Making Shipwreck of the Faith
Kevin Reed
Dallas, TX: Protestant Heritage Press,
1995
Reviewed by Douglas Wilson
(Credenda Agenda
magaizine, volume 8, number 1, 1996)
"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.
by Kevin Reed
Presbyterian Heritage
Publications
P. O. Box 180922
Dallas, Texas 75218
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. 7). 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
Dear Doug:
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,
The book being discussed above is available
from SWRB:
Making Shipwreck of the Faith: Evangelicals and
Roman Catholics Together
This is the best book, critiquing this
unholy alliance, to appear yet. It is the only book that has gone to the heart
of the issues, at the most basic level, and not merely dealt with the obvious
external differences with Rome. It convincingly shows that, concerning
"critical aspects of doctrine and practice," many "modern
evangelicals have become very much like Rome." The two major areas dealt
with are the doctrines of salvation (especially regarding justification,
predestination, evangelism and the bondage of the will) and worship.
Arminianism, in both these areas, has already made such inroads into
"evangelicalism," that most Protestant churches would not even be
recognized by their own Protestant forefathers. For example, Reed writes, "[i]f
you are resting your assurance of salvation upon your "decision;" if
you think that your "free will" or "accepting Christ"
produced the new birth within you; then you are deceived, you are no better off
than a Judaizer or a Romanist. You have made your "decision" into a
work, and subverted the doctrine of salvation by grace." Furthermore, it
is perceptively pointed out that "[t]oday, many Roman Catholics and
evangelicals decry the sins of abortion and homosexuality as manifestations of
our nation's corruptions (which they are); but these same contemporary
moralists are generally silent about the heinous sin of corrupt worship"
(p. 35). You would think that for much of "evangelicalism" today, the
first table of the law was never a reflection of God's unchanging moral
perfections, or that the God of the Old Testament has forgotten His own most
important moral directions to mankind -- at least since the coming of Christ.
If you want the Biblical reasons for rejecting man-made gospels and man-made
worship (whether they be found in Rome, or among the Charismatics, Baptists,
independents, or other so-called "evangelicals") this book tells it
like it is. For as Reed states, "[l]iving in an era of religious
pluralism, we are too apt to forget that heresy is a form of moral corruption;
it is classed among 'works of the flesh' along with adultery, fornication,
uncleaness, idolatry, witchcraft, murder, and drunkenness (Gal. 5:19-21). That
is how the Lord views heresy. And thus heresy is dangerous to our souls; there
are heresies which are "damnable" in their nature (2 Pet. 2:1). The
issues which fostered the Protestant Reformation are not simply matters for
academic debate. They are great and eternal matters respecting the way of
salvation and the proper worship of God" (book, p. 82). Don't miss this
important and fiery rebuke against modern apostasy, calling the signers of ECT
to repentance!
(Softcover) $10.95
Other titles by the same author include:
Biblical Worship
"The Protestant Reformation was a
conflict over many critical issues. And of all the issues contested between
Romanists and the reformers, no issue was more crucial than the question of
true worship" (Reed, John Knox the Forgotten Reformer, p. 37). This book
explains the two preeminent characteristics of all faithful corporate worship,
as seen both in the OT and in the NT. It also contains an excellent section on
disputed aspects of worship. This section, in particular, is very valuable, in
that it shows how many non-Romanist communions today have actually rejected the
Reformation and adopted Rome's presuppositions regarding worship. Refutes
modern innovations in worship (like dance, drama, etc.) and the advocates of
"free-style services, wherein anyone present may exercise his "gifts"
spontaneously," what the author calls "religious democracy with a
vengeance." Also deals with instrumental music, man-made hymnody,
ecclesiastical holi-days and the use of the cross as a religious symbol. One of
our best shorter books on this topic (80 pages).
(Softcover) $7.95- 40% = 4.77
The Canterbury Tales
Interacts with James Jordan's Geneva
Papers on worship. An excellent expose demonstrating how Jordan's views on
worship are seriously flawed and how his writings "often show more charity
toward Papists, than toward the Reformed faith." Reed wades through the
many contradictions found in Jordan's writings, to show that corruption of the
Reformed faith is most evident in three major areas: 1. the repudiation of the
Reformed regulative principle of worship; 2. the attempt to introduce
superstitions and unwarranted practices into the church; and 3. the rejection
of confessional
Presbyterianism. Elaborating, Reed notes that "the primary indication
of the Tyler (this was first written in 1984) corruption of worship is seen in
their repudiation of the Reformed regulative principle of worship. This
repudiation is manifest in four ways: by false portrayals of the regulative
principle; by a failure to make proper distictions within the regulative principle;
by a faulty pairing of Reformed and Anabaptist notions; and by a failure to
deal exegetically with the scriptural position of the reformers (and the
Reformed confessions) on the topic of worship... Moreover, Mr. Jordan does not
stop with the repudiation of the Reformed regulative principle. He goes on with
a program to reintroduce within the church many superstitions and unwarrranted
practices" (pp. 4, 24). This is not surprising, for as historical teaches,
when you reject Scriptural institutions of worship, you of necessity must
replace them with some form of man-made, idolatrous, ceremony or rite; building
monuments to antichrist and the false prophets of the past! This very fact is
illustrated by Reed when he writes, "It is also quite telling that Mr.
Jordan acknoledges his affinity with Lutheran and Anglican forms of worship, in
preference to others (Geneva Papers, #25). Lutheran/Anglican worship is built
on an entirely different presupposition than Reformed worshiip. The
Lutheran/Anglican position holds that we may worship God by various means, as
long as what we are doing is not explicitly forbidden in scripture (this error
of Jordan's can also be seen in his Sociology of the Church, when after paying
lip service to the regulative principle (p. XX) he then repeatedly argues for
the introduction of idoltry in worship on the basis This is a good introduction
to historic Reformed worship, using Jordan as an example of what misguided zeal
(and a great deal of ignorance) can produce in this area. Reed writes clearly
and has a very good grasp of the Scriptural and historical data concerning
worship issues. Reed also includes an excellent bibliography which clearly
demonstrates the point at issue, showing that Jordan has jettisoned the
historic Reformed view of the regulative principle (as have most modern
Reformed churches and Christian Reconstructionists), all his protests to the
contrary notwithstanding.
(Booklet, 28 pages) $3.95- 40% = 2.37
Christmass: A Biblical Critique
Co-authored by Michael Schneider, this
books argues that Christmas is essentially a pagan holiday; and that its
religious elements foster an imitation gospel which actually keeps the world
from understanding the true gospel. Committed to sola Scriptura and a desire to
maintain the purity of Scriptural worship, it contains a historical survey of
the Pagan roots of this Roman Catholic holy-day. Numerous citations concerning
Protestant opposition to "ho-ho" are cited, demonstrating that the
basis of Protestant opposition to holy-days arises out of a proper
understanding of the fourth commandment -- for God alone has the authority to
mark out or decree special religious (i.e. holy or separated) days. And this is
exactly what he has done with the Lord's day, giving us 52 holy days per year.
Whenever other "holy-days" are decreed, by human authority, worship
deteriorates, the regulative principle is ignored, and a low view of the
Sabbath often prevails. It is interesting to note that among the Puritans,
colonial magistrates in New England banned the public celebration of the
Christmass in these words, cited from one of their public notices: "The
observance of Christmas having been deemed a Sacrilege... and similar Satanical
Practices are hereby forbidden with the Offender liable to a Fine of FIVE
SHILLINGS." Gillespie waxes eloquent on this matter, including festival
days among those "ceremonies that are unlawful, because they sort us with
idolaters," writing, "by communicating with idolaters in their rites
and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings
16:10, was an idolater, eo ipso, that he took the pattern of an altar from
idolaters. Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign
of the cross, surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing down to the altar,
administration of the sacraments in private places, etc., are the wares of
Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of Popery,
the ensigns of Christ's enemies, and the very trophies of antichrist, -- we cannot
conform, communicate and symbolise with the idolatrous Papists in the use of
the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste
spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of
God symbolise with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the
Lord's redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be
seen with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the
antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the
temple of God like the synagogue of Satan?" (A Dispute Against English
Popish Ceremonies, in Gillespie's Works volume one, p. 80). The Spirit speaking
in the Scriptures ought to determine our practices, and not emotions or traditions
of men, thus we hope that you will give this book a fair hearing.
(Softcover) $7.95- 50% = 3.98
Back to swrb home page
(at swrb.com)
Still Waters Revival Books (at PuritanDownloads.com)