A MUST READ for Fundamentalists

So how do you seperate? Some like ot think they do but really do not. If you buy gas for your car then you support Muslims.

 

Let me break it down like this Larry.

Take Johnny Mac for example.

We agree on the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, eschatology, preaching, and a whole host of other things.

However, he doesn't take the same view of separation.

You would separate because of that. I won't.

Take a "separated presbyterian".

We agree on the cardinal doctrines of Christianity.

We disagree with him on areas of polity, eschatology, baptism, etc.

Yet, his view of separation is like yours. You will cooperate, I will not.

You say I am therefore disobedient because I don't practice secondary separation from someone who doesn't practice secondary separation.

I say you are disobedient because you harbor much more serious, grievous theological error.

You are willing to separate on a spurious charge. I am willing to separate over a doctrinal matter.

 

I'll take your word for it, but I checked that sight and saw nothing about colleges or seminaries. All I saw was information for/about Christian schools and high schools.

 

How recent are you speaking of, Pastor Larry? There has been a deep division among not just fundamentalists, but independent, fundamental Baptists on the matter of "secondary separation" for over 30 years--close to 40. Considering that fundamentalism is only about 80 years old, that's a good chunk of time.

 

Not really, Swaimj. There is a very small minority of so called fundamentalists who have rejected "secondary separation." It happened to get a lot of play because one of them ran a magazine. It is true without doubt that many have nuanced it in certain ways. I think there is a little historic myopia going on here by you and DD. Don't forget as well that as the theological landscape has evolved over the years, so have the commitments of fundamentalists. I would not for one moment pretend to speak for all, nor would I defend a lot of the yahoos out there who want to claim the name. But I am speaking about fundamentalism as a whole. Right or wrong, they have certainly practiced separation from disobedient brothers as a whole.

As for DD's comments, he is redefining fundamentalism and that is plain to all who read history. He is certainly welcome to separate from Presbyterians. But I don't think it is necessary since they do not deny cardinal doctrines of the faith and, in teh example, they are separated from disobedience. If you want to associate and cooperate with disobedient men, that is certainly your prerogative, but it is not your prerogative to hijack a name you happen to like.

When you say I am disobedient, you are simply wrong. Matters of church polity, precision on eschatology, or Presbyterian infant baptism is not "grievous theological error." My participation with a Presbyterian would certainly be limited to a large degree. I wouldn't have one to preach in my church and can't imagine preaching in his. But there would be areas of cooperation that we could have.

When I say John MacArthur is disobedient, I can show that from Scripture. He has failed to obey God's command to separate from false teachers. For me to be obedient, I have to separate from him. That is hardly a spurious charge, unless you have a new definition for that as well.

 

I'll take your word for it, but I checked that sight and saw nothing about colleges or seminaries. All I saw was information for/about Christian schools and high schools. </font>[/QUOTE]SwaimJ,

I wasn't able to find anything more about the association, other than it is listed in the application to join the AACS. While I was in college (Clearwater Christian), Dr. George Youstra mentioned the association several times. Many 'fundamental' Christian colleges are in the AACC&S, and if you used Yahoo! like I did, you will see many colleges & seminaries that are in the association. I too am somewhat baffled that the AACC&S does not have its own website, or that the AACS doesn't have anything more stated about the association.

 

The problem with this statement is two-fold: One, the term "disobedient brother" has no clear definition in fundamentalism. Two, consequently the practice of separation is not uniform. It is innacurate to say that "fundamentalism as a whole" has done anything with uniformity in regards to separation. Historical evidence for the lack of uniformity in the practice of separation is overwhelming. The controversy between John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr over secondary separation made it into print at least as early as 1969 and put a rift in fundamentalism that lasts to this day. The Hamrick/Holland/Olilla(sp?)/Pro-Teens/Bixby issue is simply another chapter and episode in this same old disagreement.

Thankfully Bauder understands that the definition of separation is not clear in fundamentalism

and he understands that the practice of separation has been poorly executed

.

 

LRL, I did not use Yahoo and apparently my search was not as complete as yours. I will give Yahoo a shot and see a more complete linking to associated schools. Thanks for the heads up. I'm pretty sure that my Bible College alma mater is a part of AACC&S as well.

 

Um Larry, presbos disobey God by baptizing babies, their belief in amill, etc. How is that not disobedient?

Again, we see the major inconsistency with the A types. They will separate from those who don't practice secondary separation, but they won't separate over doctrinal issues.

Yeah, really hard to imagine why the A types are losing so many to the B types.

 

Larry, would Johnny have been considered on the side of the fundies during the original controversy?

I rest my case.

Keep this up and you will help write the eulogy for the A types.

 

A while back I wanted to search God's Word out on this issue of ecclesiastical seperation and I wrote an article that is at http://www.ifbreformation.org/Separation.aspx
with my findings.

To sum up my position:

I think when it comes to corporate evangelism of a local church with another church the seperation rules must be strict, just for harmony sake.

One IFB church that uses CCM and another that does not will have a hard time having a joint evangelistic event together, it is just not practical.

An IFB church would also have difficulty sending out a missionary together with a southern baptist church as one believes the convention system is wrong and the other does not.

And an IFB church would certainly have problems doing cooperative evangelism with a fundamental Presbyterian church because of infant baptism and church structure issues.

I think even the prophecy area may play a part, if one church is dispensational and the other is historic premillenial or covenant that might pose some harmony issues.

Certainly the Calvinist Arminian debate would make it hard for a Calvinistic IFB church to do a cooperative evangelistic event with a Arminian IFB church as there evangelistic methods might be very different.

So I don't know if there can be standardization on this subject.

Now on a personal level, I would have no probelm associating with an IFB who had different positions on this issue, or even with a fundamental Presbyterian or fundamental methodist(although those are becoming harder and harder to find - but my cousin is fundamental presbyterian so they do exist).

It is one thing though, to not be able to do cooperative evangelism with another IFB church over these issues, and another to attack them from your pulpit over some of these issues.

Many IFB churches spend more time attacking one another from their pulpits than preaching the Gospel and preaching against truly apostate churches - thats the shame in all of this.

I believe there is a need to return to the historic ideal fundamentalism was founded on, defending the fundamentals of the faith.

I see no problem with individual fundamentalists(not local IFB churches as organizations) of different denominations uniting in parachurch organizations(like colleges and universities) to defend and expound upon the fundamentals of the faith.

IFBReformer

 

Exactly, which was what Bauder was addressing. You are missing the point in your apparent haste to prove me wrong. Listen ... fundamentalists as a whole have always agreed on the necessity of separation from disobedient brothers. They did not always agree necessarily on whose those disobedient brothers were.

Which is exactly the issue above. We are all inconsistent to some degree and neither fundamentalists nor new evangelicals are free from that. But the differenc is not a disagreement in principle but a disagreement in practice.

The controversy between Rice and Jones was what I referred to above. It is not that big of a controversy and likely would have never been one except that Rice had a magazine as a platform. That is fine ... but I don't think it is fair to say it was widespread.

But again, don't confuse the issue. The principle has been pretty uniform. The application of it has not.

Again, exactly my point. The fundamentalists have not agreed on the limits of the practice, meaning the application of it. Who are the disobedient brothers? That has been the focal point. I really think you and I are on saying the same thing here in this respect. What you are pointing out (wiht the Rice exception) is a disagreement over the limits or the application of the principle, not the principle itself.

 

Where did God ever command not to sprinkle babies? I dare you to find one verse. Of course you can't. Furthermore, you completely misunderstand the point. When a presbyterian sprinkles a baby, it is not "believer's baptism," nor do they believe it is regenerative. I would separate from any Presbyterian over that matter. Presbyterian baby baptism is essentially the same thing that Baptist baby dedication is. I think you are showing a bit of a lack of knowledge in this.

I firmly believe in pretrib premill. But there is a degree of interpretation on that. I would be reluctant to have one preach in my church, but if all other things were squared away, this is certainly a difference of interpretation. I firmly believe they are wrong on that issue. But I think they are wrong on polity as well.

You should define what you mean by A types and B types so we will know what you are talking about. SEcondly, you should recognize that you are wrong. Fundamentalists will always separate over doctrine.

No, not given the current landscape. We already discussed this. You fail to reocgnoze that one hundred years has changed the landscape so greatly. MacArthur himself separated from fundamentalists and has declared so. You don't get to rewrite history to include him. He excluded himself.

You should rest your case however, and while you are resting, take some time to study the history and the issues. Work with the Scripture. Ultimately that is what you will be judged by. If you conclude differently than I, then that is fine. You won't answer to me. But make it a matter of study. At your current place in ministry, I doubt that you have had sufficient time to do that and given your responses here, it seeems that you don't have much historical perspective. I hope you will pursue that in the time to come. IT is a worthy study.

 

Brothers, Sisters...Gentlemen...and others...

It is little wonder that the church is in apostacy today when men put men at the head of the Church rather than reconizing the true Head of the Church...none other than Jesus Christ...and our final authority in all matters...the Bible...KJ...not the modern &lt;forbidden term deleted&gt;versions...

The Bible clearly defines both personal separation and Ecclesiastical separation...Separation is unto God and from the world...in both cases...

I would point out to you that there is not one bit of historical evidence in the first century church of the hierachy and bureaucratic layers that exist today...each church was independant of the others...You will note that the epistles of Paul were addressed to local churches, not to associations or some hierarchy. The only exception is in the Book of Galatians where Paul addresses the "churches of Galatia…." Even here an emphasis is evident on their distinction one from another.

The Bible is also very clear on how to deal with an errant Brother or Sister and clearly calls for separation after the proper steps for restoration are tried and rejected...II Thessalonians 3:14-15...in the case of an immoral brother or sister...I Corinthians 5:4-5...and a restatement of Paul's words concerning the Bema Seat Judgment of our works at the throne of JESUS CHRIST I Corinthians 3:15. Paul does have instructions for us as to the matter of restoring an erring brother, where possible - and this is to be tried prior to separating ourselves...Galatians 6:1.

It is a grand disappointment to see that personal knowlege is given preference over Bible teaching...and that the opinions of man are placed above tthe teachings of the Bible...

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." Psalm 1:1

The truly happy, joyous – "Blessed" Christian is that one who has separated himself unto the Savior and from the world...

Amen.

[ February 13, 2005, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

^^^^

Uh, huh?

What was all that about, Y'Israel? Have you been reading any of the posts above yours? Helloooo??

 

I think we probably are saying essentially the same thing about the lack of definition for "disobedient brethren" and the lack of uniformity in the practice of separation. I think we both agree with what Bauder is saying. However, you did accuse me of "historic myopia". Not sure what that is but it sounds like it might be an insult. I think it is probably related to this statement of yours:

This was a small controversy? Having both been in heaven for some time now, if you dug up these two men I think they would agree that the controversy is small. When the controversy was occurring during their life-times however, it was not small to them or to the two wings of fundamentalism which developed around them. They wrote some pretty harsh things about one another and Dr. Bob banned Dr. Rice from preaching at BJU any more.

 

Here are a few schools that I know are in AACC&S:
-Northland Baptist Bible College
-Clearwater Christian College
-Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Minneapolis)
-Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Virginia Beach)
-Pillsbury Baptist Bible College
-Piedmont Baptist College
-Bob Jones University
-Maranatha Baptist Bible College
-Virginia Baptist College
-Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
-Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary

**It is possible that some of the smaller schools do not attend all the meetings.

 

Let's distinguish between disobedient brothers and differing brothers. Just because someone holds a differing view of eschatology or some other nonessential, he is not in sin.

To hold your own opinions or personal systematic theology up as the standard of separation is spiritual pride. By doing so, you are saying that there is no chance that you have erred in any point of theology or interpretation. Hopefully, we are all introspective enough to see occasions where, as we have studied the Scripture, we have realized that our theological views are unsupported. When this happens we revise our views in favor of what the Bible teaches. To not allow others the charity to do the same is unbiblical.

To make a point of how untenable this hyper-separation is, consider a teenager or a young Christian. As this person is studying his Bible and growing in Christ, he may not immediately understand eschatology or soteriology. Who can he fellowship with? No one? Or only other people who likewise do not understand eschatology and soteriology?

This issue is at the heart of fundamentalism. Read the various histories. The first fundamentalists gathered from a variety of denominations because they agreed on the FUNDAMENTALS, not every point of doctrine.

Remember that denominations are a necessary evil, not something to glory in. Christ wants his church unified in love to him. Yet because we are fallible people, we have had to divide into denominations to accommodate for differing views and practices. This is a practical separation which is very different from theological separation (as IfbReformer has already touched on).

Theological separation is what the Bible commands us to do from disobedient brothers. Unfortunately, this too, is often necessary in our day when so many reject what the Bible clearly teaches .

When we dignify and revere our denominational labels above our identity as members of the True Church (the body of Christ) we have sadly lost our focus. Unfortunately, we IFBs seem to be among the worst at this. If we would focus on Christ and the gospel, we would not be so distracted by these peripherals.

 

It surprises me to hear that an IFB will not witness with a missionary from the SBC because one believes in a convention and the other one doesn't.

Is this a fundamental doctrine? Does it concern the methods and beliefs of salvation?

We as SBC will NOT go and partner with the Church of Christ for any reason because we believe their doctrine to be faulty by including Baptism as a requirement of salvation.

Isn't this seperation taken just a little too far here? I am sure there are some denominations which do, but should not work together.

But, to make and preach seperatism as a major doctrine seems odd to me.

Another question is what do you consider about an "evangelist" that is bad? As an SBC, we are extremely careful who we associate with when doing mission work; but we consider ourselves as "evangelical", can you describe what you see wrong here?

Also, does not many IFB churches use missionary groups to pool their money, although they may be smaller than the SBC, that is the same thing? I thought I saw this discussed this weekend.

 

Phillip,

Your thoughts deserve an answer of some kind from those of us who are IFB. The practices by many IFB's that cause us to separate from those who are associated with the SBC (like yourself) in matters of ecclesiastical co-operation is because many IFB's view SBC brethren as being 'disobedient'. I think that you may have an idea why IFB's believe in Fundamentalism, but I'll say it here that it is the view of most, if not all, IFB's that those who are in the SBC tolerate liberalism, apostacy, and neo-orthodoxy in the convention. Granted that some of the recent trends in the SBC are going toward the conservatives in the convention, it is still not satisfactory to most IFB's that the conservatives still won't put their house in order and expel the apostate liberals, moderates, neo-orthodoxists from the SBC. The issue is one of a position that of an insistence in adhering to and obedience to separation from apostacy and all kinds of error, including separation from disobedient brethren. I believe that separation is a fundamental doctrine since it is taught in the Scriptures. Adherence to the clear teaching of separation from disobedient brethren (ecclesiastically and personally) is a fundamental trait of 'Fundamentalism', from which it can be derived from the teachings of Scripture (I won't post Scripture references here right now, but I can expound this further if necessary!). The problem with Fundamentalists is that the applications of the doctrine of separation has not been equally excercised by Fundamentalists, and that is where Bauder is going. The problem with the doctrine of separation is how to apply it in instances where we must separate from doctrinal error which denies the fundamentals of the faith, including separating from those who are disobedient in associating themselves with unbelievers, apostates, moderates, and neo-orthodoxists (I could also add Pentecostals, too).

To many IFB's, the co-operation of the conservatives with liberals and moderates in the SBC is a clear denial of what the Bible teaches about 'disorderly brethren'. This is probably an instance of what is known as 'secondary separation', in which not only do Fundamentalists separate from clear apostacy (which conservatives in the SBC do), but that Fundamentalists separate from those who walk disorderly (like the conservatives in the SBC) because they won't expose and separate themselves from the errors of the liberals, apostates, moderates, etc... and that conservative SBC'ers continue to associate & co-operate with liberals, moderates, apostates, etc.... within the SBC. I hope that this makes a little sense!

As far as your statements about IFB missionary work is concerned, the missionary 'agencies' within IFB's work with churches of like faith and practice, in that the missionaries as well as the churches that send the missionaries believe in the same 'fundamentals' as well as in Fundamentalism. IFB's pool their resources in the same manner that the SBC pools its resources, but that is NOT a characteristic of Fundamentalism! I think that you are confused as to the nature of why IFB's separate, but the problem with the SBC is that also with the tolerance for liberals, apostates, moderates within the SBC in churches, seminaries, and colleges, it is the same with missions as well. There are liberals, moderates, and apostates in SBC missions works as well as in other parts of the convention. The way that missions operates is not the reason why IFB's separate from SBC's, but rather it is the same applied equally with regard to separation in all respects in ecclesiastical matters: tolerance for error is still rampant in the SBC, and if IFB's are to ever have any co-operation with the SBC, the SBC must expose, repudiate, and expel the liberals, moderates, apostates, and such from the convention. In order for the SBC to not go the way of the do-do bird as other liberal conventions have gone, it must quash the error in the convention as well as 'contend for the faith'!

I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, brother, but that my remarks are graciously received in that I'm explaining what Fundamentalism means to us who are IFB's and other fundamentalists.