Well, I just got back to my hotel room here in Johnson City. Day 1 of the Trinity Foundation Reformation Conference, the full title of which is The Reformation at 500: Is It Over or Is It Needed Now More than Ever?, ran a little later than expected, but this attendee isn’t complaining.
Trinity Foundation president Tom Juodaitis gave the opening talk. In it, he focused on the two key principles of the Reformation – what some call the formal and material principles of the Reformation – Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) and Sola Fide (justification by faith alone).
Mr. Juodaitis made the important point that there is a close connection between the spiritual liberty that comes with the preaching of the Gospel and the political and economic liberty that the West has enjoyed over the past 500 years.
But while the focus was on glorious doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, Mr. Juodaitis also talked about another important duo, the two primary sources of attack on these doctrines in our time: The Roman Catholic Church and heretical elements within Evangelicalsim itself.
Rome’s attack on Biblical Christianity was spearheaded in the 16th century by both the Jesuits and the Counter Reformation.
And lest anyone suppose that these threats have abated over time, Mr. Juodaitis noted that Covenant College where he went to school, a college of the Presbyterian Church in America, has a president who took his PhD from Jesuit Loyola University in Chicago and that the president’s Jesuit dissertation supervisor attended his inauguration service at the college.
Mr. Juodaitis reminded the audience of the Council of Trent’s anathemas (curses) on Bible believers. Rome has cursed anyone who believes in Justification By Faith Alone. Further, Rome has pronounced its curse on anyone who believes the Bible has only 66 books.
Toward the end of his talk, Mr. Juodaitis reserved criticism for men within the Protestant sphere who attempt to redefine faith so that it is not belief only, but some combination of belief and works. Here, his sharpest criticisms were reserved for Neo-Calvinists Thomas Schreiner and John Piper.
He quotes Schreiner as saying that sinners are made right with God by faith alone, but this does not get them into heaven. Other conditions must be met for this. The logical implication of Schreiner’s words is that one can be justified by faith alone in Christ alone and still go to hell.
Piper doesn’t come off any better. He argues, “The only kind of faith that counts for justification is the kind that produces love,” implying that there is another kind of faith that does not do so. But this is an error. Scripture knows only one kind of belief in Christ, that which saves. So-called faith that does not save is not faith at all, but rather an empty profession. For more on this, see Sean Gerety’s excellent Trinity Review Faith Alive.
The evening’s second talk was by Christopher Pinto of Adullam Films. His presentation titled The Jesuits & The Counter Reformation was packed with information and fascinating.
This author has long had an interest in the Roman Church-State in general and the Jesuits in particular and was greatly impressed by Mr. Pinto’s depth of knowledge on his subject and presentation skills.
In just the introduction, Mr. Pinto laid out a number of facts about the Jesuits, some of which would likely surprise even Christians who are aware of Jesuits and their subversive activities. To wit,
- Pope Francis is the first Jesuit pope in history
- The current chaplain of the US House of Representatives is a Jesuit. As Mr. Pinto noted later in his talk, he was placed in this position through the efforts of Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican John Boehner, both of who are Romanists. Apparently that’s what they call bipartisanship these days
- Barak Obama has credited the success of his presidential campaign’s “grass-roots operation” to former Jesuit Gregory Galluzzo
- The New York Times published an article in 2014 titled “The Catholic Roots of Obama’s Activism” which details Obama’s relationship with the Catholic Church in the years prior to his election as president and notes that Gregory Galluzzo, Obama’s former Jesuit adviser, was a big fan of Saul Alinsky
Mr. Pinto walked the audience through the origins of the Jesuits in the 16th century, detailing many of their subversive activities that won them ill repute among Protestants and even among their fellow Roman Catholics. “The ends justify the means,” is the motto of the Jesuits, and their history shows they take this motto seriously.
There was more information in Mr. Pinto’s talk than I can summarize here. Hopefully, it will be published on the Trinity Foundation website soon so those not in attendance can listen.
To note just one of many new things Jesuit I learned this evening: It is to the Jesuits that we owe thanks for the term “Social Justice.” Whether today’s snowflakes know it or not, they are the intellectual tools of the 19th century Jesuit Luigi Taparelli, who first coined the phrase.
To sum up, it was an enjoyable evening of fellowship and learning. Lord willing, I’ll post a summary of day two of the conference sometime in the next couple days.
Lux Lucet 
“He quotes Schreiner as saying that sinners are made right with God by faith alone, but this does not get them into heaven. Other conditions must be met for this. The logical implication of Schreiner’s words is that one can be justified by faith alone in Christ alone and still go to hell.
Doesn’t one need to be progressively sanctified to go to heaven? Is sanctification the same as justification? Are we not sanctified by faith works, as Gordon Clark affirms? Then what is the problem with Schreiner’s statements?
“Piper doesn’t come off any better. He argues, “The only kind of faith that counts for justification is the kind that produces love,” implying that there is another kind of faith that does not do so. But this is an error. Scripture knows only one kind of belief in Christ, that which saves. So-called faith that does not save is not faith at all, but rather an empty profession. For more on this, see Sean Gerety’s excellent Trinity Review Faith Alive.”
Reread James 2:14-26. Faith without works is dead – so yes, God’s word does imply that there is a faith which doesn’t produce love. So what is the problem with Piper’s statements?
There is no charity in nitpicking.
The problem with Schreiner’s comment is that he want’s to adds something besides faith (belief, intellectual assent to the Gospel) to getting us into heaven. Far from nitpicking, Schreiner’s comments strike at the very heart of the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone, which is the doctrine of the standing or falling church, as Luther put it.
Sanctification is not the same as justification. This is an error of the Roman Catholic Church. Justification is totally outside us. It is a once for all pronouncement of God that the sinner is innocent on the basis of his faith in Christ alone. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a subjective moral change that the Spirit works in us to make us progressively more like Christ. This change is accomplished through our growing knowledge of God’s Word and results in the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc. – that Paul details in Galatians. In my view, Clark is bit unclear on this in his comments in Predestination, to which I think you are referring.
John Robbins is better on this issue. He wrote, “But how does God sanctify us?…The Christian answer to this question, already expressed in the quotation from the Westminster Confession, may surprise some in this emotional and anti-intellectual age: God works through knowledge. Christ prayed, ‘Sanctify them by your truth; your word is truth.’ Peter prayed that ‘grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.. The reason for his prayer is obvious: ‘His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us by glory and virtue…God sanctifies his people through his Word. Unless we know that Word, we cannot be sanctified. Our imperfect and sin-stained obedience to God’s moral law, which is holy, just, and good, is not the cause of our sanctification, but the result. Unless we were already sanctified, we would find it in us neither to will nor to do God’s will.
Sanctification is not by works, lest any man should boast. Nor, on the other hand, do we ‘let go and let God’ and in some mystical way become sanctified.” (What Is The Christian Life?, 15-16).
“Faith without works is dead” is simply a way of saying that such “faith” is really not faith at all, but rather hypocrisy.
I am referring to pg. 133 in Clark’s book, The Pastoral Epistles:
“Not only do destructive critics make such mistakes; many sincere and devout worshippers are also confused. They often say that we are saved by faith alone. This of course is false. We are justified by faith alone; but we are regenerated without any previous faith or works; we are sanctified by faith and works; and we shall be glorified by neither. A closer study of Scripture would help us avoid confusion relative to the several distinct phases of an all-inclusive salvation.”
That is not unclear. Justification is one aspect of salvation, sanctification is another. The point you miss is both are required in order for anyone to “get into heaven.” Or do you think sanctification is unnecessary to salvation?
Of course, our good works are ultimately caused by God, so there is no room for boasting in any case. For what do we have which we have not received (1 Corinthians 4:7)? But for the grace of God, we all may go astray (1 Corinthians 15:10). But this is all besides the present point, which is that being obedient and doing good works are fruits of sincere faith and lead to subjective righteousness (Romans 6:16) or sanctification, which is just as much a part of the soteriological process as justification.
““Faith without works is dead” is simply a way of saying that such “faith” is really not faith at all, but rather hypocrisy.”
On a charitable reading, is that not what Piper affirms?
That’s a clearer statement from Clark. Thank you for supplying it. But I do not agree fully with what he says there. I do not believe we are sanctified by faith and works, but by faith alone (I define faith as belief, that is, assent to and understood proposition). As Jesus said, “Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.” We apprehend truth, not by works, but by belief. We are sanctified in our minds as the Spirit leads us into a greater understanding of God’s word. Our good works, the fruit of the Spirit as the apostle Paul calls them, are the result of our sanctification.
But sanctification does not give us a right standing with God. This is by justification alone, which is by belief alone. Even Thomas Schreiner agrees with this. But where he goes wrong is supposing that something further is needed to get us to heaven. He fails to understand the import of his own words. If a man has right standing with God by belief alone, as Schreiner says, then he has right standing with God. Meaning nothing else is needed to get him into heaven.
I do not agree that a charitable reading of Piper requires us to affirm he thinks the term “dead faith” is simply another way of saying hypocrisy or empty profession, a thing that is not faith at all.
Quite the contrary, when Piper writes about “final salvation” and “faith [of the sort] that produces love,,” a logical reading of him leads one to think that he sounds a lot like those men who argue that actual, genuine faith can be dead or alive, that there are genuine believers with real faith, dead though it be, who will end up in hell, that good works are what distinguish real living faith from equally real dead faith, and that men with living faith receive a final justification in heaven based upon the quality of their works. Simply put, men who hold this position are heretics. And based upon his own words, Piper seems to be agree with them. If I have understood him correctly, and I believe I have, the proper conclusion to reach is that Piper’s preaching is a danger, not only to himself, but to his congregation and those who follow his work.
Would you call Clark a heretic?
“But where he goes wrong is supposing that something further is needed to get us to heaven. He fails to understand the import of his own words. If a man has right standing with God by belief alone, as Schreiner says, then he has right standing with God. Meaning nothing else is needed to get him into heaven.”
So you think that progressive sanctification is unnecessary to salvation, correct?
I agree we are sanctified in our growth in knowledge, but why does this have to be the only way we can be sanctified? Robbins said participation in the sacraments are also means of sanctifying grace. And these and things like meditation, rejoicing, and delighting in God are obviously not done so at the expense of God’s word but rather enjoyed through it (Psalm 119). Are you saying that such things are not means of sanctifying grace or that they are not good works? Good luck defending either.
“Quite the contrary, when Piper writes about “final salvation” and “faith [of the sort] that produces love,,” a logical reading of him leads one to think that he sounds a lot like those men who argue that actual, genuine faith can be dead or alive, that there are genuine believers with real faith, dead though it be, who will end up in hell, that good works are what distinguish real living faith from equally real dead faith, and that men with living faith receive a final justification in heaven based upon the quality of their works.”
Piper accepts perseverance of the saints. I see nothing in what you’ve provided which amounts to a logical chain by which Piper can be accused of rejecting that. Who you think he sounds like is irrelevant. Looking at the words you’ve provided, he’s simply said that the sort of faith which saves is the sort of faith which is not dead. Sounds fine to me.
“Would you call Clark a heretic?” No. He never talked about a works-based final justification / salvation.
“So you think that progressive sanctification is unnecessary to salvation, correct?” If God justifies sinners by grace alone by causing them to believe in this Son alone whose righteousness his imputes to them, which he does, and if justification is God’s proclamation that we are not guilty before the bar of his justice and if it gives us a permanent right standing before him, which it does, and, if on the basis of our justification God adopts us into his family, which he does, then that strongly implies something about whether progressive sanctification is necessary for salvation. What is that implication?
“I agree we are sanctified in our growth in knowledge, but why does this have to be the only way we can be sanctified?” Because that’s what the Bible teaches.
You referred to John Robbins talking about participation in the sacraments being a means of grace. Okay, but in what way are they a means of grace? Think about what happens during a baptism or communion service. The deeds are always accompanied by an explanation, by words, by propositions. It it the words that explain the actions and our meditation on them is what sanctifies. Apart from an explanation, the sacraments would be of no spiritual value.
“Piper…simply said that the sort of faith which saves is the sort of faith which is not dead.” I disagree. Piper tips his hand when he writes “the kind of faith that counts for justification…these works of faith, and this obedience of faith…are necessary for our final salvation. No holiness [which, it is implied is the result of our working, not our believing], no heaven” This is the language of Shepherdism, making our holiness and salvation depend on our works, not on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.
Further, remember that the some of the comments by Piper we’ve discussed come from a forward to a book by Thomas Schreiner, where Schreiner very clearly defends the heresy a of a final justification based on works. By his association with Schreiner, Piper is guilty, not only of his own heretical comments, but by association is also guilty of Schreiner’s heresy as well (see 2 John 10, 11).
Now since you’ve asked me a lot of questions, I think it’s only fair that I ask you one. You’re a bright guy and obviously familiar with the work of Clark and Robbins. Why, then, do you waste your time defending the incompetent John Piper when you have the opportunity to read and learn from two of the best teachers the church has ever produced?
It seems to me that you prefer wood, hay and straw to silver and gold. I would encourage you to make a wiser choice.
“No. He never talked about a works-based final justification / salvation.”
Perhaps you need to reread the above quotation I provided. You are correct he rejects – or at least never affirms – final justification which is in part grounded on our own works, but he does say:
“Not only do destructive critics make such mistakes; many sincere and devout worshippers are also confused. They often say that we are saved by faith alone. This of course is false. We are justified by faith alone; but we are regenerated without any previous faith or works; we are sanctified by faith and works; and we shall be glorified by neither. A closer study of Scripture would help us avoid confusion relative to the several distinct phases of an all-inclusive salvation.”
We are not saved by faith alone, we are justified by faith alone [as an instrumental cause]. Clark lists sanctification, a part of the temporal process in the order of salvation, as including both faith and works as means. So Clark does think salvation comes in part by works insofar as we can be sanctified by works and saved through sanctification.
“What is that implication?”
Given what you just wrote, it implies nothing other than that justification is a sufficient condition for salvation. It does not imply that there are no other necessary conditions. For instance, being birthed by human parents is a sufficient condition for one to be man, but it is still necessary that one also has a rational faculty to be considered a man. Now, can you answer my question explicitly: do you think progressive sanctification is unnecessary for salvation?
“Because that’s what the Bible teaches.”
Do passages like Hebrews 3:6, 14 not imply that perseverance is a necessary condition to being considered a member of God’s household? Doesn’t obedience lead to righteousness and, therefore, eternal life (Romans 6:16-22)?
“You referred to John Robbins talking about participation in the sacraments being a means of grace. Okay, but in what way are they a means of grace? Think about what happens during a baptism or communion service. The deeds are always accompanied by an explanation, by words, by propositions. It it the words that explain the actions and our meditation on them is what sanctifies. Apart from an explanation, the sacraments would be of no spiritual value.”
I agree and already stated as much. The word of God is necessary for our sanctification. That has no bearing on the fact we must still meditate on that word, delight and rejoice in it, follow its commands, and be sanctified thereby. You avoided my question: are you saying that such things are not means of sanctifying grace or that they are not good works?
I have not read Schreiner’s book, so if you have, I will defer to you that Piper and Schreiner affirm that works *ground* final justification rather than merely necessarily precede it. I assume you’ve read the book?
“Now since you’ve asked me a lot of questions, I think it’s only fair that I ask you one. You’re a bright guy and obviously familiar with the work of Clark and Robbins. Why, then, do you waste your time defending the incompetent John Piper when you have the opportunity to read and learn from two of the best teachers the church has ever produced?”
Piper is hardly incompetent. Have you read his books? Finally Alive, Counted Righteous in Christ, and especially The Justification of God are sound books. Piper makes mistakes elsewhere, but I would not suggest he is not a brother in Christ. It is not a waste to defend that.
I wish I could have attended the TrinityFoundation conference, but to be honest, I do not believe I would have been welcome. I placed twice in two of their essay contests in the past and have tremendously benefited from their production of Clark’s works. But Sean Gerety has convinced Mr. Juodaitis and others that I am a heretic, falsely accusing me of unitarianism and subordinationism.
In general, I infer – perhaps incorrectly, but if so, I have yet to understand how – a lack of charity from those who would seemingly like to be considered Clark’s successors, especially from those associated with the TrinityFoundation. It’s one thing to criticize, another to level charges of heresy that frankly seem to be more emotionally driven than not, especially towards those who are otherwise so close to us in doctrine. For instance, consider that Clark accepted that Arminians could be saved… yet men like Piper or Schreiner are being called heretics by his successors. I do not think Paul charged Peter with heresy in Galatians 2 even while reproaching him, and I honestly think a similar level of restraint and level-headedness among so-called “Clarkians” is in sore need if he is ever to be taken seriously among a wide audience. I’m not saying we shouldn’t correct error, only to, like Clark, be irenic and tactful in so doing.
Ryan, I’ve said my peace on this matter. At this point the discussion is going nowhere. But I do pray that the Lord would open your eyes to the danger of following men who rest their hope on a works based final salvation.