"In 1994, a group of prominent evangelicals and Roman Catholics issued a statement of cooperation entitled 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together'" and a general evangelical hubbub followed. The document was applauded by numerous evangelicals and attacked by others. Unfortunately, some of the most ardent critics of ECT -- men like Dave Hunt -- are not nearly as Protestant as they think they are.

The premise of the ECT was that evangelicals and Catholics have quite a bit in common, and all to the good.

In this outstanding book, Kevin Reed shows that modern evangelicals and Catholics do have quite a bit in common, but it is a commonality which amounts to a joint rejection of classical Protestantism, which in turn is a corruption of the gospel. Reed in particular addresses the crucial issues of salvation and worship, carefully establishing a biblical foundation.

The book could be improved in some minor respects. Reed demonstrates in a footnote that he does not yet fully grasp the classical Protestant distinction between a corrupt church and an apostate church (p. 27). The duty of reform is necessary within the former, as well as the duty of separation from the latter. The Church was overwhelmingly corrupt from the Second Nicea on, but was not apostate until Trent. Modern evangelicalism is corrupt, but not yet apostate -- and may God grant reformation. In that reformation, books like this one will play an important part.

Reply to Credenda/Agenda

With reference to the book
Making Shipwreck of the Faith

by Kevin Reed

29 January 1996

Credenda/Agenda
P.O. Box 8741
Moscow, Idaho 83843

Dear Sirs:

I was astounded by the comments of your book reviewer, in response to my book Making Shipwreck of the Faith: Evangelicals and Roman Catholics Together (Credenda/Agenda, 8:1, p. 31). The reviewer refers to a footnote in which I wrote, "if both Rome and evangelicals have corrupted the gospel, why should either group be regarded as a true Christian church?" Your reviewer then asserts that I failed to grasp "the classic Protestant distinction between a corrupt church and an apostate church," along with the duty to reform within the former, while separating from the latter.

Perhaps your reviewer should reread chapter 2 of the book. In that chapter, among other things, I have shown that "evangelicals" are proclaiming a doctrine of free-will through the "gospel" of decisionalism. Their message is a false gospel. Indeed, the doctrine of free will was condemned by the church at the time of Augustine; and the synod of Dordt echoed that conclusion when it condemned the Arminians for bringing "again out of hell the Pelagian error" of free will.

Regarding "classic Protestant" distinctions, I would direct you to the following creeds: The Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva (1556); the French Confession of Faith (1559), articles 26-28; the Scottish Confession of Faith (1560), chapters 16 and 18; the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), articles 27-29; the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), chapter 17. These Protestant confessions uniformly regard the marks of the church to be the true preaching of the gospel, the right administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline. In delineating these marks, the creeds often speak pastorally; they provide guidance for Christians who are confused by the rival assertions of aberrant religious assemblies which claim to be churches of Christ.

Now the logic of the case is quite simple: preaching the true gospel is a mark of the true church; many modern evangelical churches are not preaching the true gospel, but have instead embraced a false gospel; therefore, these evangelical churches are not true churches.

There is also another aspect of this discussion which your reviewer misses. If we characterize a group as apostate, we infer that they have fallen from a previous position of truth to a subsequent position of error. For some "evangelical" churches this may be true. Yet, in the current ecclesiastical landscape, there are many "evangelical" churches which were founded on a commitment to free-will, decisionalism, charismatic errors, etc. They never possessed the truth; they are simply heretics, not apostates. Historically considered, such churches bear a close resemblance to the Anabaptists, whose assemblies the reformers uniformly regarded as false churches.

The Protestant reformers called upon all men to flee from hotbeds of heresy ­ to separate from both Rome and the Anabaptist assemblies ­ and to join only those churches which bear the marks of the true church. This fact seems to have completely escaped your reviewer.

Thus, I conclude that it is your reviewer who fails to grasp important "classical Protestant distinctions" ­ such as the distinction between the true gospel and a false gospel, and the distinction between a true church and a false church.

Sincerely,

Kevin Reed
Publisher

When I received my latest copy of Credenda/Agenda, I was hoping for better things. But when I saw your reply to my letter, I was grieved by your toleration toward the false gospel of modern evangelicals.

Your comments in the latest issue of the magazine evade the central issue of my earlier correspondence, so I'll put the question more directly. Is the Pelagian (free-will) "gospel" of contemporary evangelicals the true gospel, or is it a false gospel?

If you answer that it is a true gospel, then you stand contrary to the councils of the church (from the 4th century through the 17th century), as well as against the published opinions of the major reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox). If you answer that it is not a true gospel, then you must concede that churches holding to the free-will gospel of decisionalism fail to exhibit the marks of a true church.

In the former case, you must relinquish your claim to be "reformed;" in the latter case you must abandon your previously-stated position that such "evangelical" churches are to be accounted true churches of Christ (unless you believe that a person can be reformed and yet simultaneously stand against the unified witness of the reformed creeds and the major reformers ­ a fallacy which surely is beyond the logicians of Credenda/Agenda).

Your claim that evanglicalism has not yet held "her Trent" is meaningless, since the true church both before and after Trent has condemned free will. Besides, I would be interested to know: from your perspective, specifically, what would it take for you to consider American evangelicalism to have crossed the line that demarcates her Trent? You seem to believe that the boundary is somewhere beyond abandoning the gospel, since you hold that the false gospel of evangelicalism is an insufficient cause for separation.

Moreover, your analysis of the historic situation prior to Trent is inadequate. It's true that Protestant theologians consider Trent a defining event in Rome's departure from the gospel (the consummate seal of her apostasy). But does that mean that separation from Rome was not lawful (or desirable) prior to Trent? Luther was forced out of the Romish communion, but Calvin and Knox withdrew unilaterally: all prior to Trent. The reformers then lifted a unified voice, consistently calling upon the faithful to separate from Rome, so as not to partake of the popish sins of idolatry and corruption of the gospel ­ again, all before Trent.

Likewise, the reformers denounced the Anabaptist assemblies as false churches. And many of the Anabaptist heresies are embodied within contemporary evangelical churches.

Your citation from Jus Divinum is a nice quote, but it does not speak to the issue at hand; it is concerned with abstract issues regarding the continuation of outward ordinances within the pale of professing Christendom; the quote contains no pastoral advice respecting the duty of church members as regards apostate churches. Thus, the dubious comments of an individual (or individuals), found in a theological treatise, should not be used to set aside the clear teaching of the numerous godly councils which produced the creeds and confessions of Protestants churches.

Again, I direct your attention to the creeds listed in my previous correspondence: The Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva (1556); the French Confession of Faith (1559), articles 26-28; the Scottish Confession of Faith (1560), chapters 16 and 18; the Belgic Confession (1566), chapter 17. I find it interesting that you failed to interact with the content of any of the confessions listed in my letter. My point was that these creeds speak specifically to the issue in a pastoral way; they instruct Christians to join themselves to a true church, and to flee from false churches. In our day, when the true gospel is perverted in "evangelical" churches, it is unconscionable for you to leave readers with the impression that they should remain in congregations which embrace the false gospel of decisionalism.

Finally, you say "we simply have to disagree about this point." If you mean by this assertion, that we should hold each other's opinion as a valid expression of biblical and reformed thought, then I do not agree to disagree over an issue so paramount as the gospel. You may not preach the free-will gospel of decisionalism yourself. But your toleration of it is evil in itself. That kind of toleration is a reprehensible species of religious pluralism which should be banished from the thinking of all godly Christians (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:8-9). Therefore, I attest my unwillingness to adopt that kind of thinking, and encourage you to repent of your softness toward the purveyors of a false gospel.

Sincerely,

Kevin Reed

REED, KEVIN

REED, KEVIN

REED, KEVIN

REED, KEVIN