The Pied Piper and The Wrighteousness of God

In an earlier post I said:

VirtueOnline has an excellent editorial by Gerald Bray posted on the New Perspectives of Paul and the book written in response to it by John Piper. This article is a worthwhile read if you have been following this debate. You can read Gerald Bray's editorial at, "The Wrighteousness of God."

I have since learned that Gerald Bray's editorial was originally published in the most recent edition of The Churchman and can be read at Editorial. Also, I have come to find that John Piper himself (Desiring God Ministries) has connections to the New Perspectives on Paul via Daniel Fuller of Fuller Theological Seminary. See the article posted at Trinity Review, Pied Piper. Fuller Seminary has for years been on a downward spiral into theological pluralism and liberalism. It should also be noted that Richard Mouw, current president of Fuller, is an ordained minister with the Christian Reformed Church which made the three points of common grace official doctrine in 1924. (See also Three Points of Common Grace). Gerald Bray (along with James Packer, Richard Mouw and others) signed the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, revealing that he is likewise one who would compromise truth for the sake of ecumenical unity. Packer has been traveling the country promoting the "Anglican quadrilateral", which is code for the Anglo-Catholic document, the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888. How someone who is "Reformed" can agree with doctrines directly opposed to the Scriptural teachings on grace, justification, and salvation is beyond me.

If this proves anything at all it proves that deceit can appear in the disguise of truth. Not everything Piper has to say is wrong. However, as someone else wisely said, if you serve orange juice alone it is good for you. But if you serve orange juice laced with even a little poison, it is not good for you.

This example shows why we should be wary of emphasizing Evangelical ecumenicalism over and above Scriptural truth. What is the point of union with Evangelicals who have compromised the doctrine of justification by faith alone, even if that compromise is hidden in slogans like "future grace." Do we have grace at the point of our conversion or not? This article should be carefully studied by anyone concerned about the New Perspectives on Paul and Federal Vision heresies. What is particularly ironic here is that Piper has recently written a book refuting N. T. Wright's position on the New Perspectives on Paul or NPP. Having read this article again at Trinity Review I have to ask if Piper is genuinely concerned about N.T. Wright's errors or if in fact Piper is simply using the backlash against Wright to lure others into Piper's own less obvious version of the NPP. Make no mistake about it. Piper's view is that justification must be "confirmed" at the final judgment. If so, then we must ask if we can have an "infallible assurance" of our salvation as the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches in chapter xviii?

It is becoming more obvious to me that the Protestant Reformed Churches in America or PRCA has made legitimate points of critique against the modern version of Reformed theology being put forward at Evangelical and Reformed seminaries and in Evangelical Reformed denominations. The Trinity Foundation is committed to a more Clarkian view of apologetics and theology and seems to be in agreement with the Protestant Reformed Church in America on many issues like this. I'm still investigating the connection but will post my findings as I become more aware of them.

It should be noted that even Princeton Seminary in the 19th century was infected with this theological pluralism via Charles Hodge who held that the Roman Catholic Church was a true church despite its departure from the doctrines of grace. Simply because a church has the universal creeds does not make it a "true" Christian church. Hodge also compromised the doctrine of particular atonement by saying that Christ died for the non-elect and purchased common grace for them on the cross. But there is no biblical text to prove this! While Hodge may be solid in many other areas, his compromise on the point of the Roman Catholic Church and with common grace has led to other errors.

Rather than jumping on any bandwagon for ecumenical unity, we ought to be suspicious and wary. What is more important than any unity is the Gospel itself and to compromise the Gospel to any degree for the sake of numbers, unity, or self-promotion is dangerous. I would include The White Horse Inn and Mike Horton in that warning. Though there are some good resources in many Reformed ministries, the poison hidden away there is alarming.