader with some context.

After all, we're marking the 10th anniversary of the event, which for many people seems like ancient history already.  So there's that.  But more importantly, to really understand the GFC and the Great American Bailout of 2008, a little history certainly helps provides some perspective. 

The crash of 2008 did not happen in a vacuum.  Rather, it was the inevitable result of prior decisions, some of which could be traced back to the 1987 Black Monday crash that wiped out over 22 percent of the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in a single day. 

Other contributing factors could be traced further back to the  1920's and 1930's, the years immediately preceding and following the stock market crash of 1929.  Just as the 1920's roared in large part due to excessive money printing by the Federal Reserve,  the party ended in 1929 when the Fed, attempting to reduce the money supply that had created a financial bubble, instead crashed the stock market. 

The 1930's saw unprecedented governmental regulation of the financial markets and of the economy in general, the effect of which was to prolong the  economic misery far longer than was necessary.  During that decade, economist John Maynard Keynes supplied the needed intellectual justification for all this governmental regulatory interference in his 1936 book titled The General Theory.

In Keynes twisted world, it was savers who were causing all the problems in the industrialized economies of the West.  What was needed was more debt.  And if people wouldn't go into debt on their own volition, then their governments needed to step up and do the spending for them. 

Finally, one could trace the 2008 crisis back to the progressive era of the early 20th century, specifically, the creation of the Federal Reserve in the United States. 

For the purpose of this series, it is not my intention to cover the creation of the Fed, the Great Depression or Keynesian economics in great detail.  For our purposes, it is sufficient to note them here.  Lord willing, I hope to address these topics in future series. 

In last week's installment, we left off discussing the October 1987 stock market crash, an event that has come to  be known as Black Monday.

As part of our discussion, we noted that on the Tuesday following the big Monday crash, things were looking pretty shaky for major US markets.  But just when things looked their worst, an event occurred which some observers described as almost miraculous, a huge and unexpected rally in the futures market that jump started a rally in the major market indices.   

Some attributed the rally, "to a mysterious burst of bullish sentiment."  Such an explanation seems strained to this author.  Why, in the midst of the worst market crash in history would there be a "bust of bullish sentiment."  One of the basic rules of stock trading is to avoid attempting "to catch a falling knife."'  If the market's tanking, let it tank and buy once it appears a bottom has formed.

More realistic is  the view of some traders who chalked up the rally to manipulation of the futures market by a few major firms. 

Although the article from which I drew this history, a Pulitzer Prize winning piece from the Wall Street Journal, did not specifically mention governmental or central bank intervention, it is the opinion of this author that ultimately it was the federal government in conjunction with the Fed that "saved" the day.    

One of the reasons for my opinion is Executive Order 12631 which was signed by then President Ronald Reagan in March 1988, just a few short months after the big crash of October 1987.  It established what is officially known as the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, a group better known by its more informal name, the Plunge Protection Team. 

It is to this Executive Order that we now turn our attention.

 

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Plunge Protection Team

For many people who follow financial markets, the existence and activities of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT) are considered something of a conspiracy theory. 

If someone were to go on a major financial channel and state that the government is manipulating the financial markets by means of the PPT, he would be greeted with howls of laughter in much the same way as if he'd announced he'd just returned from being beamed up to an alien mother ship where he'd visited with Elvis. 

In other words, to speak of the PPT is to court being labeled a tin foil hat wearing whackadoo.  If you don't believe me, check out this 2008 clip from CNBC. 

Taken in the midst of the GFC, most of the six (six!) CNBC commentators can barely contain their disdain for their one loan guest who dares suggest the PPT was involved in a couple of big ramp ups in the S&P during October 2008. 

   <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X06kz9dzXho" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are several noteworthy comments made by the CNBC crew.  I've listed the times of each comment for your convenience.

0:56 - One of the commentators makes a weak attempt to refute the guest by suggesting he had his days mixed up.  Scott Nations, the man making the claims that the PPT had interfered in the S&P on 10/10 and 10/28 2008, had said that 10/10 was on a Friday.  The CNBC host can be heard saying, "that was Thursday, right?" She comes back again at the 1:16 mark and asks the question again. 

The answer is no, it was not a Thursday.  10/10/2008 was on a Friday, just as the guest said it was.  He wasn't confused at all. 

1:30 - Bank of America Chief Economist Mickey Levy makes an appearance.  He shakes his head and grins when asked if the government's out there manipulating the market.  His response to this question is, "Absolutely not," and calls a discussion of this "silly."

3:30 - Guest Scott Nations asks the skeptical CNBC crew for their explanation of two shocking and unexplained moves up in the S&P index on 10/10 and 10/28.  None of the smirking hosts rises to the challenge.

3:51 - CNBC host Joe Kernan raises the question of the 3:51 mark whether legislation would be needed for the government in intervene in the markets.  Skeptical host Steve Liesman admits, "No, I suppose they [the government] could do that." Indeed they could.

4:22 - Perhaps most disappointing are the comments by Rick Santelli.  Santelli is one of the few individuals on CNBC who seems to be relatively sound in his views on economics and politics, but he falls into mocking the claims of the guest as though his claims about the PPT were the stuff of tabloid headlines. 

4:56 - Veteran UBS Director of Floor Operations Art Cashin seems to almost dismiss the very existence of the PPT.   After Joe Kernan likens belief in the PPT as the stuff of conspiracy theory,  Cashin replies that talk of the PPT is "black helicopter crap."

For those who may not know him, Art Cashin is one of the best known and most respected names on Wall Street, having become a Member of the NYSE in 1964 at the age of 23.  What he says carries weight, which is the likely reason CNBC brought him into the discussion to pile on their badly outnumbered guest. 

It is the opinion of this author that guest Scott Nations was thrown to the lions, as it were, not because he was wrong in what he said, but precisely because he was right. 

As has become more and more apparent in recent years, the job of the mainstream media is not, as many people suppose, to inform the public.  Rather, the MSM serves as the propaganda arm of powerful governmental and private interests - call it the Deep State or the establishment if you will - who want the public as ill-informed and dumbed down as possible, all the better to continue robbing us blind.

If you watched just the above segment on CNBC, you'd come away with the impression that anyone who so much believes in the existence of the PPT is a raving lunatic.  And to suggest that the PPT manipulates markets?  Well, that's simply off the charts madness. 

But the truth is far different.  Not only is the PPT a real government entity, as can easily be shown, but there's ample evidence to suggest that it is used to manipulate financial markets, just like Scott Nations stated in his CNBC interview.

Of course, the existence and the activities of such a group raise troubling moral questions.  By what Constitutional, not to mention, Biblical right does the government interfere in the workings of the free market?  Do not the activities of such a group artificially create winners and losers?  Does not the work of the PPT create market distortions which must be corrected, and will not these corrections be painful?

In short order, the answers are: Government has no right, either Constitutionally or Biblically to intervene in the markets; Yes, the PPT's activities artificially create winners and losers, and the proper term for these activities is theft; Yes, the PPT distorts the market in ways that will require a painful correction at some point.   

(To be continued...)   

The Great American Bailout of 2008: Where We Were, Where We Are, and Where We're Going, Part II

I was talking to my stockbroker today and I said, "Waiter!"

- Jay Leno, October 1987

Jay Leno's opening joke on the Tonight Show got a huge laugh from the audience, and with good reason.

That may sound a bit odd, but you need to consider the context. You see, his wisecrack came within days of the Monday, October 19, 1987 stock market crash, an event that has come be known as Black Monday.

On that fateful day, the Dow had dropped over 22%, a record one day percentage plunge exceeding even the big one-day percentage plunges that marked the 1929 stock market crash, and people were in the mood for some good comic relief.

To give a sense of what people were thinking at the time, TheStreet ran an article last year marking the 30th anniversary of Black Monday. In his piece, author Michael Brown noted, "Many thought the crash was the start of the next Great Depression and the headlines of the day reflect it."

As it turned out, no Great Depression ensued. In fact, things got back to normal pretty quickly. Today, Black Monday is considered something of a one-off oddity. An interesting piece of investing trivia to be sure, but not something terribly relevant for today.

What does Black Monday have to do with the 2008 financial crisis?

You may be wondering at this point why I'm dragging Black Monday into a discussion of the 2008 financial crisis. What's October 1987 have to do with our current situation?

In the opinion of this author, the answer is quite a lot. Allow me to explain.

A month after Black Monday, James Stewart and Daniel Hertzberg penned a Pulitzer-prize winning article for the Wall Street Journal titled "Terrible Tuesday: How the Stock Market Almost Disintegrated A Day After the Crash."

The focus of their piece was not on Monday plunge, but on the events of the next day, Tuesday, October 20. They opened their article by writing, "A month ago today, the New York Stock Exchange died. But within an hour or two, it was raised from the dead."

So just how was the stock market resurrected on Tuesday when all seemed lost? The article's subheadline provides the answer. It reads, "Credit Dried Up for Brokers And Especially Specialists Until Fed Came to Rescue."

Stewart and Herzberg give more details in their article, writing, "Only the intervention of the Federal Reserve, the concerted announcement of corporate stock-buy-back programs, and the mysterious movement - and possible manipulation - of a little-used stock index futures contract saved the markets from total meltdown."

So there you have it. The V-shaped recovery - a "V-shaped" recovery is a term used by financial types when talking about a sharp plunge in value followed by a rapid recovery, so called because the price chart of a stock or stock index goes nearly straight down and then straight back up producing a v-shape on the chart - that occurred after Black Monday was orchestrated by the Federal Reserve System (henceforth, The Fed), which is the name of the Central Bank of the United States.

And just who was it who was running the Fed at the time? It was none other than rookie Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, a man then little known but someone who would go on to become perhaps the most famous Fed Chairman of them all.

It is not my intention here is go into great detail about Mr. Greenspan, his previous life as an Ayn Rand devotee and supporter of the gold standard, the philosophical about face he pulled to become counterfeiter in chief during his 18 years as Fed Chairman, and his subsequent attempt to rehabilitate his image following his retirement.

While these are things worth commenting on, for our purposes I would prefer instead to draw your attention to another noteworthy aspect of his career: that of an activist central banker. Many consider Greenspan to be the first of the modern, activist central bankers, the man who set the "gold standard" for central bank interventions in the economy to which today's central bankers look for guidance.

If Stewart and Herzberg are to be believed, it was the Fed under Greenspan's guidance that bailed out the stock market in 1987. In their article, they bring up three principal items that prevented a stock market meltdown following Black Monday, intervention by the fed, a concerted announcement of corporate stock buy-buybacks, and market manipulation.

In the opinion of this author, Stewart and Herzberg may have been more accurate if they had simply mentioned intervention by the Fed which consisted of orchestrated announcements of stock buy-backs and manipulation the stock market behind the scenes through asset purchases.

Since 1987, market intervention by central bankers in concert with governments has grown to the point that one insider has stated flatly, "there's no price discovery anymore by the market...governments impose prices on the market."

Now one may be tempted to reject the idea of central bank and government intervention in financial markets as just a lot of undocumented conspiracy theory with no basis in anything resembling fact.

To this I would respond that not only do central bankers and governments have both the motive and the methods for interfering in financial markets, but the evidence that they do is overwhelming.

[caption id="attachment_4664" align="aligncenter" width="413"] A chart taken from Stewart and Herzber's November 20, 1987 Wall Street Journal article showing the "miraculous" jump in the Major Market Index future contract (circled).  Many believe this was the catalyst for the rapid recover of the stock market from Black Monday's sharp selloff.[/caption]

Take, for example, the 1987 Wall Street Journal article cited above which clearly states the Fed's role in propping up the market.

Later in the same article we find the following,

Tuesday, [October 20, 1987] 12:38 p.m. With the closing of the Big Board [the New York Stock Exchange] seemingly imminent and the market in disarray, with virtually all option and futures trading halted, something happened that some later described as a miracle: In the space of about five or six minutes, the Major Market Index futures contract, the only viable surrogate for the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the only major index still trading, staged the most powerful rally in its history. The MMI rose on the Chicago Board of Trade from a discount of nearly 60 points to a premium of about 12 points. Because each point represents about five in the Industrial average, the rally was the equivalent of a lightening-like 360-point rise in the Dow. Some believe that this extraordinary move set the stage for the salvation of the world's markets.

How it happened is a matter of conjecture on Wall Street. Some attribute it to a mysterious burst of bullish sentiment that suddenly swept the markets. Some knowledgeable traders have a different interpretation: They think that the MMI futures contract was deliberately manipulated by a few major firms as part of a desperate attempt to boost the Dow and save the markets (emphasis mine).

...statistics supplied by the Board of Trade lend circumstantial support to the thesis that the index was driven upward by a small number of sophisticated buyers...

...the market got another important psychological boost: the announcement of stock buybacks by major corporations...

..."It looks like there's almost a get-together on the part of corporate America to prop up the market," Stanley Abel, a consultant specializing in buybacks, observed that day.

...On Wednesday, Americans woke to newspaper headlines proclaiming the largest rise in the Dow's history

Note how the sudden rise in the MMI index is explained by some as a "Mysterious burst of bullish sentiment." As with theology, so with finance, when someone starts talking about "mysteries," one would do well to be skeptical.

No profit seeking trader in his right mind would plow money into a futures market while the entire financial system was locking up. In trader's lingo, doing this is like catching a falling knife. It's best just to let the knife fall and pick it up once it's hit the floor.

In the opinion of this author, the traders had it right. The Major Market Index contract was manipulated up, almost certainly with the Fed and/or the Exchange Stabilization Fund supplying the capital for the purchases.

Going back to the question I posed earlier, What does Black Monday have to do with the 2008 financial crisis?

I would answer the question this way. There's an old saying, you can't tell just one lie. Tell a lie, and you'll find you have to cover it up with another lie, then another, then another.

And as with lies, so it is with market interventions. You can't do just one. One intervention inevitable begets another intervention. And not only that, but as with lies, the market interventions must get bigger the longer they go on.

Interfere in the financial markets and you'll soon find you have a tiger by the tail. You can't hold on. But at the same time, you can't let go either. It's not an enviable place to be.

This is the import of the Terrible Tuesday interventions for our current situation. It is the contention of this author that the massive interference of the Fed and possibly other government entities in the 1987 stock market crash set the precedent for, and indeed required, the increasingly large interventions that follow in the years leading up to 2008, and indeed which continue to the present moment.

The Bible tells us "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and "Thou shalt not steal." These are commands of God, part of the summary of the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments. And these commands apply to all men everywhere at all times, central bankers and government officials receive no special exception.

It is the contention of this author that by interfering in markets to make them appear better than what they are, central bankers and government officials are lying to the public. Further, their clandestine use of public funds to effect these market manipulations are nothing other than theft.

But there's an even more fundamental problem here than just lying and stealing by central bankers and the politicians who love them.

The more fundamental issue is the immorality of central banking itself.

It is not this author's contention that things would be better if only we had better, more honest central bankers. It is this author's contention that central banking - all of it, both in theory and in practice- has no warrant in Scripture, no warrant in the Constitution and represents perhaps the most serious threat to the remaining liberties of the American people and the citizens of other Western nations of any institution in the modern world.

Not only does central banking create artificial distortions in the economy, distortions which enrich the well-connected few at the expense of the many, but it enables the growth of government, both of the welfare state and of the warfare state, to a degree that would be impossible in a system of honest money.

Lord willing, next week we shall trace the activities of the Fed, specifically its increasing interference in the financial markets in the years between 1987 and 2008, showing how the activities of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and others set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis, the after effects of which continue to envelope the United States and the West, and for that matter, the entire world to this present day.

 

 

 

The Great American Bailout of 2008: Where We Were, Where We Are, and Where We're Going, Part I

"I just lost $30,000," replied the shaken caller after a long pause.

It was the fall of 2008, and I had just started work for a large financial services firm as a 401(k) telephone representative.  Little did I know when I took the job a few months earlier that the US, and much of the Western, world, was on the cusp of what many would come to view as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930's. 

The Dow and S&P both were selling off hard, day after day, week after week.  People were scared. 

Many of the panicked calls that I took were people who wanted to know what the balance of their 401(k) account.  In some ways, this struck me as a bit odd.  After all, it was 2008 and the internet had established itself as a staple of American life over a decade earlier.  "Why don't these people just go online?," I wondered to myself.

In retrospect, perhaps one reason people called was that, rather than just watch as the computer screen displayed years of hard won retirement savings evaporate as the morning dew, they just wanted to talk to someone.  That's certainly understandable.

Ten years on, much of the American public thinks of the 2008 crisis, if they think about it at all, as a ancient history.  Just last week, the Dow hit a new record high and seems to be headed higher still. 

President Trump tweeted out back in June, "In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America and the best time EVER to look for a job!"

American consumers seem to agree.  According to the August results from The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, consumer confidence is closing in on a new record high. The record of 144.7 set in May 2000 is just a chip shot away from the August 2018 reading of 133.4.  Considering that the Consumer Confidence Index dates back to 1967 and that this is a widely watch data series, a new record high in this index would represent a significant achievement. 

If we look at the employment picture, everything appears to be headed in the right direction as well.  The Washington Post reported in May, one suspects a bit grudgingly, that The U.S. now has a record 6.6 million job openings.  

According to the article by Heather Long, "The United States now has a job opening for every unemployed person in the country, a sign of just how far the nation has turned around from the recession that cost so many Americans their jobs nearly a decade ago."

Signs of economic success are so abundant that, as CNBC reports, "[Former] President Barak Obama has entered credit-taking mode on the economy."  

Politicians aren't the only ones talking victory laps either.  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner - the principal architects of the 2008 bailout of the financial system - gathered earlier this month at a forum in Washington D.C. to justify their actions of ten years ago.

According to CNBC's report, "We stepped in before the banks had collapsed and we did some things to fix the financial system which are very hard to explain because they are objectionable things," Paulson said.  "In the United States of America there's a fundamental sense of fairness that the American people have. ...You don't want to reward the arsonist."

"However," the article continues, "they [Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner] said doing nothing would have caused the economy to capsize.  They acknowledged that some of the terms were distasteful, but they were necessary given the options at hand."

In essence, the big three argued that they had to do evil that good might come, a line of thinking condemned in the Scriptures but one that is all too commonly used by vested political and financial interests in midst of financial crises to convince a wary the public to go along with their latest scheme to enrich themselves at the people's expense.

Indeed the moderator of this forum was Andrew Ross Sorkin, who, as the CNBC article notes, wrote the 2010 book Too Big To Fail, The inside story of how Wall Street and Washington fought to save the financial system - and themselves.  described as a chronicle of the 2008 crisis from the inside.  I have not read this book, but the subtitle does, I think, let the cat out of the bag on the true motives of the bailout.

Unlike the unctuous self-justifications of JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon, who recently argued that JP Morgan's actions during the financial crisis were done "to support our country and the financial system," Sorkin's subtitle at least admits the too big to fail meme was all about bankers and politicians saving themselves, not the country.

This is not to fault politicians and bankers for having a sense of self-preservation.  The Scriptures tell us that no man ever yet hated his own flesh, and this certainly includes those who run the political and financial systems. 

No.  The fault of bankers and politicians is not in their having a sense of self-preservation, it's that they lie and steal to get what they want.

In capitalism, in a free market economy, in a nation governed by the rule of law, there is no such thing as too big to fail.  In capitalism, banks have a God given right to make money...and a God given right to lose it. 

But in our decadent, late stage of empire society, dominated as it is by crony capitalists and their supporting cast of politicians, the Wall Street masters of the universe believe themselves entitled to never ending profits, while losses, well, those are for the little people to bear.

It is the opinion of this author that the intertwined political and financial systems of this country, rather than reflecting anything remotely like a Christian ethic, have become the embodiment of what Jesus talked about when he took his disciples to school for their arguing about who was the greatest. 

According to Jesus, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship [lord it over] them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors. ' "

It would be impossible to find a better description of the words of Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner and Dimon than these.  First, they conspired to rip off the American taxpayer by forcing machinations such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) through Congress as well as the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing (QE) program, about which the American people had no say at all, since it was decided upon by the Federal Reserve, an unelected body, paid for by private banking interests, that does not answer to the public. 

TARP and QE were tools of a corrupt and inept financial and political elite, which they used to keep themselves ensconced in power at the expense of ordinary Americans.  To put it another way, they lorded their power over the American people. 

And, as if that weren't bad enough, they then have the gall to turn around and act as if their actions were for the good of the country rather than for themselves.  That is to say, they claim that, in the end, they're really our "benefactors."

And if you think the QE and TARP from 2008 is the end of the bailout road, think again.  Wall Street Insiders reports that during the forum mentioned above, Tim Geithner, "called the effort to combat financial instability a 'forever war.' "  So we have more bailouts to look forward to.  Strangely, this rhetoric is similar to what the advocates of the Global War on Terror say about their efforts, which today have proven largely ineffective. 

Question, if your war on terror, financial instability or whatever has no end in sight, doesn't that suggest you don't know what you're doing?  Can anyone imagine George S. Patton saying such a thing?  Just asking.

Enough of this nonsense!

It is the contention of this author that, contrary to all the self-congratulatory talk about how well the economy is doing, there are abundant signs that all is not well in the US economy.  In fact, one could even argue that we're in the midst of a slow-motion crash, but one that is concealed from public view by money printing, market manipulation and propaganda, what one market observer has called Management of Perspective Economics (MOPE).

Further, it is this author's contention that, not only have the machinations of the political and financial elite not helped to bring stability to the financial system, they actually are the cause the current instability and all but guarantee a future crisis far bigger than the one in 2008. 

Lord willing, it is my intention over the next few weeks to bring the light of Scripture to the 2008 financial crisis.  It is my hope to take a look at what was done then, where we are now, and where we're headed as a result of the decisions that have been made.     

When Protestants Err on the Side of Rome: John Piper, “Final Salvation,” and the Decline and Fall of Sola Fide at the Last Day (Part II)

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), andas 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.

[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.

Deplatformed! The Tech Left's Attack on Free Speech and Why Christians Should Object, Part II

So the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "[There is] still one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the LORD; but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil" (1 Kings 22:8).

The First Amendment deals with the issues of free speech and the freedom of religion.  It's not an accident that these two concepts are linked.  For Christianity, and it was Christianity that the framers of the Constitution had in mind, is a religion of the Word.  "How can they hear without a preacher?" was Paul's rhetorical question to the Romans.  The obvious answer is that unless men are free to preach the Gospel, sinners never will hear of salvation by belief alone in Christ Jesus. 

Christianity's emphasis that salvation comes only by understanding, and agreeing with, the propositions of Scripture, requires that men be able to speak that truth freely.  Hence it is every Christian's concern that the liberty to speak and to discuss the Word of God not be inhibited by legal restrictions. 

And because Christians are commanded to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated, one of the implications of Christianity is that all should enjoy to right to freely discuss their ideas without fear of legal sanction.  In a Christian society, there are no such things as thought crimes.  We leave that mistaken notion to the Marxists, the fascists, and other authoritarians.

Christianity is not, as the ACLU would like you to believe, hostile to free speech.  Rather, it is it's only source and guarantor. 

Because free speech is both an implication of Christianity and necessary to its propagation, the maintenance of free and open discussion is of great importance to Christians.  Likewise, when free speech is threatened, it is incumbent upon Christians to come to its defense. If, when the free speech comes under attack, Christians remain silent, we do so, not only to our shame, but to our own harm as well.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I undertook to write about the deplatforming of Alex Jones and other prominent conservative and libertarian thinkers last week, and it is why I'm writing about it again this week.  Whatever one may think of Alex Jones, Mark Dice, Diamond and Silk, Daniel McAdams and Peter Van Buren - whether you love them, hate them, or never watch them, it matters not - the fact that these individuals and others have been the targets of an apparently coordinated attack by Big Tech is a matter of great concern. 

If Christians stand by and say nothing while Apple, Spotify, Facebook, and Twitter deplatform Alex Jones simply because they don't like what he says, they should not be surprised when these same organizations target them for deplatforming at some point in the future when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

Now, some may argue that these are private companies, and private companies have the right to regulate what is said on their own platforms.  I agree.  But that said, I am also of the opinion that there is more to this situation than private businesses simply running their social media platforms in the way they see fit. 

A strong circumstantial case can be made that the deplatforming of conservative and libertarian voices - a deplatforming that has been going on for some time and one which has recently picked up steam - is really a joint venture of between privately owned social media enterprises and the Deep State, the permanent, unelected government that largely runs the country the way it wants to, regardless of what politicians happen to be in power.

Lord willing, I shall make that case in a future installment.  But for today, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into the Scriptures to show just how strong the Biblical support for free speech is.

 

Examples from the kings of Israel and Judah

"You are the man!" These were the crushing words of Nathan the prophet when he confronted King David with his sins of adultery and murder. 

David is described in the pages of Scripture as a man after God's own heart.  But as students of the Bible know well, David almost inexplicably fell into deep sin, committing adultery with Bathsheba and then having her husband, Uriah the Hittite, murdered to cover up his sin. 

But when the Lord sent David's friend Nathan to confront him, what was David's reaction?  Did David say, "How dare you speak to me this way!  Don't you know who I am?  Why, I'm the Lord's anointed!  Off with your head!"?

No, he did not.  What was his reaction to Nathan's words?  Scripture tells us, "So David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the LORD' " (2 Samuel 12:13). 

David did not punish  the prophet for confronting him with his sin.  That is to say, David believed in free speech.  In fact, it almost seems as if David were relieved that Nathan said what he did, for David repented of his egregious sins and was forgiven by God. 

Another incident from David's career is illustrative as well.  When David was on the run from Absalom,  a certain Shimei came out to curse him while he and his men were travelling.  As Shimei cursed, one of David's men spoke up and said, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?  Please, let me go over and take off his head!"  To which David responded, "So let him curse." 

David could easily have put an end to the cursing but did not.  As the Scripture reports, "And as David and his men went along the read, Shimei went along the hillside opposite him and cursed as he went, threw stones at him and kicked up dust" (2 Samuel 16:13). 

Shimei, it would seem, put on quite a show.  Yet David let it go on.  Not that he couldn't have ended it any time he wanted.  But David perceived that the Lord had ordered Shimei to do what he did and accepted the rebuke. Once again, David supported free speech.

David, of course, was not the only Hebrew king to be confronted by one of the prophets.  But not all of them reacted the same way David did.  Some repented, others became enraged that anyone would dare question their authority.

In fact, the reaction of a king to prophetic criticism, that is to say, the degree to which a king supported free speech, could almost be seen as a litmus test for what kind of man he was, whether he was a good and godly king, or a scoundrel. 

Consider the quote at the top of this post.  The quoted words are those of King Ahab of Israel, who, as the Scriptures tell us, "did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him" (1 Kings 16:25).

And as we would expect from a man who despised the Word of God, unsurprisingly, Ahab also had a problem with free speech.  Unlike David, Ahab did not, in general, react well when confronted with speech that contradicted him.

For example, Ahab openly expressed his hatred for the prophet Micaiah.  And why did Ahab hate Micaiah?  Ahab tells us plainly it was Micaiah's prophesying against him. 

Micaiah was already in jail when Ahab expressed his hatred for the prophet to Jehoshaphat.  We don't know exactly the reason Micaiah was locked up, but, given Ahab's words, it likely was due to something the prophet had said to Ahab on an earlier occasion. 

When Ahab finally did drag Micaiah out of prison, so he could weigh in on Ahab's plans to attack Syria, the prophet foretold Ahab's defeat and death.

And what was Ahab's reaction to the bad news?  "Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and water of affliction" (1 Kings 22:27).

Ahab, unlike David, did not believe in free speech.  In Ahab's eyes, Micaiah had committed a crime by not telling the king what he wanted to hear and was deserving of punishment. 

As a follow up, when King Jehoshaphat, a godly man and Ahab's ally, returned to Jerusalem after the military debacle against Syria, he too was confronted by a prophet named Jehu.  Jehu said to the king, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?  Therefore the wrath of the LORD is upon you.  Nevertheless good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land, and have prepared your heart to seek God" (2 Chronicles 19:2,3). 

Scripture does not record Jehoshaphat's reaction to these words of rebuke, but given the overall positive view that Scripture takes of his reign, the most reasonable conclusion is that he accepted the words of the prophet and repented. 

King Ahab's wife, the remarkably wicked Queen Jezebel, didn't believe in free speech either.  For it was she who killed the prophets of the Lord.  Those who survived her purge did so as a result of the faithful actions of Obadiah (1 Kings 18:13). 

Or consider the case of King Jeroboam of Israel.  He's the one who instituted idolatry as the state religion of the Northern Kingdom.  When the king had set up a golden calf and was prepared to burn incense on an altar he had built, Scripture tells us that a man of God confronted the king and prophesied against him. 

Jeroboam reacted by calling for his arrest.  Clearly, Jeroboam did not believe in free speech.  It should come as no surprise, either, that his reign is viewed in the pages of Scripture as decidedly negative.  The Bible tells us, "After these event Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way, but gain he made priests from every class of people for the high places; whoever wished, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places.  And this thin was the sin of the house of Jeroboam, so as to exterminate and destroy it from the face of the earth" (1 Kings 33, 34).

Worth noting here is that Jeroboam not only disdained free speech, but he also violated the principle of the separation of powers as established in the Law of Moses.  According to the Law, priests only were to sacrifice to God, but Jeroboam did not hesitate to combine the role of priest with his role as king. 

If we were to couch this in constitutional terms, we would say that Jeroboam did not respect the separation of church and state as required in the Antiestablishment clause of the First Amendment.

In effect, evil King Jeroboam trashed both major provisions of the First Amendment, if I may use such an anachronism.  In the first place he prohibited free speech in that he called for the arrest of the prophet sent by God to rebuke him, and in the second in that he involved the civil government in religion in a way that was unlawful.

One last example of the attack on free speech in the Old Testament is worth exploring, the case of Jeremiah.  Jeremiah exercised his prophetic ministry in the final years of the Southern Kingdom.  It was a troubled time for Judah and Jerusalem, as the specter of coming the Babylonian captivity casts its shadow across the pages of the book that bears the prophets name.  Jeremiah's message was as simple as it was unpopular with the power brokers in Judah:  Surrender to the Babylonians and it will go well with you; Resist, and you will die.

Scripture records at least two serious attempts to deplatform and kill Jeremiah during his ministry.  After preaching a particularly unpopular sermon in the court yard of the temple, Scripture tells us, "So the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD.  Now it happened, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak, to all the people, that the priests and the prophet and the people seized him, saying,  'You will surely die!  Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD, saying, 'This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without an inhabitant'?' And all the people were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the LORD."  The princes of Judah also piled on Jeremiah, saying, "This man deserves to die!  For he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your ears" (Jeremiah 26:7-9, 11).  Jeremiah was able just barely to avoid his deplatforming and death, when he convinced the people and the princes and the elders that he spoke for the LORD. 

Some of the elders even cited an earlier example in Judah's history when a prophet named Micah of Moresheth prophesied the destruction of Zion in the days of Hezekiah.  These elders asked, "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death?"  The answer was, of course not.  Hezekiah was a righteous king and his tolerance for unpopular speech is evidence of his faith. "Did he [Hezekiah] not fear the LORD and seek the LORD's favor?," asked the elders. 

Some time later, after Jeremiah had been imprisoned, the prophet was faced with a second serious attempt on his life.  The princes of Judah complained to the king that Jeremiah's message of "defect to the Babylonians and you shall live!" was weakening he resolve of the men defending Jerusalem and demanded, "Please, let this man be put to death."  King Zekediah agreed to turn Jeremiah over to the princes, who lowered him into a well, and leaving him there to die. Jeremiah survived this second deplatforming attempt when an Ethiopian court eunuch organized a rescue party to pull him out. 

It's been said that the principle of free speech does not exist to enable us to talk about the weather.  Free speech is about protecting unpopular speech.  Today we looked at a few examples from the Old Testament and found that the godly kings did not punish the prophets who brought bad, that is to say, unpopular news, but rather supported their right to speak the truth.  These kings supported free speech and didn't believe in shooting the messenger.  Wicked kings, on the other hand, would go to extreme measures to silence their critics.  In this respect they acted very much like liberal critics in the mainstream media, in government and the heads of Big Tech companies.  These individuals prefer to silence alternate viewpoints by deplatforming their critics rather than fairly debate the issues with them.

This attitude, so prevalent among academics, government officials and Big Tech executive represents a toxic mixture of intellectual cowardice, institutional hubris and power.  It needs to stop. 

Next week, Lord willing, we shall take a look at the implied support of free speech found in the New Testament. 

(To be continued...)

Deplatformed! The Tech Left's Attack on Free Speech and Why Christians Should Object, Part I

"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,"  said then President Obama in Pittsburgh in October 2016. 

The President continued, "There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world."

In the opinion of this author, those are some of the most chilling words any president has ever spoken.  In all but name, Obama called for the government to establish a 1984 style ministry of truth.  Perhaps more chilling, not many people took notice or seemed to care.  

Perhaps the lack of attention could be chalked up to the timing of Obama's remarks, made, as they were, less than a month before the most contentious presidential election in recent memory.

In light of the events of the last two years, and especially those of last week, a week that saw the coordinated takedown of Alex Jones by the biggest social media platforms, it's this author's contention that Obama's statement ought to be seen as a declaration of war by the deep state on internet free speech. 

Now someone may say, "I don't like Alex Jones, he's just so over the top."  Others, perhaps who aren't into social media or who don't follow politics or economics or just aren't into alternate news sources, may yawn and think this has nothing to do with them.

Christians, particularly American Christians, concerned as they ought to be with maintaining freedom of religion may be tempted to pass over Jones' very public, Big Tech deplatforming as having no direct bearing on their ability to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ or to openly worship. 

But it is the contention of this author that ignoring what happened to Jones would be a serious mistake for anyone, Christian or not, who cherishes liberty, limited government, and the ability to think and to speak freely and without fear of punishment, either from the civil authorities or key private institutions.

So just what was done to Alex Jones last week that prompted this essay?  For that matter, who is Alex Jones and why should Christians care about what happened to him?

According to a piece on ThinkProgress, "Alex Jones was dealt a series of blows on Monday when Apple and Spotify decided to remove nearly all of Infowar's podcasts, and Facebook banned several of his pages." These bans followed the lead of YouTube, which just a few days earlier pulled all of Jones' Infowars channels except The Real News with David Knight.

As seems to be the standard operation procedure with such bans, the reasons given by the tech companies were rather vague.  The article continues with a comment from an Apple spokesman who is quoted saying, "Podcasts that violate these [hate speech] guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming." 

In a post explaining its actions against Jones, Facebook said, "Earlier today, we removed four Pages belonging to Alex Jones for repeatedly posting content over the past several days that breaks those Community Standards."  As with Apple, we see a vague reference to "Community Standards" and "hate speech" but no specific examples of what was said that prompted Facebook's act of removing the Infowars pages or explanation of why these statements were so egregious that they required the banning in the first place.    

But lest one suppose that Infowars is uniquely the target of big tech tyrants, there have been many other casualties, not just last week, but over the past two years since Obama's call for "truthiness tests."

For example, in an email to supporters of the Ron Paul Institute, Executive Director Daniel McAdams related his recent experience of being banned from Twitter for having the audacity to tweet support for a friend whose Twitter account had been permanently banned.

For those unfamiliar with McAdams, alone with being Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute, he's a former Congressional staffer for Ron Paul and Ron Paul's co-host on the daily Ron Paul Liberty Report.  From my observation, Mr. McAdams, far from being over the top or deliberately provocative, conducts himself as a gentleman and a scholar, none of which prevented him from feeling the wrath the masters of the Twitter universe.

McAdams' Twitter account has since been restored, but the restoration came with an odd, Orwellian twist to it.  McAdams wrote,

Twitter also did something to Scott [McAdam's is referencing Scott Horton, Horton, a libertarian writer, also was banned for voicing his support for fellow libertarian Peter Van Buren,  the same thing that got McAdams in hot water] and me that was positively Stalinist: when we tried to log in to our [Twitter] account while suspended, we were greeted with our "offending" Tweets, the message was clear:  you must admit how wrong you were and remove it yourself.  I told a colleague about this strange demand and his response was chilling...and accurate:

That's giving the game away for them, Stalin face, deniability for them by making you self incriminate...communitarian policing to the extreme, psychological reframing, behaviorist modification...just like they would do to a child in school.

Neither Scott nor I bit.

The suppression of accounts, which seems to happen only to conservatives and libertarians, rarely if ever to socialists, is not limited to outright deletion.  It's not uncommon for social media platforms to engage in the practice of shadow banning. 

So just what is shadow banning?  Let's quote one of the leading experts on the practice, Twitter itself.  "The best definition we found is this:  deliberately making someone's content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster."  

According to Vice News, Twitter had engaged in the practice of shadow banning, not on various fringe personalities, but on some of the biggest names in the Republican party.  On July 26, Vice reported that "Twitter appears to have fixed search problems that lowered visibility of GOP lawmakers."

So who were these lawmakers?  "Those affected included RNC [Republican National Committee] Chair Ronna McDaniel, Republican Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, along with Andrew Surabian, Donald Trump Jr.'s spokesman and former Special Assistant to the President."

These are not by any means obscure individuals, but some of the most powerful and best known Republicans.  Twitter claims that the problem with the accounts was "a side effect attempts to clean up discourse on its platform." 

The Vice article goes on to describe the shadow ban technique used on the Republicans as "[A] shift that diminishes their reach on the platform - and it's the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility.  The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar."

What is more, the supposed "side effect" of Twitter's efforts was limited to Republicans only, as there were no reports of this happening to Democrats.  As Vice notes, "Democrats are not being 'shadow banned' in the same way, according to a VICE News review.  McDaniel's counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress - including Reps. Maxine Waters [in what came close to a call for physical violence against Trump administration officials, Maxine Waters recently called on her supports to "push back" on Trump staffers if they saw them in public], Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan - all continue to appear in drop-down search results.  Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter's search." 

To make matters worse, Twitter responded to criticism of its practice of shadow banning by issuing a denial that sounded a whole lot more like an admission of guilt.  Said Twitter, "We do not shadow ban.  You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile).  And we certainly don't shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology."

But what is shadow banning if not making people "do more work to find" tweets by those out of favor with the powers that be?

And Twitter's denial that they shadow ban based on political viewpoints seems threadbare in the face of Vice News' findings reported above.

And, oh yeah, Vice News, far from being a conservative bastion,  is a liberal publication. With that in mind, their reporting that prominent Democrats were not subjected to the same treatment as their Republican counterparts can be seen as an admission against interest.

But as notable as the above deplatformings are, they are not the only examples of the tech left bringing down its heavy hammer on those who dare voice opinions at odds with the received government / mainstream media narrative. 

Trump supporters Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, better known as Diamond and Silk, testified before Congress about how they were censored on Facebook and demonetized on YouTube.

So what did they mean by censored and demonetized?  In the case of Facebook, the sisters claim that, beginning in September 2017, their 1.4 million followers stopped being notified about new posts.  This is similar to Twitter's shadow bans in that, while Facebook allowed Diamond and Silk to post content, they made it harder for people to access their content. 

As for the charge of demonetization, that's something YouTube does to videos its algorithms are programmed to recognize as "not advertiser friendly," that is to say, videos by conservatives and libertarians that challenge the liberal mainstream media news narrative, are actually interesting, and attract a large audience of unfashionable people sporting unfashionable opinions, who have the audacity to ask unfashionable questions of their supposed betters.  That is to say, videos liked by the dreaded deplorables. 

To demonetize a video means YouTube makes it ineligible for advertisers to sponsor it.  Since YouTube content providers receive advertising revenue from the ads that run on their videos, YouTube is depriving popular YouTubers of advertising revenue when their videos are flagged as not being advertiser friendly.

During their Congressional testimony, USA Today reports that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee questioned Diamond and Silk on what role Congress could have in telling private entities how to manage their platforms.

Good grief! Since when did the Democrats ever see any successful private entity they didn't want to tax and regulate into the ground?  And now, when YouTube is doing their dirty work of censoring their opponents for them, suddenly we're to believe they've had an epiphany, having discovered wonders of laissez faire economics and limited government?  What hypocrisy! Spare me!

For some of the best, not to mention most entertaining, Congressional testimony you'll ever see, check out this video from Mark Dice which shows Diamond and Silk unloading on Congressman Hank Johnson (D, GA).   

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DgehKvd25lc" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And speaking of Mark Dice, he's another YouTuber and one of the biggest voices among alternate media conservatives.  He has 1.3 million followers on YouTube, yet routinely has his videos demonetized, considered as they are by YouTube, not advertiser friendly.

So how have conservatives responded to all this cyber harassment?  In many cases, not well at all. 

Echoing the Congressional Democrats, one inadequate conservative response has been to take the position that, since Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et. al. are private companies, their decision to ban Jones, Diamond and Silk, Mark Dice and others is simply an example of private businesses exercising their property rights.  Therefore, no one has the right to complain.  The message?  Just stop complaining, shut up and go start your own version of Facebook already!

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times last week, establishment conservative and never-Trumper David French said as much when he took issue, not with the tech left's banning of Alex Jones, but they way in which they did it.  The "loathsome" Jones and his "loathsome" content should be banned, says French, but Twitter, Facebook and YouTube got it all wrong by booting him for hate speech.  They should have deep sixed him on the basis of libel and slander laws.  

One major problem with French's position is that, as Lord willing I hope to develop next week, one can make a strong circumstantial case that the selective banning of conservative voices is not merely a matter of private companies legally exercising control over their own product, but very likely is the result of their collaboration with the deep state.  In other words, the Big Tech's jihad against conservatives is really a case of the merger of [deep] state and corporate powers, which is the very definition of fascism.

A second problem with French's position is that, not only does he come off in his New York Times op-ed as a rather snooty movement conservative, it never seems to occur to him that someday he may find himself shadow banned or deplatformed in the same way Alex Jones was, a man for whom French has nothing but contempt.  Perhaps Mr. French needs to go back and reread Martin Niemöller's famous poem, First they came...      

Another weak argument used by some conservatives is to say that big tech's censoring of Republicans is a First Amendment issue.  But the First Amendment applies to Congress - Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.  Since Congress has not passed a law abridging free speech on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, arguing on First Amendment grounds seems like an unpromising line of attack.

Finally, there are calls by some to threaten the big techies with antitrust lawsuits.  Admittedly this is tempting, but this would be a mistake.  Not only are antitrust laws a product of the regulatory state which Christians should eschew, but they actually can work in favor of the businesses being regulated. 

As James Corbett argued in a recent video, the tech left's banning of conservatives is part of a larger chess game Corbett refers to as Problem, Reaction, Solution.  Corbett believes that antitrust regulation of big tech will not weaken, but actually strengthen the grip of the current crop of Silicon Valley billionaires on the social media market just as it strengthened John Rockefeller's grip on the oil market 100 years ago. 

Corbett makes a compelling case that the tech left has deliberately provoked conservatives in the hopes that they will react by calling for the one thing the tech industry craves:  government regulation.  And why do they crave regulation?  It helps them stamp out up and coming competition.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of government regulation is that big business actually likes it.  Established big businesses have the resources to cope with regulations in a way that start ups do not.  Government regulations actually act as an entry barrier for entrepreneurs by imposing costs on them at a time when they are most vulnerable and perhaps lacking the legal sophistication and the money to comply with a complex set of laws.

In other words, Facebook and the others are scared of becoming the next My Space or America On Line, as well they should be, and see governmental regulation of the industry as a way to keep this from happening.   And not only that, but they want to trick you into doing the job for them, first by creating a problem, thus provoking you to react, and then helping Congress write the laws that will regulate and protect, not you, but them. 

Now you may be asking yourself, so what does any of this have to do with Christianity.  The answer is, quite a lot.  Christianity is a religion first, not of the deed, but of the Word.  And that Word must be heard to be believed.  If Christians cannot freely write and speak the truth of God's Word, then they are in for serious problems indeed. 

It is not accident that it is Protestant West that pioneered free speech and where it to this day has the most support.  But free speech is under aggressive assault today, and not just from the tech left.  Lord willing, we shall explore this and other related issues in future installments of this series. 

(To be continued...)

Welcome to ThornCrown Ministries

What was once the Semper Reformanda Radio Podcast and Blog on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Network is now ThornCrown Ministries, which includes a new lineup of podcasts known as the ThornCrown Network.

The ThornCrown Network consists of Semper Reformanda Radio (SRR) with Tim Shaughnessy, Carlos Montijo, and Tim Kauffman; Radio Lux Lucet (RLL) with Steve Matthews; and The Protestant Witness (TPW) with Patrick Hines. We're privileged and blessed to have Mr. Matthews and Pastor Hines join our network with their outstanding content.

We're also very excited to have Mr. Tom Juodaitis, President of The Trinity Foundation, and Ryan Denton of Christ in the Wild Ministries as guests on Semper Reformanda Radio. For more information about our contributors, visit the Authors & Contributors page.

Our new blog is The Scripturalist, the name of which was inspired by the philosophy and theology of Gordon Clark and John Robbins. Here you can find articles from all our contributors and more.

ThornCrown Ministries is a reality thanks in large part to the generosity of brother Ryan Denton, and to brother Tim Hurd for graciously offering us a platform on the BTWN back in June 2016. We had a great experience and look forward to collaborating with them in the future. For more information about our transition from the Bible Thumping Wingnut Network, view or listen to our interview with Tim Hurd.

Your prayers and support will be greatly appreciated as we continue providing sound Biblical content with this new platform the Lord has blessed us with.

Semper Reformanda

Uploaded by The Biblethumpingwingnut Network on 2018-04-14.

What the Bible Says About Homosexuality

From time to time I've written in this space about the collapse of Western Civilization that we so going on around us all on a daily basis. And in this author's opinion, there is perhaps no better illustration of this collapse than the rise of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender (LGBT) movement over the last several decades.

I make this observation as a Christian, and those who do not believe the Bible may be tempted to dismiss my view as personal bias. But interestingly enough, at least one prominent lesbian scholar is in agreement with this view. As this 2015 article from cnsnews.com notes, "Best-selling feminist author, social critic and self-described "transgender being" Camille Paglia said in an interview last month that the rise of transgenderism in the West is a symptom of decadence and cultural collapse."

Paglia is quoted in the article saying, "Nothing…better defines the decadence of the West to the jihadists than our toleration of open homosexuality and this transgender mania now."

The article continues, "Paglia went on to talk about her book Sexual Personae and how the emergence of transgenderism signifies the end of Western culture. 'Now I am concerned about this…In fact, my study of history in Sexual Personae, I'm always talking about the late phases of culture.'

'I was always drawn to late or decadent phases of culture. Oscar Wile is one of the great exponents of that in the late 19th century. He's one of my strongest influences from my earliest years. An I found in my study that history is cyclic, and everywhere in the world you find this pattern in ancient times: that as a culture begins to decline, you have an efflorescence of transgender phenomena. That is a symptom of cultural collapse.'

'So rather than people singing the praises of humanitarian liberalism that allows all of these transgender possibilities to appear and to be encouraged, I would be concerned about how Western culture is defining itself to the world.' "

These are good comments by Paglia.  In fact, what this feminist lesbian has to say about homosexuality and transgender mania is actually closer to the mind of Christ, and far more interesting, than what falls from the lips of many supposed ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when they speak on these subjects. 

The wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors in the West is a flashing red warning signal that our civilization is in deep trouble. It's so obvious that even a feminist lesbian scholar is able to see the problem. But for all that, there are many who name the name of Christ who are either unable or unwilling to grasp this simple and obvious truth.

Proving that God condemns homosexuality, or what the King James Bible calls sodomy, is the theological equivalent of a slam dunk. That is to say, it's not hard at all. But as a minister friend once said to me in conversation, "When we go wrong, it tends to be over simple things." He was right. So in the spirit of re-stating what was obvious to prior, more Christian generations, let us review what the Bible's devastating condemnation of homosexuality.

  • Genesis 18:20-21 And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me."
  • Genesis 19:13 "For we will destroy this place [Sodom], because the outcry against them is has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
  • Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
  • Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies wit ha woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
  • Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD you God.
  • Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
  • 1 Kings 15:11-12 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took way the sodomites out of the land…
  • 1 Kings 22:42, 43, 46 Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when be began to reign…And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD…And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.
  • 2 Kings 22:1, 2 and 23:7 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign…And he did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD…And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD.
  • Isaiah 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
  • Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even t heir women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
  • 1 Timothy 1:8-10 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but…for fornicators, for sodomites…
  • Jude 6-7 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal file.

While this list may not be exhaustive, it does cover the most obvious references to homosexuality in Scripture. And I would ask the reader, after looking over this list, do you think the Bible has a positive or a negative view of homosexuality? This isn't difficult. It's not a trick question.  It doesn't take a theologian of the caliber of Martin Luther of John Calvin to figure it out either.  The obvious answer is that the Scriptures clearly and unequivocally condemn homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a thing to be proud of. Neither is it a civil right.

Homosexuality is sin. And a particularly heinous sin at that.

The School of Hard Knox: Further Reflections on My Time at KTS (Part III)

Today's post represents the third in a series of posts about my time as a student at Knox Theological Seminary (KTS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I originally wrote about KTS and the controversy concerning Warren Gage in a 2008 book published by the Trinity Foundation titled Imagining a Vain Thing: The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary.

In the ten years that have elapsed since I wrote the book under the guidance of the late Dr. John W. Robbins, my conviction that what I wrote was correct remains unchanged. I stand by the book, all of it.

That said, ten years is time enough for further reflection, and it seemed good to me to write a series of posts to share with readers some of the big-picture lessons that can be taken from the disaster that overtook KTS in the fall of 2007.

A Danger of Unsound Eschatology

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but 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

One of the myths advanced by Dr. Gage during my time at KTS was the idea that the Reformation had little to say about eschatology. In the Introduction to the John-Revelation Project (JRP) Gage makes the following claim, "It is instructive that Martin Luther questioned the canonicity of Revelation, lamenting that a "Revelation" should reveal, and John Calvin, who commented on every other book of the Bible, glaringly omitted commentary on the Apocalypse. The children of the Reformers have fared little better. And it is time to ask why?"

This is statement is propaganda in at least three ways. In the first place, although Luther did question the canonicity of Revelation, in the end he did accept it. Second, Revelation is not the only book John Calvin omitted from his commentary on the Bible. There were a number of books on which Calvin did not comment such as Judges, Ruth, and 1&2 Samuel. Third, there have been numerous commentaries written on Revelation by Protestants. For example, Isaac Newton (yes, that Isaac Newton), John Gill, E.B. Elliott to name just a few. In fact, it probably would shock most early 21st century Protestants just how much has been written by earlier generations of Protestants on Revelation in general and the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in particular.

For example, the statement above is the original wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) when it was published in 1648, but was excised in a 1903 revision of the WCF by the PCUSA - the PCUSA was and is the mainline Presbyterian denomination is the United States - and today it is a rare thing indeed for a Presbyterian church to use a version of the Confession with this language.

In the 1903 revision, the PCUSA replaced the historic language of the Confession with the following, "The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of nay man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many years ago when I first began to get serious about studying Reformed theology, I purchased a version of the WCF published by the PCA, a more theologically conservative organization than the PCUSA. The language of 25.6 in their version runs thus, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof."

The most obvious difference between the original version and its newer counterparts is the identification of the Pope or Rome as "Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition."

Today it's considered bad manners and theologically incorrect to call the Pope of Rome Antichrist. But our Protestant forebears were no so ashamed. Consider the following quotes:

  • This teaching shows very forcefully that the pope is the very Antichrist. He exalts himself above Christ and opposes Him, because he will not allow Christians to be saved without his power, which nevertheless is nothing and is neither ordained nor commanded by God...Just as we cannot worship the devil himself as Lord and God, so we cannot put up with his apostle, the pope, or Antichrist, in his regime as head or lord (Martin Luther, What Luther Says, 34).
  • Daniel (Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom (John Calvin, Institutes, 4.2.12).
  • Yea, we doubt not to prove the kingdom of the Pope to be the kingdom and power of Antichrist (John Knox).
  • This chapter [Revelation 15] is a preparation to the pouring out of the seven vials...and of the destruction of antichrist; and it is said to be a sign "in heaven", where John was called up, and where he had his visions; and it was "another", a different one from that in (Revelation 12:1) which represented the downfall of Paganism, but this the downfall of Popery; and it is a very "great" one, it is expressive of great things, as the fall of Babylon the great, or the judgment of the great whore... (John Gill, Commentary on Revelation)
  • [S]o the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, ad Dominus Deus noster papa - Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terra - Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papae - The dominion of God and the pope is the same?
  • It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no same man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name (Charles Spurgeon).

One could multiply such quotes as the sand of the sea, but the sample above should serve to convince the reader that the conviction that the office of the papacy was the Antichrist of the Apostle John was widespread from the dawn of the Reformation until the end of the 19th century.

Today, such convictions is almost never heard. And if it is spoken, it's done so in a hushed whisper so as not to attract any attention.

One reason for the decline in understanding of the office of the papacy as Antichrist is the success the Jesuit eschatological schemes of preterism and futurism have had in supplanting the source eschatology of the Reformation.

Preterism is the view that the Bible teaches Antichrist came and went in the past and that there is today no Antichrist on earth. It was developed during the Counter-Reformation by Jesuit Luis de Alcazar.

Futurism, on the other hand, holds that Antichrist is yet to come. This program was developed by Jesuit Francisco Ribera and is the majority report among America's Dispensationalists.

But the historical stance of the Reformation on Antichrist is Historicism. Historicism holds, among other things, that Antichrist has been with us in the past, currently is at work, will be destroyed in the future.

Unsound Eschatology can be just as dangerous as any other unsound doctrine. To the degree Protestants have allowed the Jesuits to do their thinking for them, to the extent Protestants have absorbed the end times theories of the Babylonian Harlot, to that degree they have rendered themselves ineffective soldiers of Christ and set themselves up to be duped by hucksters such as Warren Gage.

(To be continued...)

The School of Hard Knox: Further Reflections on My Time at KTS (Part II)

As a continuation of last week's post, I'd like to look a few more larger lessons that can be drawn from the events surrounding the decline and fall of Knox Theological Seminary (KTS).  As a student at the school in the fall of 2006, my stay there, however brief, allowed me to witness part of the drama firsthand. 

Last week, I outlined a couple lessons, the first of which was that God is faithful to his people, sometimes in unexpected ways.  As a personal testimony to this, I related how my stay at KTS allowed me to meet John Robbins and, with his guidance, to write the manuscript for what would become the book Imagining a Vain Thing:  The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary. To that point in my life, it never once occurred to me that I would ever be an author.  The fact that this actually happened is something that still to this day strikes me with amazement.  I didn't go to seminary planning to write a book.  I had gone there to study for the ministry.  But God had a different plan.

A second lesson Christians can take from the problems at KTS is the danger Roman Catholic trained faculty pose to Protestant institutions of learning.  Dr. Warren Gage, the central figure in the decline and fall of KTS, nominally was a Presbyterian, but his cast of mind was distinctly Roman Catholic.  In part this can be attributed to the fact that he took his Ph.D from the University of Dallas, a Roman Catholic school.  But Dr. Gage is certainly not the only professor at a Protestant school to have received his professional training at a Roman Catholic or Jesuit university.  These Romanist trained teachers pose a genuine threat to the doctrinal soundness of the Protestant colleges and seminaries where they are employed. 

But as important as these lesson are, they are not the only ones that can be taken from the unfortunate events at KTS.  So let us move on to continue some additional points.

 

A Tale of Missed Opportunities 

I recently watched a series of YouTube videos on commercial air disasters.  The author of the videos used a flight simulator together with on screen text to describe the events leading up to the crashes.  One of the common threads running through  the accounts of the various disasters is that it wasn't just one problem that caused the crash.  Generally, it takes a series of mistakes to occur in a particular sequence for a disaster to take place.  If any one of the factors had been different in a particular scenario, the crash probably wouldn't have happened at all.

From my knowledge of the events at KTS, it seems to me that this same principle can be applied to crashing seminaries as well.  In the case of KTS, there were a number of opportunities - opportunities stretching from the time Gage was under consideration for a teaching position at the school right up until the time when he and his faction formally gained control of the school - for Biblically sound professors, board members and donors to have acted to put a stop to Gage's nonsense.   But, as far as I am aware, no serious attempt to do this was undertaken until the problem had grown so large as to be too little too late.  And even when a serious attempt to remove Gage was undertaken, those pushing for his removal flinched, all but ensuring their defeat.

For example, as part of my research into KTS while writing the book, I found that Dr. D. James Kennedy - Dr. Kennedy was the founder of KTS and was still the Chancellor of the school when I attended there in 2006 - did not want to hire Gage.  Some at school wanted to bring in Gage to develop what become known as the Christianity & Culture (C&C) program  at the school.  As it was described to me at the time I applied to KTS, the C&C program was a Christian great books program where influential books would be read in light of the teachings of Scripture.  For example, in the one class I had in this series we read Plato's Republic.        

Dr. Kennedy was skeptical of the whole idea behind C&C, fearing, rightly as it turned out, that the program would turn into a sort of Trojan Horse, where instead of the culture being judged by the Bible, the Bible would be judged by the culture.  But for all his objections, both to the C&C program in general and to the hiring of Dr. Gage in particular, those in favor of both prevailed upon Dr. Kennedy and the decision to move forward was made.  Had Dr. Kennedy stuck to his guns, perhaps KTS would still be a sound seminary. 

Dr. Gage began teaching at KTS in the fall of 2002 and had already been at the school for four years when I arrived in 2006.  I was astounded at how unbiblical his teaching was, but, at least on the surface, it seemed that everyone thought he was great.  It wasn't until I began my research on the book  that  I learned that Dr. Gage had had his hand slapped a few times over the years for his distinctively unreformed doctrine, but no serious effort had been made to remove him from his teaching position.  Had Gage's unorthodox ideas received the scrutiny they deserved, perhaps he could have been removed from the school before he caused serious, lasting damage.  But this was not done, and his leaven was allowed to go on leavening the whole KTS lump for years until it was too late. 

Even up until the fall of 2007, KTS still had the opportunity to right its listing ship.  Prompted by a student complaint, Dr. R. Fowler White conducted an investigation into Gage's classroom teaching, an investigation which concluded that Gage was guilty of 1) teaching contrary to the Westminster Confession that individual passages of Scripture had more than one meaning, and 2) disparaging logic and systematic theology.  These charges were spot on, and when the evidence for them were presented to the Executive Committee of the seminary's Board of Directors, the decision was made to terminate Gage's employment.  Had the Executive Committee's decision stuck, KTS may have survived intact.  As it turned out, the full Board of Directors of KTS shied away from taking this decisive step, instead electing to suspend Gage with full pay for the remainder of the fall 2007 semester. 

As it turned out, the Board's failure to take decisive action against Gage was the last chance KTS had to recover its reputation for doctrinal soundness.  Taking full advantage of his reprieve, Gage appealed his suspension to the Session of CRPC.  Not only did Gage succeed in having his suspension reversed, but he also was able to oust those on the Board and Faculty of the school who had opposed him.  Had the Board of KTS stood its ground and fired Gage when it had the chance, in this author's opinion the school's subsequent history very likely would have been much different.  This was a tragic missed opportunity.

The story of the decline and fall of KTS is a cautionary tale of what can happen when individuals fail to take advantage of the opportunities God provides to take a stand for the truth.  Scripture enjoins us to, "mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them," but this is easy to ignore.  In our sinfulness we fear men, we fear the loss of our jobs and reputations more than we fear God. This author is certainly aware of his own failings in this regard, so it is not my intention to point a finger at others while exempting myself.  That said, KTS's fall from being among the most doctrinally sound reformed seminaries is - as is the case with many airliner disasters - the tale of multiple missed opportunities  that, when taken together, ended up spelling disaster.

 

In a Dispute, the More Consistent Party Will Prevail, the Less Consistent Will Lose

"The logical and psychological principle that explains this whole tragic farce is this: When two parties accept the same premises, the more consistent party will prevail in the long run, and the less consistent party will not.  That is why the Bible is replete with warnings about the 'world,' 'the wisdom of the world,' and 'human tradition.' There can be no compromise of sola scriptura." 

The words quoted above are from a private email to me from John Robbins during the writing of my book on KTS.  The specific context of these remarks from John came in response to some disturbing discoveries I had made about the theological position of Gage's opponents.  As it turned out, the very people who rightfully criticized Gages for his fanciful typology and wanted to see him suspended from KTS actually agreed with Gage on an important point about typology.  This agreement prevented them from launching the vigorous attack on Gage's typology that the circumstances required.      

The point of agreement among Gage and his critics was this:  it is possible to discern type / anti-type relationships in Scripture by means other than explicit statement. 

In his 2006 book Lamb of God, Dr. Robert L. Reymond discussed typology and approvingly quoted Geerhardus Vos' comments in his Biblical Theology where he wrote, "the mere fact that no writer in the N.T. refers to a trait as typical, affords no proof of its lacking typical significance" (22).  In a footnote on the same page, Reymond wrote, "Bishop Herbert Marsh's dictum in his Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible (London, 1838), 373, that the interpreter should regard as Old Testament types only what the New Testament expressly declares to be so seems to me to be extreme and without scriptural warrant."

Herbert Marsh was a 19th Church of England Bishop for whom Marsh's dictum is named.  In his book Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, Marsh wrote,

Whatever persons or things, therefore, recorded in the Old Testament, were expressly declared by Christ, or by his Apostles, to have been designed as pre-figurations of person or things relating to the New Testament, such persons or things, so recorded in the former, are types of the persons or things, with which they are compared in the latter. But if we assert, that a person, or thing, was designed to pre-figure another person or thing, where no such pre-figuration has been declared by divine authority, we make an assertion, for which we neither have, nor can have, the slightest foundation. And even when comparisons are instituted in the New Testament between antecedent and subsequent persons or things, we must be careful to distinguish the examples, where a comparison is instituted merely for the sake of illustration, from the examples, where such a connexion is declared, as exists in the relation of a type to its antitype (372-373).

This is Marsh's dictum:  The Bible must explicitly state types and anti-types.  Dr. Reymond tells us this is without scriptural warrant.  And yet, Marsh's dictum, does not leave us in uncertainty as to whether a type / anti-type relationship exists, which, as we shall see below, is a major advantage over Vos' approach. 

Reymond continues his quotation from Vos, adding, "Of course it is inevitable that into this kind of interpretation of O.T. figures an element of uncertainty must enter.  But after all this is an element that enters into all [extra-biblical] exegesis" (brackets in Reymond's text).  By quoting Vos as he does, Reymond admits that engaging in typology apart from the explicit statements of Scripture leads to uncertainty, yet he advocates Vos' typology anyway, while at the same time rejecting Herbert Marsh.  Such a position does not seem consistent with a Reformed approach to the interpretation of Scripture. What is worse, this approach to typology made it very difficult for Gage's critics to take him on, seeing that both sides agreed that typology was some mysterious thing that could be understood only by rejecting logic and embracing uncertainty.     

Although Dr. Reymond - while I was a student at KTS and throughout the time of the 2007 controversy over Warren Gage, Dr. Reymond held the title Professor of Systematic Theology, Emeritus at KTS - was not, as far as I am aware, himself directly involved in the Gage controversy on either side, his rejection of Marsh and support of Vos' speculative typology was echoed by Gage's leading critics.  As Dr. E. Calvin Beisner wrote in a blog post, "Anyone who thinks the former Knox board's decision to suspend Dr. Gage was because he was teaching Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics or Typology clearly does not know the facts.  His chief theological critics at Knox - (now former) board members R. C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, and Cortez Cooper, and faculty members Robert Reymond, Fowleer White, and I - all affirm and use RH and T and admire it in Vos and many others."

Perhaps no other statement from the Gage controversy better sums up the reason for the failure of Gage's opponents.  Gage believed that type / anti-type relationships could be discerned by use of literary patterns, intuition and imagination.  Gage's opponents believed that types and ant-types could be determined by some form of uncertain speculation.  Both sides agreed that Marsh was wrong.      

In the end, Gage's critics agreed with him that types could be determined in some touchy-feely, irrational fashion.  Their main complaint seemed to be, not that Gage used his "poetic imagination," his intuition and literary patterns to find types and anti-types in the Scriptures - Gage's method was in direct contradiction of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 which posits only the explicit statements and necessary inferences of Scripture are binding on Christians; Gage also violated the single meaning clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9 -   but that he simply went too far for their taste.  Doing so make Gage's critics appear weak and uncertain.  As a result, not only did they lose the argument, but they deserved to lose it. 

On the flip side of things, I must grudgingly admit that, as obviously heretical as Gage's teaching was, he had the courage of his convictions and never wavered from them.  Gages was a heretic, but he was a consistent and bold heretic.  His critics were inconsistent and weak.    

The more consistent side will prevail in the long run and the less consistent will lose.  That is one of the big lessons of controversy at KTS.  So what does this mean for us?  Let us make sure that we fight the Lord's battles in the Lord's way.  There's no reason to give an inch to false teachers.  In any theological controversy, we must pray to God that he would grant us the knowledge and the wisdom not merely to oppose false teaching, but to do so thoroughly, boldly and with logical consistency.   Doing so doesn't mean we will win every battle.  But we will win the war.   

(To be continued...)                  

When Protestants Err on the Side of Rome: John Piper, “Final Salvation,” and the Decline and Fall of Sola Fide at the Last Day (Part I)

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 τοτο [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 τοτο 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, τοτο 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.

[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.