Knowing when to Separate

Sounds great. I'm especially attracted to the John Bunyan project.

I would define secondary separation as the view that we must separate ecclesiastically from those who do not Biblically separate from heresy. In other words, if Pastor Bob takes the route of heresy, let's say he denies the deity of Christ, then Pastor Tony is Biblically obligated to separate from Pastor Bob. Secondary separation says that if Pastor Tony does not follow his Biblical duty to separate from Pastor Bob, then I must separate from Pastor Tony.

I would follow this path if I felt Pastor Tony's compromise on the issue would hurt the church I pastor. If I thought Pastor Tony's link with Pastor Bob would lead astray people in my church, the sheep God has given me to pastor, I would ecclesiastically separate from Pastor Tony without hesitation.

Heh, heh, heh. :saint: Nope, I'm not near being a Landmarker yet. Just believe very strongly in the local church as God's plan for this age. I'm still under a mission board, though, inasmuch as my board is run by pastors.

 

I don't blame you for not posting much. I post to (1) be a blessing and (2) defend the faith. But most of the time I avoid the discussions about details of doctrine that become so heated. Don't see the point.

I will separate from any Baptist group that I believe might harm the precious sheep God has given me to pastor. So I have nothing to do with the nearest Baptist in our city because I know the pastor doesn't believe in Hell, and preaches against it. There are lots of questionable Baptists out there, unfortunately.

 

Amen John. I don't see how one can call themselves a Baptist and not believe in hell or the complete inspiration of God's word. He promised to preserve it and God cannot lie.

 

I don't think John would separate from someone who calls themselves a Baptist but is not KJVO, which is what you are insinuating based upon your previous posts in the BVT forum. Belief in KJVO has never been a "Baptist" doctrine.

You may both correct me if I am wrong on either count.

 

Seems to me that the first thing to do would be first to look for reasons why not to separate rather than reasons to separate. The idea is that I want to find reasons to stay with brothers and sisters in Christ rather than depart them. But, there are times when I can't find any to override why I should go. I must say that I hope it never is because we are hung up on one set version of the Bible. How sad that must be to think that you and yours have a corner on the Eternal Word of God. I don't think the Word of God was first spoken in English. Nor do I think that it preserved that way now nor will it forever be preserved that way.

 

Being a missionary with many supporting churches with various viewpoints (as you of course understand very well), I don't discuss the versions issues in this open forum.

 

I guess we will have to work on landmarkism!......

Cheers,

Jim

 

I do understand. And I apologize for putting you in a corner, so to speak.

 

I'm not perfect yet. :wavey:

 

No problem. I knew you'd understand.

 

I hope it's a best seller. :thumbs:

 

Let's be blunt - there is a biblical teaching of separation but it's usually used nowadays as a cloak for bigotry and self-justification.

Separation based on the Bible version issue is flat out absurd. Almost as absurd as separating because some favored teacher doesn't like whatever he defines as CCM (which I've found basically to be anything written after 1900 for most of the fuddy duddies).

 

I am KJVO - but I don't "separate" based on Bible version. I separate based on 1) whether or not someone believes in the diety of Christ, and
2) whether or not they preach saved by grace.

My son goes to a Evangelical free church. They believe just like we do about salvation. I will commune with them, and I do commune with them.
I commune with a lot of people that use other versions, and listen to
other types of music. (example: my friends here)

The reasons I am KJVO are my own, and I want traditional hymns and I wear dresses to church. These are MY preferences.

 

All I have to say is WOOT WOOT John Of Japan!!! :thumbsup::jesus:

 

Thank you kindly. :wavey:

 

I'm flattered to be compared to Kevin Bauder, but he may be insulted to be compared to me! :smilewinkgrin:

The Fundamentalist thinkers I respect who have written on the subject usually use the "yoke" term to refer to primary separation, or ecclesiastical separation from unbelievers, rather than secondary separation. See Chapter 1 of John R. Rice's Come Out or Stay In; Fred Moritz in Contending for the Faith: "The Bible Commands separation from unbelief" (after which he lists 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1); Ernest Pickering in Biblical Separation, esp. pp. 176-177 where he contests the idea of J. Elwin Wright that the passage doesn't mean separation from modernist churches, but only from idolatrous religion.

The Fundamentalist position from this passage is that separation is separation to God from the world and thus naturally from false doctrine. I remember Dr. Monroe Parker making this point from the pulpit, and that made a great impression on me as a young preacher.

I do believe that the original Fundamentalists of the early 1900s interpreted the "yoke" this way, judging from the battles that occurred in those days in the various denominations. It's late here and I have to hit the sack, or I'd comment more on this.

To continue, the Scripture most used on which to base secondary separation is the "disorderly" passage of 2 Thess. 3, starting with v. 10.

I was a student at BJU in 1972 when the Rice vs. Jones Jr. controversy on secondary separation blew up. Imagine me, if you will, slouching in the chair in chapel when Bob Jr. mentioned my Granddad from the pulpit. At that point I researched this passage thoroughly, checking every single commentary in the BJU library, and coming to the conclusion that this was not about ecclesiastical separation, but about an internal church matter, church discipline if you will.

I was particularly bemused to read a little set of notes by Charles Woodbridge, who made no mention in his notes of the secondary separation possibility. However, in his little booklet Bible Separation written to counter Rice, Woodbridge adopted the secondary separation position. And after that Woodbridge eventually separated from even BJU, as I recall!

I'm afraid if I commented on the young Fundamentalists, I'd be out of my depth. I don't have much contact with the younger Fundamentalists in the States except through my son sometimes. And I must tell you that he's not Calvinistic, nor are his friends generally (grads and profs of Maranatha BBC and Calvary Baptist Theo. Sem.).

 

Just look at how some here veiw the Manhattan Declaration for your answer.

WM