# A Reformed Minister Preaching at Non-Reformed churches?



## Jonathan David Foster

Is it wrong for a Reformed minister to preach at non-Reformed churches?

For example, I was asked to preach at a Korean "Full Gospel" Pentecostal church when the preacher (a woman) was on a mission trip. I accepted the invitation and preached a thoroughly Reformed sermon to the congregation.

Is it right for me to preach in these situations? On the one hand, I think it is good to preach the gospel whenever and wherever one can. On the other hand, if a visitor likes the sermon, it may encourage them to attend that church. What do you think?


----------



## Pergamum

If I were given two opportunities in a given weekend, (1). To preach at a solid Reformed church, or (2) To preach for a Full Gospel church....I'd pick the Full Gospel church every single time! There is greater need there and a greater urgency.

In most cases, you won't be forced to compromise your beliefs. You need not be purposely offensive, but you can address some of their weaknesses in a winsome way. The last time I preached at a Full Gospel church, I preached on the sufficiency of the Word of God from 2 Peter 1:



> For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
> 
> 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
> 
> 19 *We have also a more sure word of prophecy*; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:


----------



## Pergamum

At one church, the pastor asked me to do an altar call. I politely told him that I didn't want to and that I would include an invitation within my sermon, but that I could step down afterwards and he could continue. So, I preached the sermon and gave an invitation within my sermon. Then I stepped down and the pastor cued the music and set up the dramatics. While this was less than ideal, I did get to preach a full gospel message to a church that needed it. Some may see this as endorsing an unbiblical pattern, however. Though, I did mention that one can be saved anywhere in the church and that going forward might actually be a hindrance if somebody trusted in that action rather than the work of Christ for their salvation (in a polite way, not undermining the resident pastor)


----------



## Grimmson

Pergamum said:


> If I were given two opportunities in a given weekend, (1). To preach at a solid Reformed church, or (2) To preach for a Full Gospel church....I'd pick the Full Gospel church every single time! There is greater need there and a greater urgency.



I completely agree. I think a true preacher of the Word would want to preach at any given opportunity he is given. On an issue like this I think it is a good idea to have Romans 10:15 in mind.


----------



## Jack K

I can relate to what Pergamum has said, and I agree with him. I get asked to teach lessons for kids at churches and camps of all sorts of affiliations. I tend to say yes, and the impact seems to be biggest with groups that are further from my usual crowds. Those places need Christ more, and I'm happy to teach lessons that point to him.

I think I would have concerns if a group that clearly ran afoul of the historic creeds were to invite me, but that hasn't happened yet. Occasionally I ask a few questions to make sure they don't expect something I can't give them. And I remember nicely insisting once that a camp scrap their plans to invite kids to be baptized on the spot following my talk.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

au5t1n said:


> Although perhaps not the most qualified, I will be the dissenting voice. Certainly any true minister desires to preach to anyone and everyone, but the circumstances matter. To preach as a guest preacher of a church that confesses a different gospel is ostensibly to endorse that church as a true church holding forth a true gospel.



This articulates my concern well. For example, I would never preach at a Roman Catholic church, because it teaches another gospel and is therefore an apostate church. But in the case of other Protestant churches, the question becomes more complicated. For example, if the congregation is Arminian, they still confess salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. So I believe that they still teach the basic gospel. But in such churches, the gospel becomes obscured, since Arminianism is inconsistent with the idea of salvation by grace alone. I do not want to endorse Arminian teaching. So does preaching in such a church compromise one's ministry?


----------



## OneOfHisElect

I have been faced with this same situation. My cousin gave me an open door to preach at his church any time I wished. He is well aware of my Reformed standing and yet he is a hardened Arminian. I have often wondered if it was right to preach there or not and currently I have yet to preach there. My view on the matter is that while we see the Reformed doctrine as truly Biblical, we cannot ignore the fact of people being saved in Arminian churches. If I were faced with the invitation to preach at another Arminian church that knew little about me I would be upfront and honest about being Reformed and I would make it known that I would not compromise that in my preaching. Upon doing so I would let the pastor decide whether or not to let me preach. Not sure if this was helpful but if nothing else you know you are not alone in this type of situation.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

OneOfHisElect said:


> I have been faced with this same situation. My cousin gave me an open door to preach at his church any time I wished. He is well aware of my Reformed standing and yet he is a hardened Arminian. I have often wondered if it was right to preach there or not and currently I have yet to preach there. My view on the matter is that while we see the Reformed doctrine as truly Biblical, we cannot ignore the fact of people being saved in Arminian churches. If I were faced with the invitation to preach at another Arminian church that knew little about me I would be upfront and honest about being Reformed and I would make it known that I would not compromise that in my preaching. Upon doing so I would let the pastor decide whether or not to let me preach. Not sure if this was helpful but if nothing else you know you are not alone in this type of situation.



Yes, I am assuming that the church is fully aware of one's Reformed convictions and has given the preacher full freedom to preach as he sees fit. Usually, such churches aren't that concerned about theological differences.


----------



## Pergamum

au5t1n said:


> Although perhaps not the most qualified, I will be the dissenting voice. Certainly any true minister desires to preach to anyone and everyone, but the circumstances matter. To preach as a guest preacher of a church that confesses a different gospel is ostensibly to endorse that church as a true church holding forth a true gospel.



A DIFFERENT Gospel? Or the same gospel at a non-reformed church?


----------



## Pergamum

Jonathan David Foster said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although perhaps not the most qualified, I will be the dissenting voice. Certainly any true minister desires to preach to anyone and everyone, but the circumstances matter. To preach as a guest preacher of a church that confesses a different gospel is ostensibly to endorse that church as a true church holding forth a true gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This articulates my concern well. For example, I would never preach at a Roman Catholic church, because it teaches another gospel and is therefore an apostate church. But in the case of other Protestant churches, the question becomes more complicated. For example, if the congregation is Arminian, they still confess salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. So I believe that they still teach the basic gospel. But in such churches, the gospel becomes obscured, since Arminianism is inconsistent with the idea of salvation by grace alone. I do not want to endorse Arminian teaching. So does preaching in such a church compromise one's ministry?
Click to expand...


What if you were given the freedom to speak as you would? 

And you refused any funds. And you even refused to pray for their ministries? Would you give up 40-45 minutes to clearly present the Gospel then?


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Pergamum said:


> Jonathan David Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although perhaps not the most qualified, I will be the dissenting voice. Certainly any true minister desires to preach to anyone and everyone, but the circumstances matter. To preach as a guest preacher of a church that confesses a different gospel is ostensibly to endorse that church as a true church holding forth a true gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This articulates my concern well. For example, I would never preach at a Roman Catholic church, because it teaches another gospel and is therefore an apostate church. But in the case of other Protestant churches, the question becomes more complicated. For example, if the congregation is Arminian, they still confess salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. So I believe that they still teach the basic gospel. But in such churches, the gospel becomes obscured, since Arminianism is inconsistent with the idea of salvation by grace alone. I do not want to endorse Arminian teaching. So does preaching in such a church compromise one's ministry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you were given the freedom to speak as you would?
> 
> And you refused any funds. And you even refused to pray for their ministries? Would you give up 40-45 minutes to clearly present the Gospel then?
Click to expand...


Like I said, assume that the preacher is allowed the full freedom to preach according to his convictions.

If one could somehow make clear that one did not endorse the false doctrines of the church, then there would be no problem in preaching there.

However, what church in it's right mind would allow such a thing?


----------



## Pergamum

Jonathan David Foster said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan David Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although perhaps not the most qualified, I will be the dissenting voice. Certainly any true minister desires to preach to anyone and everyone, but the circumstances matter. To preach as a guest preacher of a church that confesses a different gospel is ostensibly to endorse that church as a true church holding forth a true gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This articulates my concern well. For example, I would never preach at a Roman Catholic church, because it teaches another gospel and is therefore an apostate church. But in the case of other Protestant churches, the question becomes more complicated. For example, if the congregation is Arminian, they still confess salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. So I believe that they still teach the basic gospel. But in such churches, the gospel becomes obscured, since Arminianism is inconsistent with the idea of salvation by grace alone. I do not want to endorse Arminian teaching. So does preaching in such a church compromise one's ministry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you were given the freedom to speak as you would?
> 
> And you refused any funds. And you even refused to pray for their ministries? Would you give up 40-45 minutes to clearly present the Gospel then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, assume that the preacher is allowed the full freedom to preach according to his convictions.
> 
> If one could somehow make clear that one did not endorse the false doctrines of the church, then there would be no problem in preaching there.
> 
> However, what church in it's right mind would allow such a thing?
Click to expand...


Some groups have allowed me since I've been involved in projects with a strong social-humanitarian aspect to them (clinic, school, etc.)...it gets me a free pass into some groups whereas otherwise a conservative Fundamentalist Calvinistic, Non-Dispensational, Non-Charismatic, patriarchal, Baptist would not. p.s. please pray for my visa so I can get back to that context.


----------



## johnny

Does it count that Jesus Himself preached to a Samaritan Woman.
Or is this drawing too long a bow?

John 4:39 From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things that I have done.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they were asking Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. 41 Many more believed because of His word; 42 and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

johnny said:


> Does it count that Jesus Himself preached to a Samaritan Woman.
> Or is this drawing too long a bow?
> 
> John 4:39 From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, â€œHe told me all the things that I have done.â€ 40 So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they were asking Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. 41 Many more believed because of His word; 42 and they were saying to the woman, â€œIt is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.â€



That is an interesting point. However, Jesus did not preach to them from the pulpit of a Samaritan synagogue. And he also told them that their place of worship was false:

John 4:20: "'Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.' 21 Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.'"

Of course, non-Reformed churches are not in the same category as Samaritan synagogues, so the analogy is pretty loose.


----------



## Cymro

I think it's pretty fruitless if there are contrary doctrines. For unless one is given unrestricted permission to preach the sense of the reformed gospel, then really the sermon will be a sort of general surface gospel which essentially instructs no-one, and compromises ones own position. It depends also if the church shows a willingness to reform. Preaching two or three times will reveal that, and a negative response will be a signal to discontinue supplying. I when asked, make it plain that I either would be allowed four Psalms in the worship, or else an elder would have to announce the hymns which I would refrain from singing. I go to a hymn singing church which permits the 4 Psalms, sings them enthusiastically, even repeating a verse that touched the heart. Afterward it generates discussion about EP. On the other hand, being asked to preach at another church the Minister assented to my request, but being asked back the second time, the Organist refused to agree to the psalms.Organ tyranny! I was more than happy to have no musical accompaniment, but the Minister now had a problem. So I declined the invitation to save him embarrassment. Strange how Christians object to singing the word of God.


----------



## Jake

I found this a while ago which in the second half touches on RPCNA ministers leading worship in other denominations. I know you're not in the RPCNA, but you might find it interesting as well.

http://wasdin.net/jake/main/archives/192


----------



## Pergamum

au5t1n said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although perhaps not the most qualified, I will be the dissenting voice. Certainly any true minister desires to preach to anyone and everyone, but the circumstances matter. To preach as a guest preacher of a church that confesses a different gospel is ostensibly to endorse that church as a true church holding forth a true gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A DIFFERENT Gospel? Or the same gospel at a non-reformed church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The example given was called a "Full Gospel" church. They are announcing in their name that they have a different gospel.
Click to expand...


They listened well. I believe there were saved folk there (who just believed in miraculous signs as well). I don't believe it was necessarily a different gospel....just a gospel without the Holy Spirit deleted (they would say). If the Corinthians were called a church by Paul, I might be tempted to call this group a church. They gave me freedom and as much time as I needed. And bow did they shout AMEN real loud... and many said they affirmed all that I said after a full complete Gospel presentation.


----------



## Toasty

Pergamum said:


> At one church, the pastor asked me to do an altar call. I politely told him that I didn't want to and that I would include an invitation within my sermon, but that I could step down afterwards and he could continue. So, I preached the sermon and gave an invitation within my sermon. Then I stepped down and the pastor cued the music and set up the dramatics. While this was less than ideal, I did get to preach a full gospel message to a church that needed it. Some may see this as endorsing an unbiblical pattern, however. Though, I did mention that one can be saved anywhere in the church and that going forward might actually be a hindrance if somebody trusted in that action rather than the work of Christ for their salvation (in a polite way, not undermining the resident pastor)



I would like to add that altar calls are unnecessary. One does not need an altar call in order to know that he must repent and believe in Christ now. People can believe in Christ right where they are sitting.


----------



## Toasty

Jonathan David Foster said:


> Is it wrong for a Reformed minister to preach at non-Reformed churches?
> 
> For example, I was asked to preach at a Korean "Full Gospel" Pentecostal church when the preacher (a woman) was on a mission trip. I accepted the invitation and preached a thoroughly Reformed sermon to the congregation.
> 
> Is it right for me to preach in these situations? On the one hand, I think it is good to preach the gospel whenever and wherever one can. On the other hand, if a visitor likes the sermon, it may encourage them to attend that church. What do you think?



If the church does not proclaim a false gospel, then I don't think it would be wrong.


----------



## Pergamum

Toasty said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> At one church, the pastor asked me to do an altar call. I politely told him that I didn't want to and that I would include an invitation within my sermon, but that I could step down afterwards and he could continue. So, I preached the sermon and gave an invitation within my sermon. Then I stepped down and the pastor cued the music and set up the dramatics. While this was less than ideal, I did get to preach a full gospel message to a church that needed it. Some may see this as endorsing an unbiblical pattern, however. Though, I did mention that one can be saved anywhere in the church and that going forward might actually be a hindrance if somebody trusted in that action rather than the work of Christ for their salvation (in a polite way, not undermining the resident pastor)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to add that altar calls are unnecessary. One does not need an altar call in order to know that he must repent and believe in Christ now. People can believe in Christ right where they are sitting.
Click to expand...


Yes. My point was that this was their standing practice. I did not approve, but the pastor seemed gracious and generous in allowing me to speak and then exit before he did "his thing" with the altar call. I did not make it a point to preach a sermon against the altar call, though. We need not be 100% agreed with a church in order to attempt to bless the people there.


----------



## Scott Bushey

The Reformed should never miss an opportunity to preach truth. If a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon congregation ever allowed me to give witness, that is exactly what I would do. Return visits would be doubtful. [emoji41]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jack K

Allow me to suggest that the context of the invitation may matter a great deal. Is the other church attempting to use the Reformed minister to somehow promote its errors? Then be wary.

But if the other church sees something they like in the Reformed minister and asks him to speak because they are hungry for truth and instruction (even if they don't quite agree with him yet), I would think the minister practically has an obligation to go and preach. How can a minister of the gospel say "no, I won't preach the truth to you until you agree with me first"? Remember that as long as the worshipers were willing to listen and yearning for truth, Paul happily preached in Jewish synagogues.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

I don't know if it was Spurgeon or someone similar, but I heard someone say "I'd preach in the Vatican (or in Mecca) if they let me preach Christ fully."


----------



## TylerRay

Jack K said:


> Allow me to suggest that the context of the invitation may matter a great deal. Is the other church attempting to use the Reformed minister to somehow promote its errors? Then be wary.
> 
> But if the other church sees something they like in the Reformed minister and asks him to speak because they are hungry for truth and instruction (even if they don't quite agree with him yet), I would think the minister practically has an obligation to go and preach. How can a minister of the gospel say "no, I won't preach the truth to you until you agree with me first"? Remember that as long as the worshipers were willing to listen and yearning for truth, Paul happily preached in Jewish synagogues.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If given an opportunity to preach or teach to anyone who claims Christ then I will do so. It's an opportunity to preach the Gospel. The fact that they claim Christ makes it even more urgent if the Gospel is not being preached in a given Church for they are under greater condemnation and their undershepherds are leaving them impoverished.

I don't say this to be prideful but I literally blow the minds of some Christians when I teach them. They just never hear the Scriptures taught the way the Scriptures themselves teach. They are so accustomed to "contextualization" that they never hear the Scriptures taught in the language of the Scriptures. There's a particular group that I teach on occasion and they are accustomed to everything being focused on ethics and Christian witness. I teach them on faith and repentance or indwelling sin and they're blown away. They just don't get it regularly.


----------



## catechumen

I once met a minister of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), one of the most warm-hearted and powerful preachers of the gospel I have met. In the days before the fall of the Iron Curtain, he used to make regular trips to preach in Reformed and evangelical churches in Eastern bloc countries, especially Hungary. 

On one occasion, the local Roman Catholic priest attended his preaching and was delighted with what he heard. He implored the Free Church minister to come and speak to his own congregation, saying they needed to hear what he had to say. The minister was in something of a quandary, as you can imagine, but the two of them managed to arrange a mid-week meeting that would not include any celebration of the Mass, and the priest was able to bring his whole congregation to hear the gospel preached powerfully and winsomely. 

I understand some of the concerns expressed on this thread, but honestly, with the safeguards that were put in place, I cannot see how the Free Church minister could have done otherwise without failing to uphold his duty to preach the gospel. On top of the obstacles inherent in a Catholic setting, these people were also living under the shadow of Communist oppression, with the many opportunities we take for granted unavailable to them. Humanly speaking, how would they have heard the gospel otherwise?


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't say this to be prideful but I literally blow the minds of some Christians when I teach them. They just never hear the Scriptures taught the way the Scriptures themselves teach. They are so accustomed to "contextualization" that they never hear the Scriptures taught in the language of the Scriptures. There's a particular group that I teach on occasion and they are accustomed to everything being focused on ethics and Christian witness. I teach them on faith and repentance or indwelling sin and they're blown away. They just don't get it regularly.



This is my experience as well. 

You don't need to worry about whether preaching is 'reformed' or not. Allow truth to teach itself and those who hear the Savior's voice will receive it and they won't care what its called. Starving people don't care about all of the labels we use. They hunger for the Word of God period.

Would you withhold meat from starving vegetarians?


----------



## ZackF

KMK said:


> Would you withhold meat from starving vegetarians?



Perfect analogy as most starving vegetarians would hold the meat from themselves anyway!


----------



## Jack K

au5t1n said:


> Jack,
> "Remember that as long as the worshipers were willing to listen and yearning for truth, Paul happily preached in Jewish synagogues."
> 
> I do not think this is an apples to apples comparison. The synagogues were the true visible churches of those cities when Paul arrived. Had they accepted his message, they would have remained the true churches and incorporated Gentiles, etc. Only when they rejected the message were separate churches formed.
> 
> If one is going in order to preach contrary to the doctrine of these churches, then one should at least be completely honest about this up front. My concern is not with preaching to a particular group but with whether the preaching is understood to be to the church or on behalf of that church.



Yes, I agree the example from Paul does not exactly fit the situation we're discussing here. But I suggest the principle is similar and is worth our consideration.

-------------------

Although I am not a minister, I think my experience can partly address some of the concerns about a guest speaker being seen to represent a church when he speaks. On a handful of occasions, I have been invited to speak at the local Adventist church/school, and I have always said yes. The reaction to this has been as follows:

- Several times, people at the Adventist church have expressed thanks and said my talks enlarged their appreciation of the gospel or gave kids there some badly needed teaching. Some of them have shown up at my church later. Some of those kids from the school have ended up attending Bible camps I teach at or are part of my church (though I can't know if any of that has to do with me).

- Always the reaction in my home church has been positive. People there figure I'm sharing good material with the Adventists and are glad to see it happening. They don't think I'm becoming an Adventist or starting to speak for them.

- Never that I know of have I had someone mistakenly think I was an Adventist.

- Once I had an acquaintance hear I was speaking there and tell my wife, "I guess that means it's a pretty good place, if Jack speaks there."

I consider that last scenario to be a valid concern. It is possible that people see a speaker's presence at a certain church as a semi-endorsement. However, I think that reaction is fairly rare. Most people recognize the difference between a guest speaker and representative of the church. And the positives are strong enough to outweigh the concerns, in my experience.


----------



## Jake

I wonder if this would have any relationship to something like this: http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/now-im-really-confused-about-complementarianism#.Vow-5VUrLIV

Could a Reformed minster preach at a conference like Passion 2016 in good conference if asked to do so?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Here is my layman's concern about this, and I realize this is a general concern and doesn't necessarily pertain to the experience of any of the ministers on this thread. 

It's been my experience that people hear sound teaching and preaching through the grid of whatever false beliefs they tend to hold. Thus they may cherry-pick and embrace a bit of reformed thinking, a bit of charismatic thinking, a bit of mysticism, etc. (bits of leaven in the lump! Which the apostles didn't tolerate.) Even apparently regenerate Christians do this. 

It keeps people continuing to hold to and spread false doctrine, as they have not been plainly corrected. I realized some time ago that it's not enough to teach the truth positively to people who are in error; they must also, negatively, be plainly told that their false beliefs are wrong, that they are holding to error.. Otherwise, they don't get that what the sound teacher is telling them is the opposite of what they believe! 

It's a fact in teaching that people must come to know that they don't know, that they are wrong, before they can learn and embrace the truth. So, for a minister to continue to speak to groups of people who are in serious error, and for those people to remain unoffended, can be a bad sign, can't it? I have seen this first-hand, coming from and being in churches where charismatic/mystical beliefs are embraced. The people liked John Piper and Joyce Meyer and Tommy Tinney equally- they took what they liked from each teacher. In God's mercy some may see the inconsistencies and start to dig deeper, and come to a better knowledge of the truth. But does this possibility or hope absolve the minister of a duty to plainly tell people they are in serious error? I'm just asking. 

I know a minister doesn't want to lose his opportunity to speak to groups with false ideas of God, but Paul didn't seem to make retaining that opportunity a factor in what he told deceived people. He told the truth always, not just positively but negatively. So I'm wondering, should a minister be willing to speak to a group about the gospel, without the up-front understanding that this includes speaking to the false beliefs of the group- with the possibility of never being invited back (or maybe being stoned by the resulting angry mob!) 

I've seen first-hand what can happen when, for instance, a reformed sbc minister came to an arminian/decisional leaning church and began teaching, though subtly, the doctrines of grace, and didn't get around to telling the people plainly that their false beliefs are wrong. It caused a long, drawn-out process where division and hurt were the painful and relationship-damaging fallout; not that good things didn't happen, as well. God is gracious.

So looking to the apostles (particularly Paul), and to Christ, wouldn't openly telling the people the truth in every way. both positively and negatively, so they walk away with no confusion or misunderstanding about what the minister is saying the Bible teaches, be the way to go? I understand that to really do this, fewer occasions to speak to such groups might be the result. I'm just positing that perhaps there's more damage done by giving deceived audiences the option to add to their cherry-picking than is realized. And I don't think any of the fine ministers here on PB would disagree with this.


----------



## lynnie

Jake said:


> I wonder if this would have any relationship to something like this: http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/now-im-really-confused-about-complementarianism#.Vow-5VUrLIV
> 
> Could a Reformed minster preach at a conference like Passion 2016 in good conference if asked to do so?



Yikes. Did you see the quote at the bottom where the woman preacher extolled Joyce Meyer? 

I am woman and I could not even go to a woman's conference with word of faith teachers on the line up. Arminians and Dispensationalists are one thing, they have what Machen referred to as a deficient gospel. But Meyer and the positive confession people? They have a different gospel entirely. 

Full gospel and charismatic used to be just arminian plus tongues and other gifts. If that is all it is, you can be a blessing to them talking about our great and sovereign God. But be really careful not to even give a hint of endorsing the word of faith teachers. (See D R McConnell's book " A Different Gospel" for further study)


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Lynnie, that's a good example (for the how many-th year in a row for John Piper, in this case) speaking positively of the gospel but not speaking the truth negatively, i.e. publicly denouncing the false teaching heard and embraced by the attendees.


----------



## Toasty

Jack K said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jack,
> "Remember that as long as the worshipers were willing to listen and yearning for truth, Paul happily preached in Jewish synagogues."
> 
> I do not think this is an apples to apples comparison. The synagogues were the true visible churches of those cities when Paul arrived. Had they accepted his message, they would have remained the true churches and incorporated Gentiles, etc. Only when they rejected the message were separate churches formed.
> 
> If one is going in order to preach contrary to the doctrine of these churches, then one should at least be completely honest about this up front. My concern is not with preaching to a particular group but with whether the preaching is understood to be to the church or on behalf of that church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree the example from Paul does not exactly fit the situation we're discussing here. But I suggest the principle is similar and is worth our consideration.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Although I am not a minister, I think my experience can partly address some of the concerns about a guest speaker being seen to represent a church when he speaks. On a handful of occasions, I have been invited to speak at the local Adventist church/school, and I have always said yes. The reaction to this has been as follows:
> 
> - Several times, people at the Adventist church have expressed thanks and said my talks enlarged their appreciation of the gospel or gave kids there some badly needed teaching. Some of them have shown up at my church later. Some of those kids from the school have ended up attending Bible camps I teach at or are part of my church (though I can't know if any of that has to do with me).
> 
> - Always the reaction in my home church has been positive. People there figure I'm sharing good material with the Adventists and are glad to see it happening. They don't think I'm becoming an Adventist or starting to speak for them.
> 
> - Never that I know of have I had someone mistakenly think I was an Adventist.
> 
> - Once I had an acquaintance hear I was speaking there and tell my wife, "I guess that means it's a pretty good place, if Jack speaks there."
> 
> I consider that last scenario to be a valid concern. It is possible that people see a speaker's presence at a certain church as a semi-endorsement. However, I think that reaction is fairly rare. Most people recognize the difference between a guest speaker and representative of the church. And the positives are strong enough to outweigh the concerns, in my experience.
Click to expand...


Did those people at the Adventist Church see any difference between what you were preaching and what they believe the gospel to be?


----------



## Toasty

I don't think a non-Reformed church would allow a Reformed guest preacher to preach things that are contrary to what that non-Reformed church teaches. The non-Reformed church would allow him to preach on anything as long as it does not contradict what that non-Reformed church teaches.


----------



## Jack K

Toasty said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jack,
> "Remember that as long as the worshipers were willing to listen and yearning for truth, Paul happily preached in Jewish synagogues."
> 
> I do not think this is an apples to apples comparison. The synagogues were the true visible churches of those cities when Paul arrived. Had they accepted his message, they would have remained the true churches and incorporated Gentiles, etc. Only when they rejected the message were separate churches formed.
> 
> If one is going in order to preach contrary to the doctrine of these churches, then one should at least be completely honest about this up front. My concern is not with preaching to a particular group but with whether the preaching is understood to be to the church or on behalf of that church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree the example from Paul does not exactly fit the situation we're discussing here. But I suggest the principle is similar and is worth our consideration.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Although I am not a minister, I think my experience can partly address some of the concerns about a guest speaker being seen to represent a church when he speaks. On a handful of occasions, I have been invited to speak at the local Adventist church/school, and I have always said yes. The reaction to this has been as follows:
> 
> - Several times, people at the Adventist church have expressed thanks and said my talks enlarged their appreciation of the gospel or gave kids there some badly needed teaching. Some of them have shown up at my church later. Some of those kids from the school have ended up attending Bible camps I teach at or are part of my church (though I can't know if any of that has to do with me).
> 
> - Always the reaction in my home church has been positive. People there figure I'm sharing good material with the Adventists and are glad to see it happening. They don't think I'm becoming an Adventist or starting to speak for them.
> 
> - Never that I know of have I had someone mistakenly think I was an Adventist.
> 
> - Once I had an acquaintance hear I was speaking there and tell my wife, "I guess that means it's a pretty good place, if Jack speaks there."
> 
> I consider that last scenario to be a valid concern. It is possible that people see a speaker's presence at a certain church as a semi-endorsement. However, I think that reaction is fairly rare. Most people recognize the difference between a guest speaker and representative of the church. And the positives are strong enough to outweigh the concerns, in my experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did those people at the Adventist Church see any difference between what you were preaching and what they believe the gospel to be?
Click to expand...


There are some significant differences between Adventist beliefs and Reformed or even typical evangelical beliefs, which makes my speaking there a suitable example for this discussion. But I don't think many Adventists I know would say, even after listening to me, that they believe the core of our idea of the gospel is different.

However, I will say that in many places I speak (to not single out any person in any church in particular) people seem to find my teaching refreshing because I focus less on what we should do to be good and more on Jesus, the only purely good person I know. Sometimes I say things about Jesus and his saving work they've never heard before. Is this a different gospel? Well, it is at least a different emphasis and a bigger gospel, and it does get noticed, even if folks don't call it a different gospel.


----------



## TylerRay

2 John 10 and 11 should be borne in mind when dealing with false teachers:


> If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.



Gill writes:


> *For he that biddeth him God speed*
> Wishes him well, and success in his ministry, or in a friendly and familiar way converses with him:
> 
> *is partaker of his evil deeds*
> He has fellowship with him, instead of reproving or shunning him, as he ought; he is an abettor of him in his principles, and so far joins in the propagation of them, and helps to spread them, and gives too much reason to think he is one with him in them.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Cymro said:


> I think it's pretty fruitless if there are contrary doctrines. For unless one is given unrestricted permission to preach the sense of the reformed gospel, then really the sermon will be a sort of general surface gospel which essentially instructs no-one, and compromises ones own position. It depends also if the church shows a willingness to reform. Preaching two or three times will reveal that, and a negative response will be a signal to discontinue supplying. I when asked, make it plain that I either would be allowed four Psalms in the worship, or else an elder would have to announce the hymns which I would refrain from singing. I go to a hymn singing church which permits the 4 Psalms, sings them enthusiastically, even repeating a verse that touched the heart. Afterward it generates discussion about EP. On the other hand, being asked to preach at another church the Minister assented to my request, but being asked back the second time, the Organist refused to agree to the psalms.Organ tyranny! I was more than happy to have no musical accompaniment, but the Minister now had a problem. So I declined the invitation to save him embarrassment. Strange how Christians object to singing the word of God.



So if no restrictions were put upon what is said, and the congregation shows willingness to reform, you would not be opposed to the idea.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Jake said:


> I found this a while ago which in the second half touches on RPCNA ministers leading worship in other denominations. I know you're not in the RPCNA, but you might find it interesting as well.
> 
> http://wasdin.net/jake/main/archives/192



The Vos article which is quoted sounds interesting.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

au5t1n said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although perhaps not the most qualified, I will be the dissenting voice. Certainly any true minister desires to preach to anyone and everyone, but the circumstances matter. To preach as a guest preacher of a church that confesses a different gospel is ostensibly to endorse that church as a true church holding forth a true gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A DIFFERENT Gospel? Or the same gospel at a non-reformed church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The example given was called a "Full Gospel" church. They are announcing in their name that they have a different gospel.
Click to expand...


"Full Gospel" is a phrase used generally in Pentecostalism. Would you pronounce the anathemas of Galatians upon all Pentecostals?


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Toasty said:


> Jonathan David Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it wrong for a Reformed minister to preach at non-Reformed churches?
> 
> For example, I was asked to preach at a Korean "Full Gospel" Pentecostal church when the preacher (a woman) was on a mission trip. I accepted the invitation and preached a thoroughly Reformed sermon to the congregation.
> 
> Is it right for me to preach in these situations? On the one hand, I think it is good to preach the gospel whenever and wherever one can. On the other hand, if a visitor likes the sermon, it may encourage them to attend that church. What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the church does not proclaim a false gospel, then I don't think it would be wrong.
Click to expand...


Even if we grant it is not wrong, the question still remains, is it wise?


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Toasty said:


> Jonathan David Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it wrong for a Reformed minister to preach at non-Reformed churches?
> 
> For example, I was asked to preach at a Korean "Full Gospel" Pentecostal church when the preacher (a woman) was on a mission trip. I accepted the invitation and preached a thoroughly Reformed sermon to the congregation.
> 
> Is it right for me to preach in these situations? On the one hand, I think it is good to preach the gospel whenever and wherever one can. On the other hand, if a visitor likes the sermon, it may encourage them to attend that church. What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the church does not proclaim a false gospel, then I don't think it would be wrong.
Click to expand...


Even if we grant it is not wrong, the question still remains, is it wise?


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Scott Bushey said:


> The Reformed should never miss an opportunity to preach truth. If a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon congregation ever allowed me to give witness, that is exactly what I would do. Return visits would be doubtful. [emoji41]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yes, you would do so in way what made clear that you opposed their false organizations. 

But If you are preaching to true churches with errant theology, would you preach the same way?


----------



## Pergamum

A good test case would be baptists invited to preach at Presbyterian churches or Presbyterians invited into Baptist pulpits. It is no sign of compromise if they preach a basic gospel message and entirely leave off any mention of baptism. One is not a "compromiser" if invited into the opposite pulpit and he fails to tell the other denomination what is wrong with their view of baptism (i.e. he fails to correct their errant theology)...it is mere politeness, because both sides recognize the other as brothers. Plus, the purpose of the invitation may have been to preach upon a designated topic.


----------



## Cymro

I would Jonathan.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Jack K said:


> Allow me to suggest that the context of the invitation may matter a great deal. Is the other church attempting to use the Reformed minister to somehow promote its errors? Then be wary.
> 
> But if the other church sees something they like in the Reformed minister and asks him to speak because they are hungry for truth and instruction (even if they don't quite agree with him yet), I would think the minister practically has an obligation to go and preach. How can a minister of the gospel say "no, I won't preach the truth to you until you agree with me first"? Remember that as long as the worshipers were willing to listen and yearning for truth, Paul happily preached in Jewish synagogues.



Yes, although Paul directly preached about the change that was required in their doctrine and was often kicked out because of what he said.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I don't know if it was Spurgeon or someone similar, but I heard someone say "I'd preach in the Vatican (or in Mecca) if they let me preach Christ fully."



So what does he mean by preach Christ "fully". How would he have preached that sermon? Would he have been content to preach the doctrine of justification by faith alone positively, without directly saying that that their church was in error? Would that have been fully? 

Also, the Roman church is apostate, while non-Reformed Protestant churches are not necessarily so.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Semper Fidelis said:


> If given an opportunity to preach or teach to anyone who claims Christ then I will do so. It's an opportunity to preach the Gospel. The fact that they claim Christ makes it even more urgent if the Gospel is not being preached in a given Church for they are under greater condemnation and their undershepherds are leaving them impoverished.
> 
> I don't say this to be prideful but I literally blow the minds of some Christians when I teach them. They just never hear the Scriptures taught the way the Scriptures themselves teach. They are so accustomed to "contextualization" that they never hear the Scriptures taught in the language of the Scriptures. There's a particular group that I teach on occasion and they are accustomed to everything being focused on ethics and Christian witness. I teach them on faith and repentance or indwelling sin and they're blown away. They just don't get it regularly.



Yes~ I see the need and have a desire to teach sound doctrine to those who need it. But if we go about it in the wrong way, the effort could be counterproductive.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

catechumen said:


> I once met a minister of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), one of the most warm-hearted and powerful preachers of the gospel I have met. In the days before the fall of the Iron Curtain, he used to make regular trips to preach in Reformed and evangelical churches in Eastern bloc countries, especially Hungary.
> 
> On one occasion, the local Roman Catholic priest attended his preaching and was delighted with what he heard. He implored the Free Church minister to come and speak to his own congregation, saying they needed to hear what he had to say. The minister was in something of a quandary, as you can imagine, but the two of them managed to arrange a mid-week meeting that would not include any celebration of the Mass, and the priest was able to bring his whole congregation to hear the gospel preached powerfully and winsomely.
> 
> I understand some of the concerns expressed on this thread, but honestly, with the safeguards that were put in place, I cannot see how the Free Church minister could have done otherwise without failing to uphold his duty to preach the gospel. On top of the obstacles inherent in a Catholic setting, these people were also living under the shadow of Communist oppression, with the many opportunities we take for granted unavailable to them. Humanly speaking, how would they have heard the gospel otherwise?



That's an interesting story. It's great that he had the opportunity to share the gospel with those people. But he must have done so in a manner that was positively preaching the gospel only, rather than directly pointing our the errors of the Roman church.

We have to also think about the unintended consequences of taking such invitations. By preaching at a Catholic church, the people could have reasonably inferred that the minister viewed the Catholic church as a true church, just different from his own. I wonder how the local Protestant missionaries thought about what he did. The people would have been less likely to listen to Protestant missionaries who called them to break with the Catholic church and join a Protestant one. Also, even though he refused to preach at a mass, he probably didn't challenge their idolatrous practices directly, or the priest would not have invited him in the first place. 

So even if they heard the gospel once, they were not challenged to leave the false church. Since the church brought in such a dynamic guest speaker, it bolstered that church's ministry and encouraged people to continue to attend the Catholic church. And so, they would have gone on attending a church that teaches a false gospel and practices idolatry, thereby contradicting the gospel message that he was able to preach one time.

I realise it's a very cynical spin on the story, but are these not real concerns?


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Jake said:


> I wonder if this would have any relationship to something like this: http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/now-im-really-confused-about-complementarianism#.Vow-5VUrLIV
> 
> Could a Reformed minster preach at a conference like Passion 2016 in good conference if asked to do so?



I don't think one should.

However, to discuss guilt by association is similar to what fundamentalists did with Billy Graham, and it makes me feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

Jeri Tanner said:


> Here is my layman's concern about this, and I realize this is a general concern and doesn't necessarily pertain to the experience of any of the ministers on this thread.
> 
> It's been my experience that people hear sound teaching and preaching through the grid of whatever false beliefs they tend to hold. Thus they may cherry-pick and embrace a bit of reformed thinking, a bit of charismatic thinking, a bit of mysticism, etc. (bits of leaven in the lump! Which the apostles didn't tolerate.) Even apparently regenerate Christians do this.
> 
> It keeps people continuing to hold to and spread false doctrine, as they have not been plainly corrected. I realized some time ago that it's not enough to teach the truth positively to people who are in error; they must also, negatively, be plainly told that their false beliefs are wrong, that they are holding to error.. Otherwise, they don't get that what the sound teacher is telling them is the opposite of what they believe!
> 
> It's a fact in teaching that people must come to know that they don't know, that they are wrong, before they can learn and embrace the truth. So, for a minister to continue to speak to groups of people who are in serious error, and for those people to remain unoffended, can be a bad sign, can't it? I have seen this first-hand, coming from and being in churches where charismatic/mystical beliefs are embraced. The people liked John Piper and Joyce Meyer and Tommy Tinney equally- they took what they liked from each teacher. In God's mercy some may see the inconsistencies and start to dig deeper, and come to a better knowledge of the truth. But does this possibility or hope absolve the minister of a duty to plainly tell people they are in serious error? I'm just asking.
> 
> I know a minister doesn't want to lose his opportunity to speak to groups with false ideas of God, but Paul didn't seem to make retaining that opportunity a factor in what he told deceived people. He told the truth always, not just positively but negatively. So I'm wondering, should a minister be willing to speak to a group about the gospel, without the up-front understanding that this includes speaking to the false beliefs of the group- with the possibility of never being invited back (or maybe being stoned by the resulting angry mob!)
> 
> I've seen first-hand what can happen when, for instance, a reformed sbc minister came to an arminian/decisional leaning church and began teaching, though subtly, the doctrines of grace, and didn't get around to telling the people plainly that their false beliefs are wrong. It caused a long, drawn-out process where division and hurt were the painful and relationship-damaging fallout; not that good things didn't happen, as well. God is gracious.
> 
> So looking to the apostles (particularly Paul), and to Christ, wouldn't openly telling the people the truth in every way. both positively and negatively, so they walk away with no confusion or misunderstanding about what the minister is saying the Bible teaches, be the way to go? I understand that to really do this, fewer occasions to speak to such groups might be the result. I'm just positing that perhaps there's more damage done by giving deceived audiences the option to add to their cherry-picking than is realized. And I don't think any of the fine ministers here on PB would disagree with this.



This is helpful. When one is invited to a non-Reformed church, and even told that he is free to preach what he wants, there usually is an unspoken expectation that the guest speaker will not directly teach against the doctrine of the church. So the preacher can only preach positively the correct doctrine and not negatively point out the incorrect doctrine.


----------

