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

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

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

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.

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…

David