Please verify. I heard someone who I respect say that John Piper has a view that final salvation is earned; however, i hear from others who I have respect say that Piper is not meaning what those who say he does.

So, what is it? Is Piper off the rails on this, or just trying to be too clever in some of his talks or writings where some misunderstand what he is trying to say?

It seems the only ones I see charging Piper with this are the Westminster West theologians, especially Scott Clark.

Well, I'm not of Westminster West... rather Westminster East.

From what I've read, a charge against Piper for intermixing grace with works is justified. His book Future Grace is the basis of most of the issue of Sola Fide. Piper has been his worst enemy and not those who find fault with a number of his novel views on different subjects. One of his most odious errors, apart from synergistic soteriology is his "Christian Hedonism", which he claims is what Jonathan Edwards wrote in his Works. Now, I do not even begin to claim to be some kind of Edwardian expert, but I have read quite extensively of Edwards' writings, and the notion that Edwards wrote any such view is totally absurd.

That's my

Out of curiosity, if Piper does not mean what his accusers say he means. What does he mean?

The way I look at this issue, is even if Piper doesn't mean what his accusers say he does; Piper has himself to blame. He uses language that can't help but get him into trouble. This isn't the first time he has done it either.

By the way, there was a time I was a big fan of Pipers. One of the first times I saw a video of him preaching, was to a group of teenagers. What was really impressive is that when the camera scanned the audience, every teenager looked fully engaged in what he was saying. That was years ago now and although I can't remember what his message was, I was also very engaged in his sermon.
My pastor also said that Piper was one of the first Calvinist preachers he ever heard and in recent years he has become very disappointed in him.

Tom

Aside from the issue of the content of Piper's sermons/lectures, there is the matter of his deliverance, which I think is what engages the majority of listeners. IMO, it is emotionalism that is the main reason for the attraction by many (most?). Call it 'marketing strategy' if you like which like so much advertising that is out there results in people remembering the catchy tune, or antics, etc. but the product itself isn't remembered.

Is his view similar in any fashion to those of NT Wright, who seems to view eternal like as something that we would be meriting based upon how well we worked out our own salvation, based upon our good works and growth in Christ?