You're listening to Megiddo Radio. Megiddo Radio is a radio ministry of Megiddo Media. For more, visit our website at MegiddoRadio.com. That's MegiddoRadio.com. Hey everybody welcome this is Paul Flynn with Magetta Radio for the 14th of October 2017. Thank you all for tuning in. Apologies I've missed, oh maybe the last two scheduled programs. Last one was on UKIP and Nigel Farage and all that kind of stuff. Now we'll be kind of back to our more normal. Programming I do want to do My aim with this program has been to do a range of different topics and things like that but I especially want to focus on anything that has massive implications for the health of the church, especially the topic we're going to be doing today, justification by faith alone. I want to, especially with the year that's in it, the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, or at least that spark that ignited so much discussion across Europe with Martin Luther and the United Faith Theses, nailed to the church door in Wittenberg. I suppose the most were younger people. There was a kind of like a discussion board. And so we put in somebody on Twitter. Now it's obviously more common for things to go viral, but that was, you talk about 15, 17 at a time when they thought. Now the theses were talking about indulgences and abuses in the church and all that, but the amazing fruit that came out of it and the writings of Luther, the writings of Calvin, and many of the reformers. The doctrine of justification, my faith, there was no differences. There might have been slight variations in how certain aspects were described, but there was one doctrine of justification. There's only one way to properly describe it. So, but anyway, we missed the last two programs. I hope, I hope to do a Monday night program. I'm gonna try and get into a topic really quickly, but just explain what's happening. Because I know some people donate to the ministry and pray for the ministry. I especially try to keep you guys in the loop because I know people are very good about it, nobody gets in my case about it or anything like that, but it's just the kind of case of I want to tell you guys what's happening because I don't want to be just kind of, oh, I'm not doing a show because I don't feel like it. At work, things have kind of changed. Things have gotten a bit more difficult than they were. We'll leave it at that. And pray for my day job situation, that that will go well. And various things have happened. Even outside of work, just the trains have started to become a bit of a disaster recently. I mean, to give you, you know, in the last two weeks there's been two medical emergencies on different trains. On one morning, I never followed up on the story, but I think a guy killed himself in front of one of the trains in front of what I was traveling on. So... Didn't get to go to work that day. So various things happen like that. I've had to start getting an earlier train, which I travel, just let you know, I travel two hours to work, two hours from work. I teach four hours a day, English as a foreign language. Probably ask why do I travel so far? Because I can't get any work where I live. It's, um, anybody who knows Dublin, I live outside of Dublin in Ireland. And, um, so that's the kind of situation and it's kind of become a bit of a disaster on the Mondays. The Saturdays become a little bit busier. My wife teaches piano, that's getting a bit busier and stuff like that. So pray that things will iron themselves out. that my dream is to do twice a week, week in, week out, but doing a day job and all, I don't think it'll probably ever be possible because there's always gonna be things that pop up unexpectedly. But I will try, by the grace of God, to put out as many shows as possible, quality shows. I don't wanna kind of put out shows. There has been times, right, where physically I've been able to do a show, I could say, but there's just nothing there. And I don't want to come in front of you guys and just to be waffling, honestly. And even though it might seem at times that I'm doing that, I try to the best of my ability, try, like on the topic today, which is incredibly serious, and it pertains to a very prominent and very influential theologian, or pastor at least, within the church. So this is incredibly important. So just keep that in your prayers and any other questions, I'll try to be as forthright as possible because there's a lot of internet ministries that they kind of come, you know, I've known a podcast years ago started off around the same time as me and some did about, I don't know, a few episodes and then disappeared. And I know I try to encourage some people when they start podcasts and just to realize how much work it is and You know, it's easy to do 10, 20 episodes, honestly. And then you kind of run out of things to say. Consistency. Set a certain amount of time. If you find that you don't, you can't fill up that time, and just cut it down, cut it down to half an hour or whatever, and just be consistent. Especially those who want to go in the ministry when they're in the future, be consistent, do the simple things, be it midweek service and all this kind of stuff. Do the quote-unquote small things well, and podcast is no different, and it should never, ever take away your work within the church, My view has always been, if you can go evangelize, go spread your tracts with the church, I don't care if you're preaching or whatever, it doesn't matter. And that of a podcast, you go with the tract distribution, honestly. Go with that. Anyway, but getting onto our topic so that we don't run out of time, John Piper. I haven't talked about, well, I did talk about John Piper on the show on Rick Warren, but it was just to show, you know, this is worth covering because a very influential minister such as John Piper thinks that Rick Warren's okay and actually likes him. And I play some clips from that and talked about... that Bishop in Orange County, who's got a very ecumenical, very unbiblical relationship with him. Rick Warren prays with this Bishop Van, V-A-N, if I'm not mistaken. And I dealt with that a couple of shows ago. And I played some clips, just, hey, this is why it's unfortunately necessary to cover this. So, but I never expected to be doing this. Some of the material I'm going to be covering today, and just on what I believe John Piper's serious error, corrupting the gospel error, is I sent it to many people, anybody could think of, who I've got a lot of respect for, be theologically sound, and get their opinion, and it ranged anywhere from, I don't know what they're saying, to, what he's saying, to, this is serious, Terror. Heresy. Terror. And even a number of people, a number of these people asked me, is this John Piper? And actually, a lot of the time, not every single time, but a lot of the time I just sent the quote, what do you think of this? And a lot of these people asked me, is this John Piper? And they said, this is really concerning. I was, you know, It's been concerning people. His liberal political leanings, his support of Black Lives Matter, and all that kind of stuff, and the stuff that's going on with Lecrae. I'm not gonna talk about that, I'll try and keep away from that today, but this is far more important. And I haven't heard enough people talk about it. It's starting, from what I can see, there's starting to be a bit of chatter around, I can see, in certain circles, about it. One comment I saw defending John Piper was a bit, well, are they really reformed? Do they actually know anything what they're talking about? Do they need more education if they dare challenge John Piper? I'm not saying that's... Look, I'm not here to get into any war with anybody who does not see what I'm presenting, but I think it's pretty blatant. So this is not an old sermon that I'm going to be quote-unquote digging up. This is from, I think it's from about two weeks ago. It's from a sermon that was posted September 13th, 2017. So this is like last month. And the articles called that really alerted my attention to this Does God really save us by faith alone? Now, it was brought to my attention by a guy I've emailed back and forth different times, and he put up that this is federal vision. I don't think it's federal vision, but it's akin, close to, federal vision. And I think because he's not quite got the Presbyterian vibe about it and all that, well, pseudo-Presbyterian vibe about it. So this is very recent. This is not something, this is preached, and then the article version of it was, does God really save us by faith alone? So he deals with that, and I saw a couple people talking about it. My initial response when I saw this, and I used to talk, I did about four shows, three or four shows, and John Piper back in like 2011, 2012. I haven't felt the need to talk about him anymore. I was tempted a few times with all Black Lives Matter support from a couple of years ago. I hope to deal with that on Monday, but it may not be possible. But I actually just thought, OK, this person has maybe maybe gone overboard with the criticism a little bit. And then I realized then as I read it, I realized, no. Criticism wasn't a reward. I've never been a fan of John Piper, I've never... I can understand why he's popular, he's very dynamic, he's very, he's very, you know, he's kind of exciting to listen to. The way he preaches. But, what does he teach? On the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If you listen to this message I'm going to be playing for you now in a second. For the first 27 minutes of it, I can't really find anything I disagree with. I'm just going to go through a few things. For example, he goes through the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And he said it's by faith alone, there's nothing to be added to it. But the problem here is his definition of the process of salvation. He talks about God is for you. Now this brings in Christian hedonism, which is really a problem. He reinterprets and strangles question one of the shorter catechism, what is man's chief end? If you want any more information on that, E.S. Williams has written a book on it which I just read and I might try and get E.S. Williams on the program. If anybody knows him, maybe contact him if I don't get a chance to do that. He's welcome on the program to talk about his book. So he goes through that and it seems to be a pretty good... I'm always I need to go through the Desiring God book and all this. I'm not saying I've read every single thing the Piper's published, but I have this sermon and other things he's written. And on the doctrine of justification, it is seriously lacking. Now he talks about various things, human rebellion. For the first 27 minutes of this message, I can't find anything wrong that, you know, it might be slight nitpicking here, you know, little things like God declares you innocent. No, it's really God declares you righteous. God's Christ's act of obedience. He fulfilled the covenant of works. Now, he doesn't really go through it here and he doesn't really explain it. He says you're declared a law keeper, not a lawbreaker. See, before you're guilty, now you're a law keeper, but he doesn't really explain it well enough. I suppose you could call me nitpicking at that point, but it wouldn't cover something like that just on that alone. God declares you righteous, but Piper doesn't believe, and this is serious enough from what I can see, unless his view has changed. quite possible, on the Covenant of Works. He doesn't believe in the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Works is in the Garden of Eden between God, well, and mankind, represented by Adam. And this is seen in Romans chapter 5 verses 12 and around there, verses 12 to 14, and also Genesis chapter 3. There's conditions, and if there's a breaking of the covenant by eating of the tree of fruit with the knowledge of good and evil, What was the condition? Perfect personal obedience of Adam as a representative of mankind. In Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be alive. So you have this covenant of works if Adam obeyed the law perfectly, perfectly, he wouldn't have inherited eternal life. And that was his works, merits. However, a lot of people, especially in lots of various views of New Perspective on Paul and all that, reject the covenant works and have a kind of a flattening out of the covenant. So they see the covenant in the garden as a gracious covenant. So then when they say, not to have a piper necessarily here, but when they insert works, they say, well, it's not of any merits. There's no merit there. So that's how they get around that. And it's a really serious thing. You've got to watch out for how they define the words and the terms that they're using, because they use biblical terms like justification, sanctification, But they unfortunately do not stick to the historic and biblical understanding of them. Those, you know, Doug Wilson, all these other people will say, oh, well, I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith. What do they mean by these terms? They've taken these terms and they've redefined them. Unfortunately. So, but apart from that, pretty much, first 27 minutes, pretty much agree with everything. Justification by faith alone. It is by faith alone. Nothing added at all. Now, we're gonna start 27 minutes and 38 minutes, 27 minutes and 38 seconds into this message that was given. to the Bethlehem College and Seminary Chapel in Minneapolis, and we're going to go through as fast as possible and comment on it. There are two ways of justification. The way of law-keeping, which requires your perfection, and the way of faith, which depends on Christ's perfection. These two paths into the place where God is 100% for you are so distinct, they cannot be mixed at all. Completely agree, completely agree. For those listening or big John Piper fans, agree up until this point, okay? If you are trusting Christ for a righteous standing, where God is 100% for you, you cannot mix one quiver of effort to establish your own righteousness. And if you are seeking to establish your own righteousness, your own record of virtue, as an entrance into the position where God is 100% for you, you cannot mix the slightest. Notice how he says, and this will become important later on, You can't add anything, nothing can be worked, no works can be added when you enter into the position. Remember how it's entering into the position. where he says God is 100% for you. It's about his view, and this will become important later on, is talk about the initial part of the process of salvation, right? This will become important later on, okay? Keep listening to this. Faith in Christ as your all-sufficient righteousness. They are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other, law-keeping to establish my righteousness faith alone to rest in his. One last question. What is this faith? What's it like? What kind of thing is it? It is a receiving of Christ for who he really is, the beautiful, supreme, all-satisfying treasure that he is as our divine substitute and sovereign. It is the receiving of Christ for who he is. not as health insurance. Now, okay, I don't think it's explained incredibly well, receiving for who he is. Stick to biblical terminology. I'm not gonna pick too much, but repent of your sin and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, but dealing with the point here, it's true, not as health insurance. Okay, completely great. He's dealing with antinomianism, where it's just like, you know, like you say, like a kind of a flu shot, as they say in the States. kind of a just-in-case, just-to-get-into-heaven, you know, speaking against the real error and heresy of easy-believism, where you have a dead faith, you believe intellectually, but that's all it is. You know, the demons have faith and tremble. various people in the scriptures, a lot of the Jews were described to have believed on him, but did not have saving faith. There's two types of faith. Not that it's faith plus something extra on top of it, some kind of caricature sometimes certain people use, unfortunately, but that there's two types or characteristics of faith, the faith that just kind of merely intellectual and doesn't really think much else of it, doesn't really love it, but then there's a true saving, justifying faith, which produces fruit. Just notice I said justifying faith, not fruit of justification. This is important. Our faith produces fruit. to be very strict, and we need to be strict again in the church. Justification does not produce works. I know you'll point to James. That's a declaration. These are works produced by sanctification to show that we were initially justified. Justification and sanctification are linked together, but they are not the same. Justification takes place and it is a declarative judgment before the throne of God. Sanctification is something that takes place within the sinner. within the sinner and talks about our relationship to God as our Father, as being changed and being conformed and sanctified, being brought in conformity with His image. That sanctification there is different. Sanctification takes place outside of the sinner. It's declarative. It's by God. It's an act of God. Yes, it is by faith alone, the empty hand by which we apprehend Christ. But it is not a dead faith. And if you look at the different examples of people believing, there's examples of... I was reading Simon the Sorcerer in Acts chapter 8. And he, it seems like from it, that he had a dead faith. In Simon Usar 3, this is Acts chapter 8 verse 9, and then later on in that chapter he wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit, to put his hands on people, and to be able to dispense the Holy Spirit like that. But what was Peter's response? Acts 8, verse 20, But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this manner, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this wickedness and pray God, perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Basically he's saying, I perceive that you don't know how the truth, okay, says earlier that, you know, when they believed they were baptized. So I mean, something popped up there, I don't know what happened to the screen. Okay, so you have dead faith described in the scriptures, and yes, let's not have the straw man here, yes, it is not a dead faith, but it's unfortunately in this message, well, Piper goes even further than that, or fire insurance. How many hundreds of thousands of people are in our churches who have not received Christ as the beautiful, glorious, infinitely valuable, all satisfying, sovereign and substitute and treasure that he is and are not saved year after year in church. I grew up with so many. This is why faith inevitably transforms the heart and life. James…James saw it. He saw it. He saw what people were doing with faith alone. They were turning it into a doctrine that claimed you could be justified by a faith that had no good works whatsoever, didn't produce any transformation in your life. What would he say today? A perfectly valid criticism of the modern church, completely 100% agree with this. Again, just want to point this out before we get any further. He said no to such faith. He said it's dead, faith without works is dead, 217. He said it's like a body without breath, 226. He said it's like energy with no effect, 220. He said it's like energy with no completion, 222. He said if there's justifying faith, there will be, it has works. So he says, I will show you my faith by my works. I will show you. They will be confirmed by my works. I will show you my faith by my works. Yeah, James talks about the declarative justification. This does not in any way support the Roman Catholic claim that it is a means by which we attain, or one of the means by which we attain justification. or in the way we maintain justification. Although, I'm going to go to Lord Willing, I'll get a chance to go to Trent later on. It's not as simple as that. Rome believes entering into justification on the initial part is gracious. And they can say it various times without being consistent with themselves, it is by grace alone at the initial point. But then those works, after the initial justification, if you want to call it that, because justification and sanctification are more or less the same thing in Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholic theology, in a practical sense. I'm not saying that they would say that, but in a practical sense, they're pretty much the same thing. That it's becoming made righteous, which is really sanctification. But it is those works done after conversion in Roman Catholicism, you know, baptism and things like that, that those works after that point merit salvation. It's important that we realize that the great error of the Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago Now, a lot of the Roman Catholic Church back then was probably very Pelagian and all that, and then they kind of, when the Council of Trent came around, well, you know what, we can't go completely against the teaching of Augustine, because that would be too obvious. We need to, oh, I don't know, go with some kind of a middle ground, kind of a semi-Pelagianism. Condemn Pelagianism, show that we're still Orthodox in their own way, but really end up with a kind of a mixture. but they still try to incorporate it in Ephesians 2, verses 8 to 10, things like that, but we'll get into that later. But up until this point, I agree with what he's saying. We should preach against an antinomian gospel. All of which Paul would agree with because of Galatians 5, 6. In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision or uncircumcision counts for anything. But only faith, working through love, the kind of faith that works through love is the only kind of faith that justifies. No love, faith is dead. Dead faith doesn't justify. The only kind of faith that counts for justification is the kind that produces love, that bears the fruit of love. The faith which alone justifies is never alone. Up until this point, completely agree. Completely agree. Just to be clear here before... Okay, completely agree up until this point. Westminster Catechism. but always yielding a transforming fruit. So, when James says those controversial words in verse 24 of chapter two, a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. I take him to mean not by faith which is alone. But shows itself by works. Paul calls this effect— Really listen here. So, up until this point, I agree. This is where—this is why I'm doing this program. Or fruit, or evidence of faith, a work of faith. First this— I'm gonna play this again, because this is really important. But shows itself by works. Paul calls this effect or fruit or evidence of faith a work of faith, 1 Thessalonians 1.3, 2 Thessalonians 1.11. He calls it the obedience of faith, Romans 1.5, 16, 26. These works of faith and these fruit face, or fruit of the Spirit that come by face, are necessary for final salvation. No holiness, no heaven. Here's where the problem comes in. Now, you're going to get a debate now on what does he mean by necessary. There can be a a sloppiness here. If you're going to say this, you need to be very, very careful. When you're saying that works are necessary for the final salvation, that sounds horrible, okay, on the face of it. Okay, you might say, oh, well, he's not theologically sound if he doesn't know that. It sounds horrible. by itself. So you straight away have to say it's necessarily present as a fruit or evidence. That's it. Once you're justified, that's it. That's how you stand it. He talks about a final salvation. He doesn't use the word second justification. This is where we're getting into the meat of the whole thing. Sorry it's taken so long in this program, but it's necessary for final salvation. Now he says more in the, no holiness, no heaven. That verse is talking about sanctification. Yeah, there is, let's go to it actually. Hebrews chapter 12, verse 14. I know this show is probably gonna be quite a long one, but it's very, very important. And it's very, very serious, and its implications are huge, unfortunately, for the church, because this is the guy who has been seen as the opponent of, like, anti-right and people like that. So I think, probably because of that, maybe he gets a pass in this area, but I don't know. All right, Hebrews 12, verse 14, follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. It is necessary It's worded, the best thing you can say here, for what he said here, it's worded awfully. It's worded awfully. These works, he says, I'm going to quote him when he said, rather than playing it again, these works of faith and this obedience of faith, these fruits of the spirit that come by faith are necessary for a final salvation. You have to explain, if you want to distinguish it from Roman Catholicism, You have to then say how they're necessary. You could say it in a reformed sense, necessary in the sense of they'll necessarily be there, but they're not necessary for final salvation. That's heresy. Right after that, right? But yeah, you will get, and the reformers are right when they do right, that it's necessarily there because if you've been justified, there will be holiness in your life. Okay? There is a holiness. If you don't have holiness, you will not see the Lord. Okay? But that is because of salvation, a declarative, you're being declared just, that's already happened. Okay? So, like sanctification. So, for example, I'll just give you like John Brown of Haddington talks about the necessity, sanctification. Sanctification, he says, is not necessary in order to find a right of access to Christ as our savior. I'm not saying that that's what Piper says, but just give you an idea of what he says. But it is absolutely necessary as part of a begun salvation. Now, okay, at this point you might say, well, he's worded it badly, maybe he means that, okay? Again, I'm trying to be as gracious as possible here, but, so, it's absolutely necessary as part, because justification and sanctification are linked. It's badly said, you know, you might say, oh, you're not playing any further of it. Well, I will play it, but I'm gonna play it all the way through as much as possible. But he doesn't clarify it. He just says, works are now necessary, for the final salvation. The initial part, you got like three sections of salvation according to John Piper. Justification in the initial part, by faith alone. Sanctification is obviously, produces works. And those works are necessary for a final salvation. It sounds horrible, okay? You're talking about teaching to people who haven't read Thousands of reformers from the 17th century might have talked about this, but even the reformers would never just like throw it out there. They would explain in great detail that it's necessarily there, but not necessary for a final salvation. It is mixing... Quite clear that he's mixing in works with justification here. Okay, now... Does he clarify it? Keep playing. Which means if you were following last week's report of the big survey that was done by more evangelicals than any other survey, and they're not Protestant anymore, was a totally confused survey, because the question they asked was, how do you get into heaven? You don't get into heaven by faith alone. Wow. So now it's different. You don't get into heaven by faith alone. So you could say maybe the initial part, maybe it's a badly worded, you know, he's saying it's necessarily there, but now, no, no, no, he's doubling down. You don't get into heaven by faith alone. So evidently it must be deduced that the final salvation is different, that justification can change potentially, and is fallible from the initial justification. He's just not using the term second justification. You get justified by faith alone. You get into a position where God is 100% for you by faith alone, and in order to get into heaven, that faith must bear the fruit of love, Pursue the holiness without which you will not see the Lord. Put to death the deeds of the body and you will live. It's the surveyors who are confused. Those verses are all about sanctification as an evidence or you can say necessary fruit that will be there if you're truly born again, you're truly justified in a declarative sense declaring that you are justified. Okay? And you have to be very, very careful and clear when you're explaining that to people. You know, if people wanna say, well, you know, it's badly worded, that will not do. Okay? It won't do. A person with that much experience, having read and wrote as much as he has, he should know the confusion. You know, one of the criticisms he gave of N.T. Wright, and rightly so, was his, you know, how confusing it was, but I digress. So, yeah, it will essentially be there. You see, me disagreeing with John Piper here is not me saying I'm anti-Nomi. And I've seen comments like that from one or two bloggers, I haven't done a lot of research on it, and I always stumble upon some of the kind of, you could say, I don't know how much of a controversy it is in one or two circles, I don't know how much. People can send on anything they can find, people talking about this. We get our films at gmail.com. I'm just gonna play to the end of the sermon anyway and just... He doubles down. He says you do not get into heaven by faith alone. You don't get into heaven. You're not saved. Final salvation. You're not saved by faith alone. That's all you can take away from what he just said. Come on now. Bethlehem College and Seminary. Don't be sloppy. We should not speak of getting into heaven at the last day, through the last judgment, when all of our lives are assessed for whether there's been any transformation confirming the reality of the faith, which alone justifies. We should not say, you can live like the devil and get to heaven. Now this is, okay. If you say that you get into heaven by faith alone, this is not saying we can live like the devil. If you've been justified, you will necessarily, without a shadow of a doubt, let me find where the quote is I was gonna quote here at this point, without a shadow of a doubt, produce good works. Why? Let's look at what Herman Witzius said. Now, because I briefly read a blog I was sent a couple of hours ago, you know, quoting a bunch of reformers and strange-looking quotes, if I'm being honest. So I dug up any reformers I could find on the doctrine of justification. This is what Herman Witzius said in The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume 1. And on the chapter on justification, it's in Book 3, Chapter 8, and it is in Section 67. Meanwhile, in this respect, there will be room for mentioning good works, for they shall be produced first as proofs of faith, of the union of believers of Christ, of their adoption, and of that holiness without which none can see the Lord." Notice this is proofs and of the fellowship with God and brotherhood of Christ, okay? Proofs, number one. Number two, secondly, he says, Hermouetius, as signs of that sacred hunger and thirst, which they desire happiness, all of that strenuous endeavor by which not regarding the advantages of this life and you know I'm gonna skip on a little bit to talk about well basically the signs that you've been born again proofs of faith signs of that sacred hunger and thirst and the third point to be make is down here as effects of divine grace it necessarily follows okay now Yes, the reformers did talk about the elect a judgment according to works on the last day, but what do they mean by that? Let's look at what Herman Witsey has said in another paragraph. This is in paragraph LX111, which is 63. Not very good with my Roman numerals, but it's here anyway. The fifth and last article of that last day. which is therefore called the Day of Judgment, Matthew 12, 36, when the elect shall be publicly justified, that's talking about the declarative sense, in the view of the whole world, declared heirs of eternal life, which justification, indeed, may be called universal, as all those who are to be justified shall appear together before God's tribunal, nevertheless it must It will be most peculiar and everyone shall be recompensed according to his works. So... It's... Just to explain it a little bit further... Oh yeah, he says, I'm going to skip on it, two paragraphs it says here, paragraph 65 or section 65, whatever way you want to put it, the ground of the former declaration, this is the, a few of the reformers, I don't like the term second justification, John Owen rejected it, things like that, many of the reformers rejected it, and I think it should stay away from the term because it can cause problems, but a few of them did, okay? So just because you use the term second justification doesn't mean you're automatically a heretic or you agree with a federal vision or anything like that. But as long as you're very, very clear that this, quote unquote, second justification, if you want to call that, is declarative. I don't like the term, but I digress. It's there. But the ground of the former declaration, this is Witsius, is inherent righteousness graciously communicated by the spirit of sanctification. Again, it's declarative, declarative. and he's being incredibly clear about this. So, and good works proceeding thereof. For on no other account can any person be declared pious and holy but because he's endowed with habitual holiness and gives himself For on no other count can any person be declared pious and holy, but because he is endowed with habitual or inherited holiness, and gives himself to the practice of holiness, Matthew 12, 37, by their works thou shall be justified. Again, let's talk about a declarative justification. That is, be declared just or righteous because works are indications of the mind and signs either of the good or bad treasure of the heart when the Lord will bring in to light the hidden things of darkness. And he quotes there from 1 Corinthians 4, verse 5. Long and short is, yes, there's a judgment you could say at the end, but this is talking about either James or in a declarative sense of an actual justification that has already taken place. So what can we surmise by that? You were justified by faith alone. You, of course, you get into heaven by faith alone. How is it any different? And if you say, well, he means something else, but you have to state that, but in the same context, in the same, almost in the same breath, he says, no, you don't get into heaven by faith alone. You can't. There is a holiness without which we will not see the Lord, Hebrews 12, 14. So, 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. Our works. This is what J. Gresham Machen said. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that a wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. Mortification of sin, sanctification in holiness. And what makes that possible and pleasing to God is what? Now these next two sentences are absolutely crucial for your living the Christian life in a way that pleases the Lord. What makes it possible for you to kill sin, pursue holiness, which are essential for going to heaven? We put sin to death and we pursue holiness from a justified position where God is a hundred percent for us already. By faith alone. We're going to heaven. Gotta play that one more time because this is very important. We put sin to death and we pursue holiness from a justified position where God is a hundred percent for us. Already! So he's saying, yeah, the initial part is by faith alone. You get in and then You, by faith and good works, by your faithfulness, attain final salvation. That's what he's teaching here. Good works are necessary for salvation. Not as an evidence of good fruit, but for final salvation. So it must necessarily be a second justification that it is dependent on faithfulness to Christ. He's even clearer than other people in- within the spheres of like the new perspective of Paul! By faith alone. The initial part. The initial part. You are in that position where God is a hundred percent for you, by faith alone, and from that position you now put sins to death and you now pursue holiness. And that sanctification, that pursuit of holiness, becomes now... I know he says it's not the grounds of salvation. It doesn't matter what he says here. That sanctification now becomes the ground. Like Romans say all sorts of things, lots of theologians will say all sorts of things, but that now becomes the grounds of final salvation. Using his own term. He wrote an article, I'm gonna get into that as soon as we finish here. From that position, and here's the second sentence that's all important. Because if we try to put sin to death and pursue holiness from a position where we're not fully accepted, not fully forgiven, not fully righteous in Christ, where God is not 100% for us, but maybe only 95% for us, then we will be putting sin to death. This whole idea of God is 100% for you, that's what justification means. No, God is for God. It's a very Armenian, man-centered... You know, the more I study... I was gonna say Warren... Piper's theology, the more I can see where he doesn't mind somebody like Rick Warren. Because Rick Warren will say, oh, it's not about you, it's about the glory of God, but then it's, you know, when you're being happy and you do what you like, you get his view of Christian hedonism, where, you know, God is glorified when you get the most pleasure out of Him. It's all about you. Really. And I know people say, oh, it comes from the first question to a shorter catechism. No, it doesn't. comes from changing the first question of the Catechism. You know, man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Piper changes to glorify God by enjoying Him forever. That you do it by enjoying yourself. Think of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Was He, when He was bleeding drops of blood, Was he, and he was saying, let this cup pass from me and talk about the wrath of God, being poured upon him. Was he having, was that pleasurable? So God wasn't glorified in that? In everything Christ did? Christian hedonism has many holes in it. It is, it exalts pleasure and sensuality above, well actually the glory of God. Yes, in the midst of chaos, it talks about in Psalm 37, delight thyself in the Lord. But not everything in the Christian life is delight. It's an effect of trusting in the Lord. Trust in Him. And pursuing holiness as a means of getting in there. That is the Galatian heresy. And precisely... I'm just going to play it again just so we don't misrepresent him. ...do holiness from a position where we're not fully accepted. not fully forgiven, not fully righteous in Christ, where God is not 100% for us, but maybe only 95% for us, then we will be putting sin to death and pursuing holiness as a means of getting in there. That is the Galatian heresy. Well, if you begin from a position of grace alone, and then you drift off into works plus grace, you've abandoned? That doesn't exactly sound like the Galatian heresy that's in the scriptures, but we don't have time to get into it here. Therefore, we are justified, we are put in a position where God is 100% for us by faith alone. I'm going to read something to you and I'm going to ask you, do you know what this is? It says here in this document, historical document, but when the apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in the sense in which the uninterrupted and of the, I'm going to skip so I won't give it away too much, has held and expressed them, namely, unanimity that the church has held and expressed and namely that we are therefore said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation. the foundation and root of all justification at which it is impossible to please God, and to come to the fellowship of His sons. And we are therefore said to be justified graciously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For if by grace, it is not by words, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace. Now you probably think, if you're agreeing with John Piper here, which reformed theologian said that? This is from the sixth session of the Council of Trent. The Counter-Reformation. The initial part of salvation in the Roman Catholic system, they say, is gracious. They try to get around verses that he was just quoted there. They did try to deal with those. Romans 11, 6. The initial part was gracious. The initial part is by faith alone. But not the end. Not the end! The only difference here is, Hyper doesn't say that the works needed for the final salvation are meritorious. probably because he still holds the view that, going back to his days when he wrote the foreword in Daniel Fuller's book, Daniel Fuller, who rejected the entire inspiration of the Bible, who was a great inspiration, he was a, you know, very influential on John Piper's life. Let's get a quote here from the foreword to Unity in the Bible, which was written by Daniel Fuller. He rejects, in this, the... he said he could never find in the Bible the so-called Covenant of Works. And he's a... I found something from a couple of years ago, he's a bit wishy-washy on it. So... but it would stand to reason I don't think he really believes in it, but I digress. Now... What does he say here? So back then, long time ago, he was massively, massively influenced by Daniel Fuller. Daniel Fuller did not believe, when you look at much of his theology sadly, he did not believe that all the scripture, he believed there's two parts of scripture, some of it was inspired and some wasn't. Now, all he says in this foreword, actually, not too much actually after getting it, and he said, well, also he says that he learned hermeneutics from Daniel Fuller. It stopped being a job description for earning wages, he's talking about in the Garden of Eden, and under the so-called Covenant of Works, which I never find in the Bible and became a precious document. So he's talking about that act, that obedience, that act of obedience, because you get rid of the Covenant of Works. What did Christ fulfill? Fulfill the law. He obeyed the law. He merited on our behalf. So it kind of destroys all that. The initial part, you'd be hard-pressed to find the difference between what Piper's teaching here, this variation, and what Roman Catholicism teaches, and what Norman Shepard taught back in the 1970s. Some of you might not be aware of who Norman Shepard was. If you don't know anything about the Norman Shepard controversy, I would recommend get this book called The Current Justification Controversy. It was written by O. Palmer Robertson. And from what I know about it, it was quite difficult for O. Palmer Robertson to get it published for various different reasons. We can never let, and this is kind of what's happened in the church in the last couple decades, the celebrity status, and I'm not saying it's anything new, the celebrity status of a preacher determine biblical procedures, okay? However popular they may be or anything like that. However, let's also not, just because they are popular, go after them. We need to be very careful. Norman Shepard, During a controversy, I won't get into too much of it here, but in a controversy, he was a teacher in Westminster Theological Seminary. That was a seminary started by J. Gresham Machen and others were there who left the Presbyterian Church in America, I think it was called? Or of America, not too sure. They're basically, if you could say, the modern day PCUSA. They were apostatized after that point. So they left, formed the OPC, and also they left Princeton Theological Seminary and they formed Westminster Theological Seminary. I think though there are two different Westminster Theological Seminaries, so I got mixed up between the two. I think it's the one in Philadelphia or California. I think one of them is much sounder than the other, but I digress. Anyway, so the one that was started by Jigarish Machen. Now, during the 1970s, it was discovered during an ordination question and answer kind of thing, that Norman Shepard was teaching his students that people were justified by grace and works. A little bit later, after he presented his theses to the public, you could say, or what he wrote later on, his position, was kind of watered down and modified a little bit. Still heretical, but I digress. This is what Norman Shepard wrote in some of the theses he wrote. Shepard wrote, the Pauline affirmation in Romans chapter 2 verse 13, the doers of the law will be justified, unquote, is to be understood in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified. Okay? The old idea, you're saved by faithfulness, not faith alone. You're saved by faithfulness. This goes back, right? It's nothing new. What? You know, this is where a lot of the New Perspective of Paul stuff has come out of. Westminster's Theological Seminary, unfortunately. The modern stuff, I mean. The exclusive ground of the justification, this is going back to Shepard, the exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Again, exactly like what Piper says. But Shepard says, but his obedience is necessary to his continuing in the state of justification. Now you say, Heiber never said that. No, he doesn't call it justification. He doesn't say it's the second justification. He doesn't say it's necessary to continue. They're not his exact words, but he says it's necessary for final salvation. That's the same thing. If you're saying that in order to maintain yourself in justification, because the way Piper's teaching this is, okay, you're justified by faith alone, but what happens then if you... It gets really confusing, I'll be honest. And this is the problem with his view. The initial part is by faith alone, but then you depend on works and faith. after that point. Can you fall away? And if you can't fall away and it's not possible to fall away, why is there a distinction and something different to be said for each part? In Thesis 22 he wrote, this is Norman Shepard, the righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification. But But the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification, in the judgment of the last day. A.K.A., the words used by John Piper, Final Salvation. Thesis 23. Good works, though not the ground of the believer's justification, again, it's pretty much identical to what Piper is saying, are nevertheless necessary for justification. Piper has just called it final salvation. No different. What did the man of the day say when having viewed his thesis? Having viewed what, looked at part of what he was teaching. I think this was back in 1979. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones said, Shepard's teaching is a subtle form of legalism and eventually is another gospel. Martin Lloyd-Jones. His view, which is almost identical, right? Martin Lloyd-Jones, maybe not reformed enough for you. Roger Nickell. Shepard does, especially in the last paper, The Grace of Justification, unquote, deny very forcefully that he gives any place to good works in the ground of justification. But by including our good works in the way to justification, he countenances our approach which warns that fear, his distinction, will not be readily perceived by most who hear of it, and that a reversal may develop towards a doctrine of justification by works which would approximate the error of Romanism." William Hendrickson said of Shepard's view, as I see it, we must choose between Shepard's view and that of Paul. Meredith G. Klein, Professor Shepard posits a simple equivalence between the national election and the individual election to eternal salvation calls this one variety of election the only kind that figures according to Professor Shepard, in that we say about the historical realm, Covenant election, and concludes from the fact that elect national Israel become reprobate nationalism, that Covenant election, whether we found, is losable. And then O. Palmer Robertson wrote that similar evaluations were seen from R.C. Sproul, Morton H. Smith, C. Greg Singer, Charles Donohue, Ian Murray, and Edward L. Kellogg. But not everybody came to that conclusion, by the way. There were many people who supported Shepard and there will be people who support Piper today. It's hard to know how far to go with people who will not just see this. But anyway, I digress. Let's go on and let's look at more from Piper. Unfortunately, it gets worse. In his article, now we're finally about an hour and eight minutes into the program, and this should be on Megiddo TV as well, because I want this to be on YouTube, but I'll probably try and maybe, if there is a program one day and I say a big if, if I'm physically able for it, I'm going to be doing, looking at Lecrae's racism and John Piper's support of it. Unfortunately, it's, ugh, I don't enjoy this. I'm like, to be honest, Probably because so many people I have a lot of respect for would quote Piper and like him, and I don't get it. I never really have, but I haven't felt the need to talk about him for a very long time. I remember years ago I was talking about his practice of Roman Catholic mysticism, Lectio Divina. And you can look up the old archives, it's about a couple hundred shows ago, I think back in 2011. And, but my views might've been a bit funky in places because I wasn't reformed at all. And I was a fundamentalist and I was a Baptist, independent fundamental Baptist, et cetera, and so on. Anyhow, so he says in the article, which is kind of an adaptation of this sermon. He says, does God really save us by faith alone? Which is a really provocative title, you could say. He says, justification is fine. Okay, he talks about justification, sanctification. He says, in part of the article, in final salvation, at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne. Okay. That's okay, okay? I'm not saying anything about that. And we are saved through that faith. That fruit, sorry. Through that fruit and that faith. A.K.A. we're saved through works and faith. Again, identical to Shepard. And look at what Martyn Lloyd-Jones said. Now then he goes on to talking against antinomianism, which we agree with. Many of the critics of Piper that I can see agree with that. Justifying faith, it has worked. Yes. But there's justification and then there's sanctification. Justifying faith has worked. It even says in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Good works, good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word. This is chapter 16 in the Westminster Confession of Faith. And not as such, without warrant thereof, are devised by men. I'm gonna read paragraph two, that's not the part I meant to read. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidence of true and lively faith. It's a bit sloppy, I wouldn't kill somebody over it, but you know, it's the fruit of justifying faith. Justification doesn't produce works. Sanctification produces works. I can get into distinctions and all this kind of stuff, but justification does not produce works. It is something that God declares based on the merits of Christ and his imputed righteousness to our account. Sanctification produces works. There's an initial sanctification where we're set apart, born again, regenerated, and then we continue and we produce good works by the Holy Spirit working our hearts. That's an infused grace, that's sanctification, and cannot be mixed up with justification, ever. They are linked together, but they are different. In this article, he repeats his error. He says Paul calls this effect or fruit or evidence of faith that the work of faith, he quotes 1 Thessalonians 1.3, and I won't go through all the Bible verses just for the sake of time, and the obedience of faith. 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. So we should not speak of getting to heaven by faith alone in the same way we are justified by faith alone. Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin. Again, it doesn't talk about, it doesn't sound in any way shape or form that he's talking about that it's a necessary effect or fruit. He does not describe it like that. And the pursuit of wholeness. Mortification of sin, sanctification of wholeness. 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 100% for us already by faith alone. Look, again, Rome says the same thing, more or less. Gracious at the beginning and then merit after that. He says something very interesting, very telling, especially for the people who want to claim that, you know, our critics really reformed and all this kind of stuff. He says, this is Piper writing, so faith alone doesn't mean the same thing as when applied to justification, sanctification, and final salvation. Again, the same categories. He's not saying that's different categories. It's necessary in different ways. These are Piper's own words. This is written. This is not a slip of the tongue. He says, you can see what extraordinary care and precision is called for in order to be faithful to Scripture when using the five souls. 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. Which is interesting. Well, he's not reformed. Especially his charismatic leanings and other things as well. See, he's Calvinistic, but is he really Calvinistic if he's falling off on this error? But we aim to be biblical first and reformed only if it follows from scripture. Why say that if... Why say that even if, oh, I don't know, all the reformers apparently agree with you? No, you would say, no, no, all the Reformed Church agreed, and here's a lot of quotations, which some people are, from what I'm just glancing through different articles, are trying to do. Piper's not claiming that. He's saying we've got to be biblical first, and Reformed only if it follows from Scripture. Yeah, we don't agree with that, but you don't have to say that unless you're saying, well, this is a departure from Reformed theology. "'Cause the five souls provide wonderful clarity, but the crux of the Reformation in the heart of the gospel, and the clause that the five prepositional phrases modify, justification before God is, justification before God is by grace alone, with no merit, favor, whatever." Look, and you say, oh, look, no merit, favor, whatever. Yeah, yeah, because he rejects the covenant of works in the Garden of Eden. And he doesn't see works as something to merit anything, because he's very antinomian. That's an issue for another day, but he's very antinomian. It's about seeking your desires and pleasures in God, not about obeying commandments. You might think it's not the same thing. Yeah, he's created a commandment of delight in the Lord, but You know, he doesn't want, you know, just empty duties and all this kind of stuff. It's something to be led by feeling. But that's for another day. On the basis of Christ alone and in no other sacrifice or righteousness as the foundation and also as a foundation, what you build upon the foundation is nourishing through the means of faith alone, not including any human works whatsoever. Again, he's talking about justification. His justification is the initial part to the end that all things lead ultimately to the glory of God alone as taught with final decisive authority in the scriptures alone. But it doesn't stop there. There's a sanctification process and then a final salvation, which is not mentioned in the last paragraph, which requires works. It's corruption of the doctrine of justification, whatever he may mean. Best thing you can say, it's sloppy beyond imagination and incredibly irresponsible. That's the best thing you can say. or whatever way you can slice it, he has corrupted the gospel. Is this new? Is it new? It appears as not. Back in 2015, Piper wrote a foreword for a book called Faith Alone with a Doctrine of Justification, what the Reformers taught and why it still matters. Okay, so he wrote a foreword to this book by Thomas Schreiner. In this foreword that he wrote back in 2015, he said, the stunning Christian answer is, sola fide, faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely. He says, write 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 with God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet other conditions. Does this sound like my faith alone to you? Or does this sound like a works corruption of the gospel? He says, we are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. Again, we agree, okay? We agree with that part. We reject the antinomianism, like at least a lot of the Reformed people who I've seen criticizing him. At least the articles I've seen, I can't vouch for everybody. Faith that is alone is not faith in union. See, he goes back between dealing with antinomianism and then setting up that kind of straw man in order to insert works into salvation. Union with Christ makes his perfection and power ours through faith. What are you talking about? Are you talking about his perfection in terms of God is righteous and he's always righteous, he's morally pure, or is it the act of obedience of Christ? I've never seen him be clear on this. I'm just looking for clarification here. If anybody knows it, you can email it to me. We get our films at gmail.com. But his perfection and power through our powers through faith. Does he make Christ active and passive obedience? So I think everybody agrees with the passive obedience part, but Christ's active obedience, obeying the law perfectly, as summarized in the Ten Commandments. And back then it was the ceremonial law as well, but ultimately it was the moral law. Obeying the law perfectly in our state, right? Is that what we, it's imputed, that righteousness, or, see it's never kind of clear anyhow. And in union with Christ, faith is living and active with Christ's power. We agree with that, okay? Such faith always works by love, amen, and produces the obedience of faith. We agree, absolutely. And that obedience, imperfect as it is till the day we die, is not the basis of justification. Again, same thing Norman Shepard said, right? But a necessary evidence of fruit of justification. Amen. Okay, we agree with that point. Necessary evidence. Notice, if you said, it's a necessary evidence, perfect, you've clarified it, you made it abundantly clear. It's a necessary evidence. This is what the reformers talked about. And fruit of justification. Well, not fruit of justification, but a fruit of justifying faith. But in this sense, Benny just inserts this. In this sense, love and obedience, inherent righteousness. is required of believers, but not for justification, he says. Keeps it, you know, no, no, I'm not saying justification is not my faith alone. that is required for heaven, not for entering a right standing with God. So entering a right standing with God and entering into heaven are separated and made different things. So therefore they must be two justifications. What is justification? To declare righteous before God. And if you're declared righteous before God in an unchanging way that, you know, those who are in Christ, there's no condemnation. Well, how can it ever change the final result? How is it different? If you're justified at the beginning, you're going to be justified at the end, and the same way you get into heaven is the same way you enter into right standing with God. How about the thief on the cross? How about the baby who dies in the womb? Who is actually, God is merciful to, who dies within the womb, with an E, you know, as David says, you know, when his child died, that I will go to be with him. historical understanding of that is children who die within the covenant before, you know, when they're in the womb or whatever and they don't have the capacity, that they've been, you know, the Lord is merciful to them and gracious and things like that. There's evidence to support that, okay? So, you know, the Lord can regenerate and pay for the sins of people before they can make a, you know, people say human decision. And it's by grace alone. Okay, then born again, John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb. So he says, right, just to trim it down a little bit, love and obedience, inherent righteousness, infused righteousness, like Rome would say, is required for heaven. Wow! An imperfect standard is made the standard for entering into heaven. Is this the great champion of the Reformed Church? At the end of this article, this foreword, he talks about, he quotes from Schreiner, I don't know who this guy is to be honest, and talks about Christ. He says, is the guarantor of my salvation. Well, if he guarantees your salvation and you enter into right standing with God, how can it be any different? The end. Aren't they one and the same? Again, just get rid of the straw man. I know there's some Puritans who said first and second justification. Again, the second one was declarative of the actual one that already took taking place. So when John Piper will say, oh, we're justified by faith, until he's blue in the face. But ask him, how do you get into heaven? Faithful works, by faithfulness, by your own efforts. That's what he's teaching. It's a false gospel. What else can be called? You know, I've seen suggestions, well, you know, we don't want to be uncharitable. Well, how is Paul towards those who preach the gospel? What else, what other opinion are we to have of somebody who preaches another gospel? Paul said, but though we are an angel from heaven, even if an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Not very nice of Paul, is it? For we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that which he hath received, let it be accursed. For I, or do I persuade men, or God, or do I seek to please men? For if I pleased men, like anybody who likes John Piper, I should not be the servant of Christ. What a warning, what a sobering warning. We need to be very careful in what we're saying about other people. Be very careful, document it. There's other people who've written on various errors and aspects, but this gets to the very core of the gospel. I'm trying to find the book in front of me here. Oh, here we go. John Owen, and I've quoted this before. I never thought I'd have to say about John Piper. I never thought, I had no way that he'd do this. Didn't ever. But I email people and people seem to be well aware of it, unfortunately. You know, and I was talking to somebody and they said, well, thinks he retracted it, said before and retracted it now again, or something like that. This is very recent, folks. This is like a couple of weeks ago. He preached this when I played in the audio, September 13th, and it was a little bit sometime later that he put out the article. John Owen said, there cannot be a more effectual engine applied for the ruin of religion than for men to declaim against the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And because of Piper's view of final salvation and how you enter into heaven, he has redefined justification and he has included works into that umbrella. What else needs to be gone through here? I'm going to read a few quotes just to wrap up the differences, the differences between justification and sanctification. Lord willing to encourage people. You know, works are necessary as fruits and evidences of our union to Christ. This is John Brown of Haddington in his systematic theology. Faith in him and justification by his impute of righteousness. No one's always saying it is necessarily there. but it's not necessary. You understand me? Evidences are fruits and they explain this. They realize it had to be explained and had to be clarified. John Brown of Atkinson said, in systematic theology. Justification changes our state in law before God as a judge. Sanctification changes our heart and life before Him as our Father. Justification delivers us from the law as a broken covenant. Sanctification conforms us to the law as a rule of life. Justification delivers us from his avenging wrath and instates us in his favor. Sanctification conforms us to his image. Justification frees us from all obnoxiousness to the punishments of hell and entitles us to the happiness of heaven. Notice it entitles us! Sanctification frees us from the pollution and slavery of our lust. Lust prepares us for heaven. That is sanctification that does not mean this will be... I don't know what else to say about this. You know, do you know how this stuff is allowed to, you know, why is this happening? How many of us can go through the doctrine of justification? How many, how many people read so many silly trivial books? I mean, if you're starting off. Get something in James B. Cannon, The Doctrine of Justification. First half is history, the second half is the doctrine itself, and other people have written, you know, jams of Christian history. And if you're a good reader, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith by John Owen, and get Systematic Theologies, Herman Witsius. Because we can't explain the doctrine. We can't understand and see the corruptions when they come. Can you talk about sanctification and its relationship to justification, how that is necessarily connected? Can you talk about and share the truth of how someone is declared righteous based on the merits of Christ and his perfect personal obedience? You see, it's this attitude, right? And this vacuum of any interest in doctrinal justification, sanctification, everything's very, well, you know, we're gonna send a gospel, you know, give them a couple of classes at the start, baptize them, and then tell them, you know, about eschatology. And I'm not knocking eschatology, but true eschatology. Christ honoring eschatology from the scriptures bears itself out from a proper understanding of the gospel. A gospel that glorifies and exalts Christ because it will advance and cover the earth. The glory of the Lord will cover the earth one day in the future. as the waters cover the seas. This has been Paul Flynn. May God bless you all.