Is the Reformation Over? A Review by Iain Murray – Lloyd-Jones and J. I. Packer

Lloyd-Jones’ sermon grabbed my attention in this matter. All your input is noted and appreciated.

Hi ValiantForTruth,

I haven’t read through the whole sermon yet (I plan to), but I’ll give you my first thoughts about how his objection is with the system of Roman Catholicism and not with individuals. My first thought was: “that’s just a fancy way of saying; God hates the sin but loves the sinner.”

Roman Catholicism, the system, is made up and supported by every individual in that Church.

But that’s not the question at hand. Your question to me is, “Can there not be true Christians in the RCC?” And my answer will always be the same, “Yes, there can be.”

But my question to you is this, “Should we be telling individuals who are in the RCC that they are Christians, when we really don’t know? Individuals who pray to Mary and dead Saints and show themselves to be, by remaining in the RCC, highly unlikely they are? Doesn’t that do those great harm?

Gary Gordon

I’ll relate to you a story that shows you exactly where I am coming from. In the early 1990’s an Elder in the OPC, Bob, moved to Reno because of health concerns for his wife. His Pastor and mentor was John Pederson of the OPC in Gettysburg, PA. Since Bob was going to be living in Reno, he was asked to start an OPC here, which we were attempting to do.

His Pastor in Gettysburg, John Pederson, was brought up on charges by the OPC of schism. It all stemmed from the fact that John Pederson refused Arminians into his Church as members as long as they believed that way. They could still come to the Church; they just couldn’t be admitted as members.

Needless to say, Bob and I came down heavily on the side of John Pederson, but this brought us into great conflict with the leaders of the OPC here in the West. We had some heated arguments. One time we were at a retreat in Yosemite NP when Bob and I got into a heated discussion about it with Pastors from all over CA. I remember one Pastor trying to tell me that Arminians just didn’t understand the Gospel like you or I do, but they were still all going to heaven.

I said, “Let me get this straight, you’re telling me Arminians are going to wake up in heaven and not really understand how they got there?”

I still remember him saying, “You betcha!!”

I told him that just flies in the face of what Jesus said, “And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

As Calvin says, “Salvation and knowledge of the truth are inseparably joined together.”

Gary Gordon

So they constantly started asking me if Arminans are going to hell. I thought long and hard about it; what I should say to that. I even asked my Mom, what was worse, “Telling someone who is going to heaven, they are going to hell; or telling someone who is going to hell, they are going to heaven?” She just said, “Obviously, the latter is worse.”

And that’s the point I am making to you.

Of course I knew if I said they were going to heaven they would tell me “then what is the problem? Quit causing division in the Church?”

But if I say they’re going to hell, they’d all rail against me, “How can you say that? Are you God? How do you know what’s in their hearts?”

But what they said to me also turns back on them. It’s just as wrong for them to say Arminians are going to heaven when they don’t know either. In fact, to me it was worse. By allowing them in as members, what they are really telling them is that they are on the right path to heaven.

All we can really know is what path men are on. A brother, to me, is one who is on the same path as I. He may get off the right path and still be considered a brother, but not if he impenitently stays on the wrong path. Then he shows he was never “one of us.” He was never a brother.

Gary Gordon

Has Ed ever been on the right path since you’ve known him? It seemed a little strange to me for you to be calling him a brother, then, when he’s on the wrong path and always has been. That doesn’t mean you’re not to love him as a neighbor as much as yourself. You’ve done that very well with Ed. You’ve certainly not held back the truth from him. But as far as I know, you haven’t given him much incentive to come out of the RCC, especially by calling him brother. He thinks he’s on the right path. He needs to come out of that Church, now. She’s filthy. “Come out of her my people!”

I started answering the above question when put to me, rightly so, like this “I don’t know. Only God knows. But they must be told the truth, ESPECIALLY if they’re God’s elect and going to heaven.”

Is Ed a Christian? A brother? I don’t know. But if he is, then he above everyone else must be made aware, sternly if need be that he is on the wrong path. To me, it’s unconscionable for a Christian to remain in that Church. Why would a Christian “seek the living amongst the dead?” He is a partaker of her sins. He’s leading others away from the truth.

Gary Gordon

In the book of Revelation, there are two beasts that rise up; one out of the sea and one out of the earth. Simply put, the one out of the sea represents the governments of the world and the one out of the earth represents the false religions of the world.

Don’t think of these two beasts as separate from each other. They are one. The harlot sits on the back of the first beast. Together they are going to form a one world kingdom.

This one world kingdom is coming and there isn’t anything you and I can do about it, nor should we. It’s coming. It’s not our job to try and stop it. We are to preach the Gospel, regardless, and any individuals that are Christians in that filthy Church, it is our duty to call them to come out of her. We don’t do that by joining with the harlot, nor by calling her members brothers, but rather, we do it by remaining distinct from her so individuals like Ed have a place of refuge to come out to. Then we know he is a brother indeed.

Gary Gordon

I will respond to you and give you my understanding of Lloyd Jones’ meaning regarding individuals. This has to do with my relationship with Ed and the difference in our views of church membership. I welcome the discussion.

You raise important issues that I continue to struggle with as have many others. I would like to focus on the issue of brotherhood before we address church membership. You have questioned by liberty to call Ed a brother, mostly it seems because he is in the RCC. I have no problem with you bringing this question because I have high regard for you and your opinions. That is why I am willing to place these things before you to consider.

Ed and I go back awhile. I first interfaced with him on Aurora’s blog about the RCC anathemas against the reformed doctrine of justification by faith. At this encounter he was quick to deny that they were still in force. But the thing that struck me was his concern for the Scriptures. He professed what I understood to be a belief in justification by faith alone apart from works. This was a credible profession of faith, so I embraced him as brother.

Now coupled with his love for the Bible and his demonstrated humility and his willingness to forgive offensive and his growth in being slow to anger, time and circumstances have not caused me to doubt his profession; he continues to reveal himself as a true heart. Note that he has withdrawn rather than respond in anger to my latest articles on Lloyd-Jones’ sermon, which must have hit him like a 2X4 from someone he considered friend.

[continued...]

Now the Lord knows those who are His. All we can do is observe word and deed. If a man makes a credible profession of faith and shows evidences of grace, then I must encourage him as a brother. When a man is justified he begins a lifelong journey we call sanctification. We must put off the old ways of thinking and renew our thinking according to the Scriptures. This is a process of growth and maturity.

Consider that Ed has professed less than absolute allegiance to the RCC, acknowledging that there are problems. It is unknown whether or not he professes belief in the doctrines we object to. I have purposefully avoided those doctrines because we cannot expect all justified men to be at the same level of the knowledge of the truth.

Your response is welcome or I will continue to the issue of church membership and define what I mean by credible profession of faith.

My computer went out last night (it's nine years old) so I can't really properly respond right now. So go ahead with Church Membership and how you define a credible profession of faith.

Gary Gordon

What are the membership requirements among the Reformed churches? They are varied among Baptists; they are more varied between Baptist and Presbyterian because of the baptism issue. From the perspective of nearly 30 years in a Reformed Baptist church, I would try to explain what is meant by a credible profession of faith in a confessional church.

We were founded on the 1689 Baptist Confession which is essentially the same as the Westminster except for the chapters on baptism and the civil magistrate.

Attenders who apply for membership must meet with the elders. They are examined for a basic understanding of the gospel; that is, the substitutionary atonement and the imputation of righteousness. They are asked to read the confession and church constitution. Essential agreement is NOT required for membership, only for officers and teachers.

The elders are gentle and accommodating to age and knowledge of perspective members. There are cases I know of where some have been encouraged to continue to sit under the preaching ministry until they have a better understanding of the gospel before they present themselves for membership. The intent of the process is that membership is not to be entered into lightly and new believers and tender hearts are not prevented by over examination for doctrinal purity.

[continued…]

A credible profession is less than essential agreement to all the doctrines in the confession. An understanding of these things may take years even under a solid teaching ministry.

The following questions are asked of new member candidates as they testify before the congregation:

1. Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God, justly deserving His wrath and displeasure, and that you are without hope apart from His sovereign mercy?

2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only Savior of sinners; and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?

3. Do you resolve and promise in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will live a life worthy of a follower of Christ?

4. Do you promise to faithfully support this church in its worship and work, to the best of your ability?

5. Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of this church and do you promise to seek its purity and peace?

ValiantForTruth,

You and I differ widely on this. I'll tty to give a more detailed answer when I get my computer up and running again.

I will say you are a little bit better than the promise keepers who have only one question you must answer to join. "Do you love Jesus?"

Just off the top of my head, how can your members answer affirmative to the fifth question when they are not equipped to seek the purity of the Church.

I would never join a Church whose creeds I didn't fully believe and understand. Nor would I join a Church who didn't require its members to do the same.

If God's people are destroyed for "lack of knowledge," how much more so the Church?

Gary Gordon

It’s OK if we disagree strongly on this issue. I would like to hear your arguments.

From my own experience I was saved by the witness of Arminians and began going to their church. I knew nothing except Christ had saved me, and I began to follow the light I had been given. I became a member of the church after making a public profession of faith that included baptism. The Arminians led me to Christ and nurtured me in the faith. I never heard of reformed doctrine until much later.

Although I am now convinced that their doctrine and practice are wrong, there is no denying that God used them and their church to bring me to Himself.


Folks do not come to our church one Sunday and seek membership the next. New members usually have spent months under the teaching. Having Arminians apply for membership is not really an issue. It seems to me the greater threat to the purity of the church is from the leadership. Is this not more consistent with the NT warnings?

The membership is accountable to one another and is under the authority of elders. These are the means whereby doctrinal error is handled in the congregation along with the expository preaching, including appropriate application.

The greatest threat to the purity of the Church is allowing members into the Church that believe in false doctrine. The doctrines of the Church are found in her confessions. By allowing members into the Church who are NOT in essential agreement with the creeds of the Church, is to swing open the door, wide, to all the false doctrines that are out there.

Yet you say, “Doctrinal error is handled in the congregation along with the expository preaching.” How so, ValiantForTruth? HOW SO? If you let them come in with “doctrinal error,” and if they continue to persist in their “doctrinal error,” are you then going to turn around and ask them to leave? No, never. I know today’s Churches. And today’s members are tomorrow’s leaders. That’s the road you’re going down.

The creeds or confessions of the Church are what she believes to be the truth of God’s Word and by these creeds the members are united together, not just with each other, but with the Church of all ages. To allow members into the Church who do not completely agree with all the truths the Church confesses to be true is to cause division in the Church. To allow members into the Church who do NOT confess that the doctrine taught in the Church is the true and COMPLETE doctrine of salvation is not only unconscionable, but goes against the plain teaching of Scripture.

We are commanded to make a “common” confession:

That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 15:6

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1Cor. 1:10

Most creeds were written in DEFENSE of the truth of God’s Word. So what you’re doing is letting those who may disagree with those truths come back, once again, into the Church. Amazing.

Gary Gordon

A good deal can be learned just by looking at the order the letters to the seven Churches are given. For example, the letter to the Church at Ephesus had to be first. Why? Because she has lost her first love (a love for the truth). Only when a Church loses her first love, can those things Christ has against the other Churches, happen to her

When it comes to the second Church, Smyrna, Christ has nothing against her because she is just coming out of tribulation. The dross has been burned away, so to speak.

What Christ has against the next Church, Pergamos, is that they have members there who are “holding” to false doctrine. It doesn't say they are teaching false doctrine; they are just “holding” to it.

In the next Church, Thyatira, they are now “teaching” false doctrine, and in the next Church, Sardis, they have all apostatized away and are ready to die except for a few who are still hanging on to the truth.

Notice that your Church is just like the Church in Pergamos when you allow members to come in who are not in essential agreement with your confessions. They may not be teaching their disagreement, but they’re still holding on to it.

Gary Gordon

As we go through time and get closer to the end, the Church world will come to resemble, more and more, the last two Churches, with the one growing in strength and the other diminishing in strength. One is a false Church while the other is a true Church. It’s easy to tell the difference between them. The problem is Churches are always changing. There are many in between going from one end to the other, usually from a true Church to a false one.

My point is that it all begins, doesn't it, with a lack of love for the truth and an indifference to what others amongst us believe. It may seem harmless to allow those in who are not in complete agreement with us, but according to Scripture, it is

Therefore, we are called to “hold fast” that which we have. Rev 2:25. “Hold fast that which is good.” 1Thess. 5:21. “Hold fast the form of sound words.” 2Timothy 1:13.

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;” Heb. 10:23.

So then, your simple five questions really have nothing to “hold fast” to, anymore than “do you love Jesus” has anything to hold fast to, if not the truths of your Churches’ profession of faith.

Gary Gordon

Thanks for input. Glad to see you back online.

I cannot fault you for your passion for truth and for the purity of the church. Please give me a link to your confession so I can compare it to the 1689, and then I will respond.

The point I want to make is that if you require essential agreement in every doctrine in the confession for membership, you may end up excluding from membership some of the greatest servants the church has seen. For example, Jonathan Edwards was a PostMil and Charles Spurgeon was a Baptist.

http://www.prca.org/Three_Forms_of_Unity.htm

I don’t buy into the argument that we should allow false doctrine to come into the Church just because we perceive the men who are bringing it in as great men or great servants of the Church. As if they somehow still serve the greater good. It doesn’t matter to me who is bringing it in. Don’t you know, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Gal 5:9

Because of his preterism, I wouldn’t allow RC Sproul into the Church. Would you? And if you did, when he started teaching his false doctrine, would you then speak out against it? Go ahead. Guess who will be put out of the Church for causing division? And they’ll think they’re doing God service when they do.

Gary Gordon

Gary, thanks for the link. Though we have differences in doctrine and practice I can appreciate them as from those equally committed to the authority of the Scriptures.

I do not want to pick at your confession. My conclusion is that on some doctrines good men may differ, but they can still enjoy Christian fellowship. Can we leave it there for now?

At some point we have to distinguish between false doctrine on essential matters and that which is not. I have heard Sproul's take on the Olivet discourse and see problems with it. But does that disagreement mean that I wouldn't listen to him on other subjects? Is he not a Christian because of his views preterist views? How big is your universal church anyway?

Gary can speak for himself, but as the blog owner I want you to know that your question to him is unacceptable. What do you hope to gain with such a question? Whatever it is, it is not welcome here.

Preterism is heresy. Whether Sproul is a Christian or not, what does that have to do with anything, caday5? Are we to give Christians a pass on false doctrine so long as they’re Christians? What kind of nonsense is that?

I don’t divide the Bible into two parts, caday5, as you and many of today’s Churches do, saying, “This part is necessary for you to know for your salvation, but that part isn’t necessary for you to know.”

What has God commanded us to believe? Most of the Bible? Just about all of the Bible?

What is necessary for a Christian to believe?

Answer: ALL things promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic undoubted Christian faith briefly teach us.

What is true faith?

Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth ALL that God has revealed to us in his word…

The above two questions and answers are from the Heidelberg Catechism.

If Jesus is the object of our salvation, then the WHOLE Bible was written so that you might know that Jesus is the Christ.

Gary Gordon

RC Sproul, on page 158 of his “Last Days According to Jesus,” says that the bulk of Revelation (along with the Olivet Discourse) was fulfilled in 70 AD, meaning it doesn’t apply to us today, so don’t worry about understanding it.

But the Bible says, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” Rev. 1:3.

If an Arminian tells me that God loves me, although that’s true, it carries very little weight with me, coming from them. So it is with anyone I have major differences with; whatever truth they may have just doesn’t mean very much to me. Adding truth to lies so it has the flavor of truth is a method of Satan.

The Bible teaches that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, but obviously, you and today’s Churches are wiser than God.

So to answer your question, how big is my universal Church? She’s bigger than any Church before her, but not in numbers; no, not in that way. Rather, she’s bigger than any Church before her when it comes to knowledge and understanding of the Word of God.

Gary Gordon

I think you understand most of what RC Sproul said about Revelation but the implication you draw does not reflect his views. Certainly Sproul comes from a Prederist position. I don't know how much of a Prederist he is but I do know that he believes all of Scripture applies to today in one way or another. To say that Revelation doesn't apply for today because either it was partially or all fulfilled in the past is like saying the histories told in the OT & NT don't apply to today because they occurred in the past. No one who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures believes that.

Furthermore, to classify the Prederist position as heresy does not make sense. The Prederist position, regardless of how right or wrong it may be does not touch on any fundamental of the faith. The moment we make non-fundamentals of the faith the basis of heresy is the moment that we insist that true Christians must be perfect in their doctrine. Heck, that wasn't even true in the NT church.

There are many things in the Bible that knowledgeable, sincere and true Christians disagree on. To jump to conclusions because someone doesn't agree with you on issues that are not fundamental is wrong and is not supported in the Bible. Why be so eager to draw negative conclusion about people who have different views than you on non-fundamentals?

I’ve already made it clear to you, caday5, I don’t divide the Bible into parts on what is necessary to know and what isn’t, but I’ll try to go again.

Mt. 1:7 says that “Solomon begat Roboam.”

Although it isn’t necessary for one to know that Solomon begat Roboam in order to be saved, yet, when one reads that in the Bible, it is NECESSARY for him to believe that that is true. Anyone who doesn’t, anyone who says he doesn’t believe “Solomon begat Roboam,” as the Heidelberg Catechism points out, does NOT have true faith. No one in the Church can ever say that any part of the Bible is not true, whether it is essential or not, and expect to stay in the Church. Essentially, they are calling God a liar.

So it is with RC Sproul. The book of Revelation says to me, Gary Gordon, and everyone else who reads it, that the time is at hand, meaning NOW, TODAY, for the prophecy of this book. The time was at hand when the Apostle John wrote it (which was after 70 AD; by the way). The time is still at hand, today, and will continue to be relevant to everyone until the coming again of Christ.

But RC Sproul says no, he doesn’t believe that to be true. Preterism, spelled with a “t” means “past.” RC Sproul says the time is NOT at hand anymore, but instead, is over and done in the past.

Since Scripture cannot be broken, the Bible never contradicts itself. It doesn’t teach, for example, that God loves all men and that He does not love all men. It doesn’t teach both. It doesn’t teach that Christ is the head of the Church and that the Pope is the head of the Church. Nor does it teach that the time is at hand for the book of Revelation and also that its time is over and done in the past. These things are easily discerned. I can’t make it any clearer than that, caday5.

Gary Gordon

So your statement, “There are many things in the Bible that knowledgeable, sincere and true Christians disagree on,” implies we can’t be sure of the truth and should just accept everyone, regardless of what they believe. But the Apostle Paul, in 1Cor 11:18-19 gives a different take on these disagreements.

“For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

Go ahead, caday5, accept them all with your loving arms. But as for me, I know those who are approved of God and those who aren’t. And it’s certainly not based on if they agree with me or not. Rather, it’s based on if they agree with Scripture.

Gary Gordon

2 Timothy 2:15-18 is an interesting passage, pertinent to what we are talking about. It begins by saying we are to study the Word of God so that we may show ourselves approved of God. We are to shun false doctrine (NOT let it come in) because it will spred as a canker. Then it gives an example of two men having false doctrine, Hymenaeus and Philetus, and notice that both men are Preterists who say that the coming of Christ is “past already.”

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”

Although RC Sproul thinks he is safe from being labeled a heretic because his preterism doesn’t go so far as to say the “resurrection is past already,” the truth of the matter is one cannot separate the actual coming of Christ from the signs of His coming. That is to say, both the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation ALWAYS connect together as inseparable, the signs of Christ coming with the coming itself. Therefore, you cannot say all the signs of His coming have been fulfilled in 70 AD but the actual coming of Christ wasn’t fulfilled. So I stand by my statement, Preterism is heresy.

Gary Gordon

So what you are saying is unless someone agrees with you on every point, that person is a heretic. And where did you get everyone of your beliefs? ANd how do you know the correctness of those beliefs?

You can be sure of your view and that is fine. But it also lays you open to a number of problems. First take the difference between Chief and VFT regarding eschatology. Chief, if I read correctly, follows dispensationalism whereas VFT is a post millenialist (correct me if I am wrong VFT). Which one do you agree with? If neither, are both heretics?

And if we have to be correct in every doctrine to be saved, then when are we saved? Is faith in Christ not enough, must we also then be trained in the Bible until we know everything there is to know and only when we show that every single belief we have is correct are we saved?

It seems to me that by applying heretic over small disagreements, that for you, there are can't be more than just a few Christians in the world. And everyone else merits your wrath each time they display a doctrinal fault. Do you see the problem here?