Knowing when to Separate

[John of Japan]

1) I did not "attack" fundamentalists. You charged me with that.

2) You did not quote me when you suggested I was attacking fundamentalists. And later you said "saying thinks like you said" again implying an attack, and then further, saying I should apologize, again implying I had done something wrong.

3) Saying I attacked when I did not attack is putting words in my mouth, according to my lights.

4) Saying that something I said is "offensive" lets you define an "attack" as something you do not like. I was asking a question seeking information, and was making no effort to attack my brothers and sisters in Christ.

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.

Now if we can put our misunderstanding behind us, lets return to the biblical basis of separation. I agree that RCC is a form of "works based" salvation and therefore many Catholics who believe they are saved may not be saved because they have not believe in Christ alone for their salvation. The problem is there are tares in every large group, i.e. I believe there are tares within the fundamentalists, folks who say "Lord, Lord" but on that day Jesus will say "I never knew you."

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?

So again I come back to what is the biblical basis of separation. One is not walking the talk. Claiming we have God yet hating our brother.

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???

 

[Van]

But since you state clearly that your intention was not an attack, I apologize for misconstruing your usage of these words. Thankyou Sir.

I used the "quote marks" not to disparage fundamentalists, but to earmark the meaning of the term varies with the user. For example, I use it as defined in the dictionary, but a liberal might use it as a lable of disparagment. Sorry that my message was not well said.

I take the Bible literally, I believe it is literally true, but I accept that it uses figures of speech to illustrate spiritual truths, like a log in an eye. But if the literal sense makes sense and does not create a confict with other passages in the bible, I accept the literal meaning and seek no other meaning. And based on my expericence on the BB, I do this to a greater degree than any other poster.

I am not a "six day creationalist" but I accept that is the most theologically sound understanding of the Bible. I accept Job 38 which teaches we do not know "how" God did it, only that He did it. But I would never disparage the literal acceptance of Genesis chaper 1.

I am not a traditional dispensationalist, but I am a "progressive" dispensationalist according to Galatians chapter 3 where Gentiles share in the OT promises. I think most fundamentalists are tradional dispensationalists, and I do share their belief in a literal 1000 year kingdom on earth.

(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). Thankyou again, I agree this is the Biblical doctrine of separation based on "false teaching."

a) Nicolaitians did ungodly deeds and taught wrong doctrine. So they not only filled the bill of separation based on false teaching, they also filled the bill on not walking according to the commands and teachings of Christ.

b) I did not study, but in just reading the passage, I think this refers to an external attack, by those who have rejected Christ Jesus, and so we would be separated from them, on that basis, rather than telling them to hit the road.

c) This again refers to "non-believing" Jews who are not children of the promise.

d) Clearly those who taught Balaam were false teachers and met the Biblical basis of separation.

e) It looks to me that Jezebel taught Balaam, with the same fruit, not walking in accord with Christ.

 

[JesusFan]

1. We are not to be yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-18), meaning we are to separate from them. This includes, for example, those who name the name of Christ but have the doctrine of salvation wrong. I say this means the Catholics, since it seems obvious that a Catholic priest who believes he is saved through the ceremonies of the Catholic religion is thus lost.

2. We are not to receive anyone who has the doctrine of Christ wrong (2 John 9-11). This means my church and I will separate from anyone with wrong Christology. This includes, for example, classic theological liberalism, which does not believe in the deity of Christ.

3. Those who have the Gospel wrong, believing "another Gospel," are cursed (Gal. ch. 1). Therefore I will separate from the Church of Christ, for example, who add works to faith and thus have their soteriology all wrong.

This should be enough to get you going--if you believe we should cooperate with such heretical groups. :type:

But I have to say this. Please note the introductory thread to this forum. It was instituted so that we Fundamentalists could have a place on the BB to interact without liberals attacking us. Rightly speaking, you should have started this in the "General" forum. And if you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures, you are not obeying the rules of this forum by posting here.

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?

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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?

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Jaocb77]

Apparently the "fundamentalists" of this forum believe in separating when what others believe differs from what they believe. This seems to give short shrift to our requirement to use our gift of peace and unity within the body.

Many of the posts refer to others with generalizations. I do not think we should separate over things not specifically precluded by the commands of Christ.

Next we have the problem of working with other professing Christians, who hold in some areas, beliefs we believe are clearly unbiblical. I am not sure it is wrong to work in areas of common beliefs. I am quite aware than wrong beliefs seep into neutral areas, so allowing say "speakers" from another group certainly has its hazards. But on the other hand, an earmark of a cult is to cut off information from divergent sources.

Can anyone speak to these issues based on biblical support?

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.

 

[Jaocb77]

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Jaocb77]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Jaocb77]

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?

 

[John of Japan]

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!

 

[John of 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"?

 

[Jaocb77]

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, 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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just a word. Whilst we must accept the Bible as the word of God, we must also organize scripture to rightly understand it. This we call systematic theology. Yes men are writing. It, however, is also the word of God in organized structure so that we may rightly understand the Bible.

We are not following man over the Bible, we are understanding the word, rightly divided and organized.

Cheers,

Jim

Amen Amen Amen:thumbs:

 

[Rhetorician]

Rhetorician Insert

1. We are not to be yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-18), meaning we are to separate from them. This includes, for example, those who name the name of Christ but have the doctrine of salvation wrong. I say this means the Catholics, since it seems obvious that a Catholic priest who believes he is saved through the ceremonies of the Catholic religion is thus lost.

2. We are not to receive anyone who has the doctrine of Christ wrong (2 John 9-11). This means my church and I will separate from anyone with wrong Christology. This includes, for example, classic theological liberalism, which does not believe in the deity of Christ.

3. Those who have the Gospel wrong, believing "another Gospel," are cursed (Gal. ch. 1). Therefore I will separate from the Church of Christ, for example, who add works to faith and thus have their soteriology all wrong.

This should be enough to get you going--if you believe we should cooperate with such heretical groups. :type:

But I have to say this. Please note the introductory thread to this forum. It was instituted so that we Fundamentalists could have a place on the BB to interact without liberals attacking us. Rightly speaking, you should have started this in the "General" forum. And if you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures, you are not obeying the rules of this forum by posting here.

Hello JoJ;

I hope you are well and bringing our Japanese friends the Gospel of Grace, seeing many come to the Savior, being baptised and discipled to follow Him! AMEN !

I have not read through all of this thread but wanted to interject a thought by one who has become a major player in the SBC and wider Evangelical world--Dr. R. Albert Mohler. He has a discussion some, maybe all, may know about called "Theological Triage." I post a link for your enjoyment. Please get back to me with "angry exhortations" to see if this fits the IFB "mindset," or is he one from whom the Fundamentalist should separate. I look forward to the discussion to follow.

Enjoy!

http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/

I remain fraternally yours, all of you Fundamentalist brothers. I love you in the Lord. And my our tribe increase. :thumbsup:

"That is all!"

 

[John of Japan]

Hello JoJ;

I hope you are well and bringing our Japanese friends the Gospel of Grace, seeing many come to the Savior, being baptised and discipled to follow Him! AMEN !

I have not read through all of this thread but wanted to interject a thought by one who has become a major player in the SBC and wider Evangelical world--Dr. R. Albert Mohler. He has a discussion some, maybe all, may know about called "Theological Triage." I post a link for your enjoyment. Please get back to me with "angry exhortations" to see if this fits the IFB "mindset," or is he one from whom the Fundamentalist should separate. I look forward to the discussion to follow.

Enjoy!

http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/

I remain fraternally yours, all of you Fundamentalist brothers. I love you in the Lord. And my our tribe increase. :thumbsup:

"That is all!"

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?

 

[Rhetorician]

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?

Hello JoJ,

Yes, I have a couple of works in the pipeline. My pastor and I have written and intro on John Bunyan due out late this year or early next.

Secondly, I am editing a volume of scholarly essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric for homiletics.

Thirdly, I have been asked to give two lectures on John A. Broadus and election for the Founders Conf Mid West in February 2012.

Questions for you:

Please clairfy the "secondary separtion," say some more please.

Secondly, do I hear a tone of "Landmark Baptist" in your changing theology?

Please advise. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jaocb77]

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?