John MacArthur

"All the saved compose the Universal church," he says.

The nature of the "church" is LOCAL!

 

Ummm, rufus, that is where you are goofed up. He he.

 

Is there not a universal component to the concept of church? Or would you refer to the universal group of believers as the "body of Christ" My church is local, but we are also part of a larger church, comprised of all those who are saved members of Christ's body.

I guess it depends on your POV.

My "Church" is a local manifestation of the Church/body/bride of Christ in the Lake Orion/Oxford Michigan area. Nothing wrong with both viewpoints, as long as you recognize both of them, since both are represented by the scriptures

 

By and large, No, it isn't good. One of the reasons for separation was the pressure it put on a person to act biblically, and public rebuke served as a warning to others. I am not arguing we should be heavy handed. Nor am I arguing that we should be separating over silly stuff. But the truth of hte Scripture (all of it, not just five truths) are important and necessary for life and godliness. We dare not trifle with them, nor encourage others too.

As I have said, there are tough issues and ultimately, each much make their own decisions. But we need to take very seriously the biblical commands of separation and exposure. I fear that is not being done.

 

Larry,

You cleared up something for me in your post about your distaste for the term "secondary separation." Your problem with it seems to be that it implies that people are separating over secondary issues (i.e. those with less importance than primary issues).

I think when many criticize the kind of separation you espouse, they are using the term "secondary separation" to refer to the distance between the original offender and the person who needs to be practicing separation.

In other words, if superdave denies the deity of Christ and you preach in his church, you are violating a principle of separation and cannot be considered a fundamentalist. If you then ask me to preach in your church and I do (even though your church is orthodox), am I still a fundamentalist? The definition of fundamentalism you espouse says no because you are disobedient and I am not separating from you. You are not practicing "primary separation," and I am not practicing "secondary separation."

Where this can get into the ridiculous is when, let's say, aefting is forced to consider me a disobedient brother and separate from me even though I have never associated with someone who is unorthodox. Tertiary separation, I suppose. This whole line of reasoning/"doctrine" breaks down because ultimately we are all disobedient because we all associate with someone who associates with someone who associates with someone who . . . blah blah blah. Would it not be possible for someone who knows you well to trace a line from you to John MacArthur that ultimately makes you a disobedient brother based on your theology of separation?

The only answer is to separate from everyone, which can seem like an attractive option at times, I suppose, given the alternatives.

 

Siegfried,

Sorry to have conveyed that idea about secondary separation. I did not intend to. Secondary separation has nothing to do with issues but rather with people. Your example of Dave is right. If he denied the deity of Christ and I preach in his church, I am disobedient to Scripture. You, according to Scripture, cannot fellowship with a disobedient brother. You should separate from me because I am disobedient. It makes no difference whether than disobedience is in doctrine or behavior. It is still disobedience. I can't see how that is secondary, even though it is often called that. It is primary.

You can drag it out to a reductio ad absurdum (e.g. separation to 4 or 5 people down the line), which I would reject as an argumetative method. But I think the principles are clear.

It seems to me that we have divided disobedience into too many categories: truth, morality, associations, etc. And we say that the only cause for separation is the first. But on what Scripture basis do we say that that is the only basis for separation? Paul clearly says the other two are as well. (I am not saying those are the only three categories. We might divide truth into the man made categories of "important truth" and "the rest of the Bible."). At issue, when I look at someone, I am saying, Are they obedient to Scripture? If yes, then i can have fellowship. If No, then I cannot. The area of disobedience is really irrelevant. (Obviously we are talking about lifestyles/patterns/philosophy of living or ministry/etc. We are not talking about whether or not someone sins.)

 

Larry,

You make some solid points, particularly the divisions of disobedience that are untenable, particularly in 2 Thessalonians. Nevertheless, I reject the exegesis of the 2 Thess. passages that applies them to all of Paul's teaching to all the churches. I think that is speculative.

For sake of the argument, however, let's assume that exegesis is correct. If so, why do those who hold this view of separation not separate over ALL doctrine, not just the "fundamentals" plus the doctrine of separation. In practice, it seems that many proclaimed fundamentalists are much broader doctrinally in their cooperative ventures with other fundamentalists than someone like MacArthur would be.

Organizations like AACS and IFB colleges, mission boards and camps are hotbeds of inconsistency on this matter, when supporting churches have vastly different views of theology proper, soteriology, pneumatology and bibliology. What often holds supporting churches together is not common theology but similarities in who they separate from. In that sense both MacArthur and I (if I can put my name with his in the same sentence) would be much more separatistic than most self-proclaimed fundamentalists, but many fundamentalists would no doubt call me a neo.

By the way, I really think you do need to deal with the question of how far to take the "degrees" of separation, even if you do know a fancy Latin name for a logical fallacy. This is a weakness that I have never heard anyone willing to deal with cogently.

 

So you think Paul would allow disobedience to the word in churches other than Thessalonica? I am not sure how you make the claim that this is speculative. 1 Cor 5, Titus 3 both make the same point.

Becuase they are inconsistent. I completely agree that oftentimes, our associations are far too broad. Having said that, there is room for difference on some matters and not others. We might legitimately differ with people who view church polity differently. We cannot legitimately differ on the word-faith/third wave charismatic issues. One is not clearly revealed. The other is.

True, but remember that there is a broader room for certain associations than in other things. Two schools might play a soccer game, even though one is pre trib and the other is not. That does not mean that they will trade faculty for an eschatology conference. For certain high schools to meet together for musical competition is different than meeting together for other purposes.

True, in some ways ... probably not in others. I have often lamented that our fellowship is too often based on mutual separation (we don't like the same things) than common purpose (we do like the same things). That is unfortunate.

I have dealt with this personally by acknowledging that each must make his own decision about it. I don't know that there is a good "stopping point." I do believe there is no way to defend the alternative. The Scripture is too clear on that, IMO. As to the application of particularities, we must grant liberty. That doesn't mean we have to grant fellowship. I can acknowlege the good facets of MacArthur's ministry (or Warren, or Chappel, etc) without condoning their disobedience in other areas. I can benefit from their ministry without fellowshipping with their ministry. I can say "This is good about them; This is an area of disbodience." But when I say that, I should make the biblical case for it.

It is virtually impossible to be perfectly consistent. We can be largely consistent however, and we should be.

 

I'm Scripturally "goofed up." Yeppers, I am!

 

The church is the body of Christ. To be local church only would have bodies of Christ. Yep, that is goofy.

 

Don't tell me YOU'VE bought the "universal church" farm, too!

My, my, how Baptists are "falling away" these days!

 

seigfried wrote:

Seeins how Pastor Larry is in Michigan, and runs in some of the same circles as I, he would have to agree with this statement. It is absolutely the case among many IFBs here in the promised land.

I agreed with your post BTW, it does mirror very much what I see, and I will not presume too much to know the history of fundamentalism, but I see the same behavior among those who at least a young'n like me would have to refer to as "old" IFBs.

I would be much in favor of adopting a new label, as most often I am ashamed at what fundamentalism has become, and indeed was in many cases as well.

 

I don't think we're comparing apples to apples. This was an issue within the church in one city. I think this has much more in common with a church discipline issue than an ecclesiastical separation issue.

I generally agree, but I think the nature of the association must be taken into account along with the nature of the difference. Paul was dealing with a specific case that he had addressed directly. I think that left less room for diversity than we might have today given the historical distance that has piled up.

I agree with your premise, but I don't think that your illustration is comparable to the examples I noted. It seems that you are hedging so as to provide yourself some wiggle room in your doctrine. Consistent application of your exegesis would force you to repudiate all these associations and separate from anyone who engages in such.

I guess I would have to know the ways you believe my statement is not true in order to interact with it.

This is where I begin to see that we may be talking about two different issues. You seem to be describing "non-cooperation" as the doctrine of separation. I will probably never cooperate with a whole multitude of churches and ministries that I would not separate from in the sense of "mark and avoid" or "admonish" to walk in obedience. I think we generally agree, even though you need to grow in your capacity to express your beliefs in my terminology.

 

Now that was funny

I guess we will have to agree on a dictionary version before we can discuss some of these issues.

 

So what are the dictionary definitions?

"fundamentalist"
"new evangelical"

Wayne

 

How much time do you guys spend on debating issues? I know my spiritual struggles (besides those)...I'm just wondering how much of an influence are you on unbeliever's repentance and faith in Christ.

About Mac. What would he think if he read all your discussions? No wonder He does want the baggage of Fundmentalism. These issues really don't concern you now do they...I think there must be something to be said when Paul says, 'But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgement: yea, I judge not mine own self....etc.

 

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the person involved doesn't care, we should not discuss the application of biblical commands to life??? I don't quite understand that. I think the biblical teaching is important (whatever it is) whether or not the person involved cares.

These issues do concern us because they address the lives that we live. I think we need to take it seriously.

El_Guero ... that question has been addressed in many different threads here. A little search will give an indication of the variety of perspectives.

 

Pastor Larry,

I think too many times we feel that we must disreguard everything someone has said if amy part of what they say is not Biblical. But in truth there are things that God can teach us from others. One thing we forget is that we believe we proclaim truth and but sometimes we miss the mark and do not. That does not make everything we have or will say wrong.

 

Whose truth? Which truth?

these questions are many times asked by those who evaluate the validity of others.

God's truth is true, regardless of the character or the specific practices of the mouthpiece. It helps your credibility for sure to have a life consistent with your message, but it doesn't make the truth any more true, or any less true when you don't.

I think both Pastor Larry and BibleStudent are right here, even if you disagree with MacArthur on various points of polity or doctrine, he certainly does speak the truth of God, and when he does, he is speaking truth, whether anyone agrees with him or not.

I don't think by recommending ecclesiastical (sp?) separation from MacArthur, Pastor Larry is condemning what he says for the most part, really just questioning his actions and his application of principles of separation.