Spiritual Declension: Lessons From Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 4-Negative Attitudes toward the Evangelical Revival: Reason #1
Posted by jsmitheasley on January 20, 2009
In the late 1730’s, in connection with the ministries of men like George Whitefield, John Wesley, Howell Harris, Daniel Rowland and others, Great Britain became the scene of one of the greatest spiritual awakenings that has ever occurred in the history of the church. The same thing happened in America. Thousands gathered sometimes in the open air to hear men like George Whitefield and others preach the gospel. Multitudes were converted and brought to Christ and the whole fabric of English society was transformed.
What effect did this great awakening have upon the Particular Baptists? It basically passed by many of them. According to Mark Reid, “The Baptists seem to have largely passed the first Evangelical Revival by with very few records of positive responses to it in the peak years”.[1] Naylor describes the attitude of Particular Baptists as stubbornly negative towards the evangelical revival.[2] In the words of Haykin, “up till the death of Whitefield in 1770 the majority of Calvinistic Baptists in England stood aloof from this great work of God, the Holy Spirit, and were largely untouched by it.”[3] There were exceptions but this is the general picture that we are given. The awakening did begin to have a more substantial effect upon them by the last quarter of the century but when George Whitefield died in 1770, over thirty years after the awakening began, Particular Baptists were still basically untouched on a large scale. Why is that? What accounts for their negative attitude toward the revival?
First of all, they were suspicious of the revival because many of its leaders were members of the Church of England. They had a hard time accepting that anything good could come out of a denomination they refused to consider as a true church. This was partly related to what was a commendable and faithful commitment of the Baptists to the importance of biblical church order. In some instances, however, this commitment went wrong by swinging over to the extreme of failing to have a proper spirit of catholicity toward all true Christians. Many of the Baptists were aware that their churches were in a state of decline and some of the leaders, like John Gill and Benjamin Wallin, had strong opinions as to how this decline was to be remedied. Haykin writes, “For them the pathway to church renewal lay first and foremost in an earnest commitment to upholding the distinctives of Calvinistic Baptist church order and discipline.”[4] For example, Benjamin Wallin, pastor of the Maze Pond congregation, argued that “as long as there was a neglect of believer’s baptism and the principles of congregational church government, any attempt to revive the churches of Christ was ‘essentially deficient.’”[5]
Well it’s not surprising that men like Wallin criticized the revival. The emphasis of the preaching was not upon biblical church order and the proper subjects of baptism. It was upon those great central and essential gospel doctrines of salvation by grace alone, justification by faith and the necessity of the new birth. In addition, most of the great preachers who were leaders of this revival were members of the Church of England. For example, George Whitefield, Daniel Rowland, Howell Harris, William Grimshaw and William Romaine were all members of the Church of England. So were John and Charles Wesley. Worse than that the Wesley’s were also Arminian. Harris was too at the beginning, though he early on became a Calvinist.
These realities caused the Particular Baptists in general to view the whole revival with suspicion and to stay aloof from it. William Herbert, a Welsh Baptist pastor, was a friend of Howell Harris. He protested to Harris about his staying in the Church of England, which we can perhaps sympathize with. But one may question the attitude that seems to be revealed in the manner in which he did so. “In a letter he wrote to Harris in January of 1737, he compared the Church of England to a pub, ‘which is open to all comers’, and to a ‘common field where every noisome beast may come.’”[6] Then he appealed to one of the favorite texts of Particular Baptist’s at that time, Song of Solomon 4:12. Don’t you realize, he asked Harris, that the scripture describes the church as “a garden enclosed, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Separate from ye profane world.” Arnesby Baptist Church in Leicestershire excommunicated members in the first half of the 18th century “for going to Babylon to be joined together according to the wicked way of the Church of England.”[7]
Their dislike for the Wesley’s is more understandable in light of the Arminianism of the Wesley’s. But most of the great leaders of the revival were Calvinists like George Whitefield and Howell Harris and many others. These were men who were willing to establish friendships with the Baptists. Some Calvinistic Baptists (particularly those influenced by Hyper-Calvinism), however, complained of what they called the “Arminian dialect” and “semi-Pelagian addresses” of men like Whitefield because they preached for conversions and exhorted the lost to flee to Christ for salvation.[8]
What is the lesson for us as Reformed Baptists as we enter into the 21st century? Well here we are reminded of how important it is to have a catholic spirit toward all true Christians, though they may not be part of our circle of churches. Though some may have difficulty accepting this, God in his sovereignty sometimes greatly blesses and uses men who are not Reformed Baptists; men who don’t have everything right in their ecclesiology, or even men who are wrong in other areas of their theology. They have the gospel and they preach the gospel, but they are lacking in some areas. May I dare to say it, they may even be confused Arminians. Yet God uses them, and He may even use them in ways He’s not using any of us. We need to be able to rejoice in that. We need to ask ourselves, if God raised up some men in our day full of the Holy Spirit; men who are preaching the gospel and whose preaching God is mightily blessing with every biblical evidence of true conversions (not merely decisions, but real conversions), and those men are Methodists or Episcopalians, or Assembly of God or some other denomination, or some other kind of Baptist, other than Reformed Baptist, could we rejoice in that and be thankful for it? Could we even consider those men as our friends and brothers and even work together with them insofar far as we can? Or is our almost immediate knee jerk reaction to be critical and to pick at any and every fault we can find to try to discredit any one God is using who is not one of us?
Let us not be guilty of the sectarian spirit John manifested when he said to Jesus, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us.” Jesus rebuked John for that spirit. (Mk. 9:39). Rather let us have the spirit of Aquilla and Priscilla. Near the end of Acts 18 we are introduced to a fervent preacher by the name of Apollos. He was an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures. However we’re told that there were certain deficiencies in his understanding of the truth; “That he knew only the baptism of John.” When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, what did they do? They didn’t write him off and have nothing to do with him and tell people to stay away from him. No, they sought to befriend him, took him aside and explained to him the way of God more perfectly. So let us not have the spirit of John in Mk. 9, but the spirit of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18. And even when deficiencies remain, if the gospel is being preached, let us rejoice. Let us have the spirit of Paul writing from a Roman prison in Pp. 1:15-16 when he said, “Some preach Christ of envy and strife, and some also from good will…what then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.”
Related to this, there’s a common mistake we need to be aware of. It’s the error of thinking that there can be no revival without thorough reformation first. It’s true that reformation sometimes precedes revival. Likewise it’s true that we must always be pursuing more and more thorough reformation. If we are not seeking to reform our lives and our churches by the scriptures, it is presumption to expect revival. But in God’s sovereignty it is simply a fact of history that sometimes revival precedes reformation. Some of the Particular Baptists thought there could be no church renewal if there was a neglect of believer’s baptism and the principles of Baptist church government. They were wrong, and because they felt that way, they renounced the revival when it came. But consider, for example, what happened in the reformation of the 16th century; both in Europe and in England? It was first a spiritual awakening before it became a reformation. Men like Luther and others first came to understand the gospel and were converted and they started preaching the gospel. In England there were men like Hugh Latimer who got converted and began preaching the gospel. At first they were still in the Roman church but reformation followed after, not before. What about the revival in England that we’ve been considering? Listen to Lloyd-Jones making this same point that I’m making,
There are people who say, ‘You have no right to talk about revival, you have no right to expect revival until people become Reformed in their doctrine’. The simple answer to that is that George Whitefield received his baptism of power in 1737, but did not become a Calvinist in his theology until about 1739. Revival had come to him and through him to many others, before his doctrine became right. Exactly the same thing happened to Howell Harris.[9]
Many Particular Baptists missed it because they weren’t willing to even allow for that possibility in their ecclesiology. Perhaps they could have been the Priscilla’s and Aquila’s of that generation; from a posture of support, friendship and participation helping these men to understand the way of God more perfectly, instead of renouncing what God was doing through them. Perhaps they could have learned a few things from Whitefield, Harris and Rowland as well and maybe even from John Wesley.[10]
Jeffery Smith
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Easley SC
[1] Mark Reid, “Religious Revival and English Baptists in Eighteenth Century England,” 2001. Internet article at www.webministries.co.uk/papers/c18baps.html (accessed January 2009).
[2] Quoted by Reid.
[3] Haykin, One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliffe of Olney, his Friends and his Times (Durham, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 1994), 27.
[4] Ibid. 26.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid. 27
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 28.
[9] D.M. Lloyd-Jones, “Revival: An Historical and Theological Survey”, in The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Carlisle PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 14-15.
[10] On this point see Ian Murray, The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths For A New Awakening (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005). Chapter five is entitled, “What Can We Learn From John Wesley?”
20 Responses to “Spiritual Declension: Lessons From Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 4-Negative Attitudes toward the Evangelical Revival: Reason #1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Amen.
Thank you for this post, Brother.
There are some great things that seem to be going on with the Pipers, Harrises and Driscolls of the world. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that just because they are not “Reformed Baptist” and don’t hold to our Confession that God is not working through them. God save us from being modern-day Pharisees.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Andrew,
Glad the post was edifying. I agree with the connection you’ve drawn between the hyper-critical spirit some of our Particular Baptist forefathers expressed towards leaders like George Whitefield and the somewhat critical spirit some contemporary Reformed brethren express toward men like Piper, Mahaney, Keller, Driscoll, et al. May the Lord grant us the wisdom, grace, and humility to hold fast our distinctives without assuming that “we are the people and all wisdom resides with us.”
Bob G.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Thanks Andrew.
I do not intend my blog to be so much an accusation against RB’s as a caution against what I have felt has at times been a tendency in some or at least in me. We must also be careful that we don’t fall off the other side by allowing an uncharitable spirit toward brothers in our own circle. I must confess that I myself have been guilty at times of this very thing some of the early 18th century PB’s were. I feel inclined with reference to my own blog to say, “Woe is me”; “Oh wretched man that I am”.
May God give us the grace to stand firm for truths we believe are very important and needed while maintaining a charitable and catholic spirit toward all who love and preach the gospel!!!
Jeff Smith
January 21st, 2009 at 12:04 am
So are we to think of Mark Driscol as a modern day Whitefield?
As a cautious servant to my people, if I refuse to see validity in such a comparison, am I a Pharisee?
It should be noted for the record that Dr. Sam Waldron has identified revivalism (along with inclusivism and Methodism) as one of the reasons for the decline of Particular Baptist in 18th century America.
David Charles
January 21st, 2009 at 12:23 am
David,
First, I would not consider you a “pharisee” if you fail to see any connection between the hyper-critical spirit of some PBs toward Whitefield and a similar spirit expressed by some RBs toward men like Piper, Mahaney, and/or Driscoll. I don’t think you need to read Andrew’s comment or mine as a claim that Driscoll is a modern day Whitefield. There are certainly dissimilarities. But that fact doesn’t preclude the possibility of seeing some analogy in the way Reformed men of the 18th century responded to Whitefield’s ministry and the way 21st century Reformed men respond to the ministries of men like Piper, Mahaney, and Driscoll.
Second, are you certain Dr. Waldron was referring to the evangelical Great Awakening when he referred to “revivalism”? Or does he, like Iain Murray, distinguish between genuine “Revival” and the kind of “Revivalism” promoted by men like Charles Finney? I suspect Dr. Waldron had “revivalism” in view as one of the reasons for the decline. It’s difficult for me to think of genuine revival as a cause for spiritual declension.
Hope this is helpful.
Your friend and brother,
Bob Gonzales
January 21st, 2009 at 12:54 am
David,
As for me I’m afraid I really don’t know enough about Driscol, brother. My blog was not intended to be an endorsement of any particular ministry. I am cautious to commend or condemn him at present.
Concerning your reference to revivalism. There is a distinction between “revivalism” and revival. I am no advocate of “revivalism”. Ian Murray in his book “Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism” traces out the distinction of which I speak. (by the way I’ve read R.S. Clark’s book and I don’t think he’s really fair to Edwards or Lloyd-Jones etc..though there are a number of things in his book I like. I hope to speak to this in some future blogs) If I recall I believe it is “revivalism” Waldron mentions as one of the contributors to the decline you refer to, as you say.
By the way, brother, I do not consider you to be a Pharisee for giving cautions about Driscol. Even as I implied in my blog that there may be things we can learn from Wesley, at the same time I would certainly give serious cautions about dangerous errors that marked some of his teaching. The challenge is being discerning and helping our people be discerning while avoiding having, and cultivating in our people, a hyper-critical attitude that is overly quick to condmen out of hand men who, though perhaps off on some things, are genuine servants of Christ that God may be using. I think Whitefield could have learned some things from PB’s and also I think PB’s could have learned some things from Whitefield. Likewise I’m sure you would agree that while others may need to learn some things from RB’s, there may be some things we can learn from others who are not RB’s. What I wish to avoid in myself is the pride that would, as an RB, assume the posture of always being instructor and corrector of others who are not RB and never open to the possibility of learning something from such.
Knowing you brother I think you agree.
All the Best in Christ,
Jeff Smith
January 21st, 2009 at 2:24 am
David,
Dean Gonzales is correct in his assessment of my statement regarding Driscoll.
The gist of my statement has to do with the fact that if there is a side on which we as Reformed Baptists tend to err it is on the side of being too Pharisaical. Doctrinal precision is great, and being careful of the latest and greatest fad is great, but we have to be very careful of theological “navel-gazing” such that we are so concerned about minor theological issues that we miss the bigger picture.
Now, are the things that Driscol (or Piper or Dever or Ascol or Waldron or Mahaney) espouses “minor” issues? Some are, some aren’t. Scripture is our Standard, and thus we should never swallow any teaching without comparison to it, but at the same time, we must remember that we ourselves don’t have perfect theology and that perhaps, as these posts have stated, God is using someone else’s imperfections to accomplish his purposes, just like he uses ours.
-andrew
January 21st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
To charge any of the Reformed Baptist pastors I know as “Pharisaical” would be a clear violation of the 9th commandment!
One of the nagging questions that I have is where is all the hyper-critical words about any of these men to be found? Can on of you men point your readers to the Reformed Baptist book or sermon that is imbalanced or unfair?
David
January 21st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
David,
The Pharisees were characterized by various aberrant beliefs and practices. The most serious error they affirmed and propounded was a kind of works salvation. No one here is accusing any RB pastor of confessing or teaching a works-based religion.
The Pharisees were also guilty (to varying degrees) of traditionalism, legalism, sectarianism, and a hyper-critical spirit. The attribution of any of these imbalances to another person is, to some degree, a matter of one’s own perception.
According to my perception, I have been guilty of each of the “Pharisaic” imbalances to some degree at some point in my ministry. I hope I am overcoming some of these imbalances by God’s grace.
In my experience on at least three different discussion lists or boards, I have sometimes perceived (whether wrongly or rightly) a critical spirit towards men like Piper, Mahaney, and Driscoll that was imbalanced. But that’s just my opinion.
I would never ask anyone to align their conscience with my opinions. In other words, no man should be required to wear a shoe that doesn’t really fit. But if the shoe does fit, may God give us the grace to acknowledge our need for greater balance in our critical stance towards those outside our denominational fold.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Gonzales
January 21st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
David,
Note what I said in my comment responding to Andrew above..
“I do not intend my blog to be so much an accusation against RB’s as a caution against what I have felt has at times been a tendency in some or at least in me.”
For the record I have never called RB’s Pharisaical that I can recall? I know I never did in the blog.
I wouldn’t even call those early 18th century PB’s I was describing Pharisaical(I don’t think I did). They were hyper-critical and lacking in proper catholicity at times(perhaps the Pharisees did manifest the first one). This is how I would describe it. As for me personally, I’m ashamed to have to say that I have sometimes been all of the above…hypercritical, lacking healthy catholicity and pharisaical in numbers of ways.
I think other brothers would probably agree that they have struggled with at least one or the other or all three at times too. Perhaps you never have and if so that’s great!! Maybe I’m the only one
Again my blog accused no one. The spirit is simply “if the shoe fits wear it. If it doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.”
However I do suspect that there is a measure of this spirit in all of us and this is why cautions of this nature (at least, I think) are healthy. Surely you would agree, David.
Your Brother,
Jeff Smith
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 am
Jeff and Bob thank you for the clarifications.
David
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
This is another excellent post. I used to be hyper-critical of non-Reformed Baptists and was very rigid in my perspectives. However, if someone or some church thinks they have all their theological ducks in a row, have the most light, etc. then they ought to be the holiest, saltiest, most loving people in the place where God has put them. Unfortunately, I have found that not to be the case far too often.
When I started reading widely outside of our circles I began to understand much better where other brethren were coming from. So I understand with greater perception the positions of those who disagree with me. Being theologically myopic is dangerous, and rarely leads to a healthy catholicity. We ought to be able to honestly confess areas of weakness and sin in relation to our tradition. To only defend RBs is blind party spirit.
Reformed Baptists are only 1% of Christianity (probably less), but some of us act like we are really 99% of Christianity and there is only 1% left out there. May the Lord deliver us from such a narrow spirit…
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
One further thing, we ought to rejoice in all the good men like Piper, Mahaney, Keller, etc. have done in getting the gospel out to the harvest field. Our criticisms, valid though they may be, ought to be respectful. I really appreciate these men.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
[...] Smith, continuing his series of lessons from 18th century Particular Baptist history, points to Baptist negativity toward the 18th century revival because of their suspicions about [...]
January 26th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
First I want to say that when it comes to Driscoll, that I am tempted to throw the baby out with the bath water. However, I must say that there is a lot of what Driscoll says that I believe we can all learn from. He seems to be a man who is Reforming, while at the same time I think it is fairly obvious that he has some left over things from his practice in the Emergent Church. His language at times shows this and I believe takes away from his over all ministry.
That said, he is a man of great conviction. As indicated by some of the stories I have read about him humbling himself.
I kind of liken Driscoll to one of my favorite theologians JI Packer. Packer has written some very valuable Reformed books and articles. Yet, his involvement with ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) baffles my mind. I don’t believe that there is a theologian alive today that knows more about the Puritans as well as John Owen. Yet, I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that the Puritans and John Owen were completely at odds with the teaching of Catholics. If you have read any of the material that ECT has produced, you would probably notice that there is huge compromise on behalf of the evangelical side, just to sign those documents.
If you haven’t understood why I bring up Packer and Driscoll in this manner.
My point is this, just like I still believe Packer writes and has written some very valuable material and it baffles me how he could be involved in ECT. I also believe that we can learn a lot from Driscoll, while at the same time reject what is wrong about him and his ministry.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Wise words, Tom.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:39 am
RBS,
I really enjoy the blog and am a regular reader of the articles and postings. However, I must take exception with at least one of the conclusions in this article:
“We need to ask ourselves, if God raised up some men in our day full of the Holy Spirit; men who are preaching the gospel and whose preaching God is mightily blessing with every biblical evidence of true conversions (not merely decisions, but real conversions), and those men are Methodists or Episcopalians, or Assembly of God or some other denomination, or some other kind of Baptist, other than Reformed Baptist, could we rejoice in that and be thankful for it? Could we even consider those men as our friends and brothers and even work together with them insofar far as we can?”
As a former Charismatic/Pentecostal peacher, I thank God each and every day that He gloriously delivered me out of the rank error and heresy of that movement.
How can I now be asked by my Reformed Baptist Brethren to join hands with such things?
If I follow this article’s exhortation, must I now be willing to preach side-by-side with an Arminian Pentecostal? Which ‘gospel’ will we preach? Shall we preach the man-centered or God-centered message? Shall we command wretched sinners to repent and believe as the Spirit convicts, or shall we tell the people that God has done all He can do and He now waits on them to do their part?
Shall I then rejoice as the Pentecostal then leads the crowd in seeking to speak with other tongues? Am I to be satisfied and settled when those who are converted choose to attend the Arminian assembly instead of a solid Reformed church?
Of what value is our Confession if it does not provide a reasonable guideline as to what constitutes good teaching and doctrine? Why even bother calling ourselves Reformed Baptists if the only test of fellowship with those who hold to false doctrine is some subjective standard like “real conversions.”
If holding fast to the true Gospel of Free and Sovereign Grace will lead to anything, it will lead to life eternal! This can not be up for debate.
How can we remain vibrant even while standing against blantant error? We can preach the glorious Gospel at every afforded opportunity. Let us preach His word. And, as Spurgeon said, “Calvinism IS the Gospel.”
God bless and keep you in perfect peace!
-JB
February 10th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Dear Jason,
There is much in your comment that I sympathize with However, brother, I think you are misunderstanding and perhaps misrepresenting what I was saying in my blog. I never advocated joining Charismatics or Methodists or other group IN THEIR FALSE TEACHINGS OR BY MERGING CHURCHES OR BY PARTICIPATING OURSELVES IN THEIR ERRORS. That’s not what I mean. I’m not advocating compromising any truth that we believe as RB’s. Furthermore when I said if God were to raise men from such groups who were truly preaching the gospel in converting power “could we even consider those men as our friends and brothers and even work together with them”, I immediately added “insofar far as we can?” By that I mean insofar as we can without compromising the gospel.
You stated
“If I follow this article’s exhortation, must I now be willing to preach side-by-side with an Arminian Pentecostal? Which ‘gospel’ will we preach? Shall we preach the man-centered or God-centered message?Shall we command wretched sinners to repent and believe as the Spirit convicts, or shall we tell the people that God has done all He can do and He now waits on them to do their part?”
In your statement you are missing the assumption contained in the part of my blog that you quoted. I am not talking about people who preach a false gospel. You quoted my statement, for example,
“We need to ask ourselves, if God raised up some men in our day full of the Holy Spirit; men who are preaching the gospel and whose preaching God is mightily blessing with every biblical evidence of true conversions (not merely decisions, but real conversions)..etc..”
Note the assumption, I’m talking about people who are truly preaching the gospel not people who are not preaching the gospel.
One point I’m simply seeking to make in the blog is that God can sometimes raise up men from unlikely places who are truly converted and are effectively preaching the gospel though in other areas of doctrine they may be off or very immature. Those men are our brothers in Christ. Luther began preaching the gospel while he was still in the Roman Catholic church and it took some time for him to work out all the connections and implications of what God was showing him. The same was true with Latimer and a number of the reformers. To deny that God sometimes does that is to me itself a denial of Calvinism and the sovereignty of God. The fact is that God did raise up men in the evangelical awakening who were out of the church of England, who were Anglican, but were filled with the Holy Spirit and preached the gospel with power and many souls were genuinely converted under their preaching. Men like Whitefield, Rowlands, Romaine, Grimshaw, and later John Newton just to name a few. Some of them remained in the Anglican church their whole ministries. Would you have rejected the work God did through those men and refused to have anything to do with them because their doctrine did not line up with everything we believe as RB’s. I don’t think that’s what you mean, brother. Well if you wouldn’t then the fact is you and I are in agreement. This is what I suspect. But If you would then I guess we do, in fact, disagree.
Jeff Smith
February 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Dear Jeff,
I really do appreciate your response. I believe that your article series is provided to all of us (RB pastors and other readers) in a spirit of godly concern. I do trust and believe that we should guard against our apparent “RB tendency” to think ourselves right and everyone else wrong. There is really nothing more pathetic than a Calvinist who uses his theology as a billy club or source of pride over and against the “lesser-read” believers. On the other hand, let us not use a false humility or any other “Calvinist guilt complex” as a bushel under which to hide the blessed truths of the Gospel. When we are right, then by God’s grace, let us stand up and be counted! Let us be separated unto the Gospel!
I find it striking that in order to justify “working together in so far as we can” with Pentecostals, you provide a litany of names from the C of E. Why didn’t you provide a list of Pentecostals as well? There is no way you believe that the differences between RBs and other Reformed Protestants (Baptism, Church Government, differences regarding the Covenant) are of the same type as those differences between RBs and Pentecostals (rank Arminianism, continuation of revelation, sign gifts, women preachers, slain in the spirit, tongues, shaking/jerking, gold dust, miracle teeth fillings, name-it/claim-it, etc.).
I stated in my original response that I believed the LBCF to be a “reasonable guide” for us in these matters. I never stated in any way, shape, or form that “full subscription” to the LBCF was my only standard for fellowship. My point of contention with your article is not whether Reformed Baptists could discerningly support our “Westmister cousins.” Of course we can and should. We owe much to the Reformers who came before and even after the English Particular Baptists. The Second LBCF is proof of that in and of itself.
But regarding Pentecostals and the others on the wrong side of Dort, we simply cannot afford to place a “90% imprimatur” on any ministry, personality, or denomination that openly teaches doctrines that are at complete odds with what we believe the Bible actually teaches regarding salvation. I mean, honestly, the Assemblies of God has position papers on their official website denying the Sovereignty of God! If a man is preaching the genuine Gospel, why is he still associating with a movement that is Wesleyan/Arminian to its very core? He needs to come out of that mess! I was one of those Pentecostal-turned-Reformed Baptist preachers and I ran from the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) as quickly as I could once God graciously opened the Reformed faith to me and my family. A man who continues to preach under the authority of an Arminian denomination which denies the Sovereignty of God in salvation (“free-will worship”, insecurity of the soul, etc.) does not need or deserve our public support. He needs our strong admonition to depart from that movement and join a solidly Reformed church.
I understand that your article makes it clear that you believe we should only work with others “in so far as we can.” But the very questions I raised in my previous response will most certainly be the questions that any Reformed Baptist preacher will be forced to deal with if he attempts even the smallest level of cooperation with a Pentecostal preacher or church. The questions I posed are “nuts and bolts” style questions. And if we choose to work with Pentecostals, even so-called Calvinist Pentecostals, we will be forced to take a hard look at just how far we are willing to compromise.
So, practically speaking, just how far can a Reformed Baptist Church go in supporting any work which openly proclaims doctrines which are hostile to our Confession? It is not enough to tell our people that we support “Pastor _________’s preaching ministry” so long as we warn them that much of his doctrine is immature or uninformed. This isn’t good stewardship of the flock. We must guard and tend to the flock.
In the end, we will not fall into the same trap of the English Baptists as long as we preach the glorious Gospel of Christ in its fullness and power. To believe anything else is to, in your words, “deny Calvinism and the Sovereignty of God.”
God Bless you and keep you in perfect peace, Brother Jeff!
Jason Boothe
February 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
[...] with 16 comments Site has moved. Click here. [...]