Knowing when to Separate

Actually, in my post #3 I did clearly refer to the word "cult" which you used in your OP, so my charge that you were attacking fundamentalists was not baseless, was not putting words into your mouth. If you did not mean to say fundamentalists are a cult, you should have made it clear in your OP when you used the word. (And speaking of integrity, which you demand, you have not yet apologized for that.)

Again, in your OP you put fundamentalists in quotes, which I referenced in my post #18. Putting a word in quotes like this means that either we fundamentalists on the BB are not the real McCoy, or fundamentalism itself is bogus. (I won't brook discussion on this; I've worked as an English professional and know my language.)

So I am not putting words in your mouth. That is what you have done with me (integrity?). But since you state clearly that your intention was not an attack, I apologize for misconstruing your usage of these words.

Let me make clear what the goals of ecclesiastical separation are. They are:

(1) The goal of a pure church. This goal is clearly seen in Rev. ch. 2-3, when Jesus Himself commends churches for rejecting heretics (Nicolaitans in 2:6, blasphemous Jews in 2:9, fake Jews in 3:9), and rebukes churches for allowing heretics in their midst (Balaamites in 2:14, Jezebel in 2:20).

(2) The goal of protecting the believers from wolves (Matt. 7:15, Acts 20:28-30). Three times I have had Charismatics come into my church and steal or try to steal my precious sheep. Should I not separate from such heretics?

I said very clearly in my post #4, "Ecclesiastical separation does not mean we stop loving the errant one." I know of no fundamentalists who teach hate as part of their ecclesiastical separation. To accuse fundamentalists of hate because we believe in ecclesiastical separation is slander, the sin of bearing false witness. Are you still going to say you are not here to attack us???

 

Think the question should have been phrased like this...

Why is there a distinct Fundementalist Baptist Board here, IF we as conservative baptists, wether we label ourselves as Fundementalists/Evangelical/Reformed baptists etc ALL pretty much agree on what are considered essentials of the Christian faith...

Not sayingyou should not have own Board, but why IF we all agree on the essentials within baptist Community regardless if known as Fundementalists or not?

 

If you read the third "sticky" on the Fundamental Baptist Forum, you know as much as I do about why it was started. But I will say that this separate forum does not indicate ecclesiastical separation as is being debated here. That is between churches and leaders, not individual Christians in the pew.

I will also say that no, we do not all agree on the essentials within the Baptist community. Witness the battle in the SBC in former years on the inerrancy of Scripture. There are Baptists here on the BB who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, others who do not believe in a literal 2nd coming of Christ, others who do not believe the Great Commission is for today.

 

I understand the latter points...

You are referencing the beliefs epoused by those holding to
Hyper Petierist Second Coming already happened
Hyper Calvinism God elects no need to preach Christ
"Limited" Inerrancy/Infallible basically bible wriiten to culture of time, needs to be "updated" based on modern facts and knowledge, ok to instruct but contains some errors in it...

Are those ones you mean?

 

Yes, they are.

 

The modern evangelical philosophy is:, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” However, there is no support in the Bible for the “in essentials liberty” doctrine. Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to teach converts “to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mat. 28:20).

Paul reminded the elders at Ephesus that the reason he was free from the blood of all men was that he had preached the WHOLE counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The more plainly you preach the whole counsel of God, the less likely it will be that you will join hands in ministry with those who hold different doctrine.

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness ... from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy 6:3-5).

We must stand for doctrinal purity and to rebuke error (Jude 3; 2 Tim. 4:2);

Ecumenicism is a dangerous word. It means uniting with other denominations regardless of differences in beliefs. This is the World Council of Churches, which instead of exposing false teachings, turns a blind eye to this and says let's join hands anyway for the sake of peace and unity.

 

Amen John. Good post. I recently read a survey on the responses of churches concerning the book: "The Shack", which is about a black, female god who is all love and not punishment. The survey showed that many Southern Baptists like the book and recommend it.

The SBC, claimed to have settled the matter of the inerrancy of Scripture in 1986, but did not settle what Scripture is. The abundance of translations or versions have continued unabated in the two decades since they "settled the matter of inerrancy." With each translation saying something different, one needs to use biblical discernment.

 

Liberalism is even more rampant in Japan. I have a Japanese pastor friend who won't allow anyone from any other church to attend, since he's been burnt. He only has folk in his church he has won to Christ. We do have just one lady from another church in ours, but she's real sweet and backs me.

 

John, I had no idea it was like that in Japan. I thought they would be more stringent and conservative. Thanks for this info and please share more.

 

The Japanese sister organization to the SBC is the Baptist Renmei. I've been told by someone who should know that the Renmei broke off ties with the American SBC when the SBC started required their missionaries to sign the "Faith and Message."

There are two Renmei churches here in town. I know several Japanese who have gone to one. The new young pastor there has preached that there is no Hell, that's an outmoded doctrine. They are reaching out to form ties with the homosexuals in the community. And so on.

The Renmei seminary down in Kyushu has long been known for its radicalism. Neo-orthodoxy is a given there (as in most Japanese seminaries). Way back during the Viet Nam War, the students demonstrated against the US involvement. So far not so bad, since this is Asia after all. However, the students embarrassed one prof so deeply by their pressuring him that he committed suicide.

 

John, this is very bad. The word of God says there will be a famine in the land in the last days, not of food but of God's Word. Men are leaving sound doctrine more and more. It boggles the mind that one can believe doctrines can be "outmoded." God's word never changes, nor do His doctrines. This has always been the devil's aim to destroy and we are witnessing the dilution of God's holy word more and more that we have some bibles that change the doctrine of hell or change the word hell itself. Its even scarier when Christians are deceived about these things.

How long have you been in Japan and have many come to Christ through U.S. missionaries?

 

We've been in Japan 30 years as of May. You can see the pictures on our BB profile of some who have come to Christ over the years through our ministry. We'll baptized another, Miss Shimobo, on July 17 God willing.

However, folks getting saved are few and far between. Japan is known as a "Gospel resistant" country. After 150 years or so of Protestant missions, only 1% claim Christ, including all the cults and the Catholics. Only 0.5 claim to be evangelical, but I doubt that figure. The average Muslim country has several times the percentage of nominal Christians than Japan!

 

So folks, anyone think I should cooperate with the Japanese Baptist Renmei?

The Nihon Kirisuto Kyodan (nickname, Nikki or just Kyodan) is even worse. Many years ago I asked a Japanese pastor how many pastors in the Kyodan denied Christ's deity and he thought 60%. However, a man who worked for the major Christian newspaper in the country thought 40%.

The Kyodan is the direct descendant of the forced denomination in WW2 that included all churches in Japan. Churches that did not join were disbanded. Unfortunately the Baptist churches joined, but then went independent again after the war. The government required churches to have a photo of the Emperor (a god supposedly) in every church, and bow to him at the beginning of every service. After the war the Kyodan was formed from that abomination by the Presbyterians and Methodists and some Holiness groups, and a few others.

I teach Greek to a Methodist man from a Kyodan church who is truly born again. But he admits all that I say about the Kyodan. So folks, does anyone think I should have my church cooperate in evangelism with the Kyodan churches? Can anyone say "apostate"?

 

The Holy Bible tells us not to be unequally yoked. I don't think this means unbelievers only. There are false religions. Religions that teach false doctrines and we should not unite with them for the sake of peace.

 

Amen Amen Amen:thumbs:

 

Hi Rhet.

Hope you and yours are doing well. Working on any more books nowadays?

I remember Dr. Mohler's article, and in general think it is excellent. Where I'm hesitant about it is the very general nature of some of his statements. For example, he lists prophecy as an example third tier doctrine. Does he mean all prophecy? For example, should I let a full preterist into my church who denies the future 2nd coming of the Lord Jesus? I don't think so.

Another point I would make is that there is an area where my position has changed over the years from that of my grandfather. (I'm assuming you know his position, his opposition to secondary separation, etc.) What has become important to me is my ecclesiology. I now assess possible doctrinal "threats," if you will, by the possible harm they will do to my church. My definition of heresy (based mostly on the semantics of the Greek) is a doctrine that will cause harm to the local church I pastor.

Am I making sense?

 

Just wanted to say hi again John. I have read your posts and you seem to be right on the money about things. I seldom post on here because of the divisions which makes it difficult. Some are argumentative and others lack faith in the 100% inspiration of the Holy Bible. There is no like-mindedness even among Baptists.

I do have one question since this thread is about separation. What is your belief concerning different Baptist groups who believe in and teach different things? Should we separate ourselves from these brothers who have unscriptural beliefs and much divisions?