Secondary Separation

Actually, tinytim, the originators of the term and/or concept of "secondary separation" would have considered you leaving your denomination to be primary separation, not secondary. I'm not trying to be offensive (I mean this to be kindly advice.), but by remaining in your denomination are you not associating with apostates? There are plenty of Bible commands on that (Titus 3:10, 1 Cor. 5:9-13, 2 Cor. 6:14, 2 John 9-11, etc.).

This is a quite different matter from separating from sinners, who we should love (1 Cor. 5:9-10). If I knew someone who was a homosexual, I would not separate from him (it would not be an ecclesiastical separation issue) but would seek to win him to Christ. However, I would consider to be apostate any church that thought homosexuality was not a sin, and would separate from it. This means, I would not preach there, I would not have their preacher in my church, and I would not be part of any fellowship or denomination of which that church was a part. It does not mean that I would be nasty to them, walk on the other side of the street, never speak to them, etc. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

We've moved on, but let me say that Mar's Hill was not a public place. It was the very center of pagan philosophy. Paul was invited to speak there and he went.
There is some inconsistency by my brother. He says that he has good friends in other denoms but opposes that all denoms come together and form one church. He says they have their own differences and should be free to associate as they wish. That's not the issue. No one that I know advocates that all churches come together to form one church.
The point is: what is the basis for separating from other Christians? Typically, verses are quoted that do not at all answer the question. For example, someone said that they have separated from John Piper because of his stand on accepting church members who have not been baptized by immersion. While one may disagree and choose not to follow that practice in his own church, where is the biblical warrant for separating from a brother over that? What is the biblical warrant for separating from Bible-believing ABC churches?
Secondary Separation was invented in the late 50s, primarily by Bob Jones and supported by John R Rice and others in response to the Billy Graham NY crusade. It is not Biblical Separation. It is a reactionary movement that missed the boat from the get go.
I spent most of my life in those circles and I'm glad to be out of them.

 

Something happened to my previous post.
I was just going to say that I don't associate with churches like that.

 

John R. Rice was NOT a secondary separatist! As a matter of fact, he disagreed with Bob Jones, Sr. about that same issue. He also wrote a book entitled 'Come Out or Stay In' in which there is a chapter entitled, 'What is wrong with secondary separation?' I wish I had time and permission from the Sword of the Lord to reproduce it here. They certainly won't be reprinting this book anytime soon, at least not with this capter in it.

 

Here are some examples of secondary seperation gone wrong. Two IFB churches, one lets ladies wear pants the other thinks it is wrong so they don't have fellowship.
One IFB church is KJVO one is not yet it only uses KJV. These two churches don't fellowship.
There are other minor issues like this which I'm sure some of you are aware of.
Here is one for ya. I'm IFB. The church I go to is affiliated with the BBF.I serve with Central Missionary Clearinghouse as a missionary on deputation. The clearinghouse will handle funds for any IFB that will adhere to their doctrinal statement. Which is pretty much IFB all the way.
Now I don't go along with everything my pastor thinks about the BBF. I'm more Independent. Now if I call some pastors looking for support and they say "Are ya seperated" I could personally say yes. But if they say where do you go to church? I say ..... Well if they think it is connected to the BBF then they won't have me in based on that fact alone. It is ridiculous trying to wade through all the different camps of baptists that have been formed due to "secondary seperation" for the most part while trying to raise your support to get to the mission field.
OTOH, I grew up in the SBC. The conv. has made some great strides. Yet, out of conviction I could never go back to it due to the giving of the Cooperative Program. Some of that money goes to some baptist colleges of the worst kind. They teach nothing but garbage. I.E in NC Gardner Webb, Mars Hill, Cambell U. Every state conv. has some worthless, little Bible denying college somewhere that recieves money from the CP.
Now I don't know how some of the finest preachers of our day such as Al Molhler, Patterson, Vines, Rogers etc... I don't know how those men overlook that kind of stuff and stay in for the fight. Maybe that is why they do it? I know I couldn't.It ain't right. They should drop the funding of those kinds of places yet all throughout the SBC consv. and mods. work together.
Also, have you ever noticed that throughout church history it seems as though most if not all compromise has come through some sort of hierarchy, whether it be a university, fellowship, conv. Union, para church group etc...
It just seems like when we leave it to the local church alone to get the job done doctrinal purity is maintained and heresy is kept in check.
You find that God is head of the Church in Scripture. The Scriptures the SBC uses in the BF& M are not that strong when it comes to the cooperation part. There is nothing that should come between the two be it a convention, fellowship etc... Oh I know SBC churches are autonomous but yet they can't be a SBC church unless they give to the Conv. I'm not slamming the conv. I'm just trying to show you one side of the coin. Fellowships are nice I suppose. Like I stated I go to a church that associates with the BBF. But you know one day it will probably go south. Some say it already has. God has not said the "fellowship or conv. would prevail". He said His Church would.

 

WRONG ANSWER
Biblical Answer - One Church
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

ONE BRIDE
Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

I can't make any sense out of your ravings about seminaries, etc. Say something coherent and I can comment.

Only those believers who persevere until the end will be in Heaven. This myth about rewards is to allow carnal "christians" to go on sinning and still feel smug. They will get a big surprise on Judgement Day. The Christ denying conservatives and moderates won't be there either. Don't you know that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative. Actually, Jesus was the most radical person the world has ever known.

If you believe people from other denominations will be in Heaven and are therefore accepted by God how can you justify rejecting them? (Read carefully so you understand what I'm saying.)

 

Agreed. I am always open to considering scripture, especially if it appears to disagree with my initial position.

I'm quite warm in my fuzzy sweater, thanks.

 

Thank you for your description of Mars Hill, David. I am amazed at your great level of scholarship. You have taught us facts that I was not able to discover from the famed ISBE, which is much more ambiguous about what actually happened on Mars Hill.

The Expositor's Bible Commentary takes the position that Paul was brought there before the city fathers, which met there, to answer questions about his message. Hmm, doesn't sound like Paul voluntarily went into a pagan place of worship. But hey, who are these scholars to oppose your view!

As Mexdef has pointed out, David, you are completely wrong about secondary separation. Jones and Rice broke fellowship in 1972 over this very issue. The term didn't even exist until then, certainly not in the 1950's. Jones believed in secondary separation (though he objected to the term) and Rice didn't. Please look under the "Baptist Colleges and Universities" topic under "Why did Bob Jones separate from John R. Rice?" for my posts about this. Perhaps it is better that you are out of "those circles" if you understand so little about them.

 

None! Jesus endorsed no denomination in His day because there were none. Of course, He endorsed no Christian colleges, seminaries, mission boards, etc. either. Your argument from lack of evidence is an inanity. </font>[/QUOTE]WRONG ANSWER
Biblical Answer - One Church
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. </font>[/QUOTE]Boy, that’s cute! You are playing on the meaning of the term church. I simply assumed that you were referring to the local churches or denominations since this seemed to be the context of the discussion. From my reply, it is obvious that I am taking "churches" to mean something other than the universal church. It's how you use the term that defines it. Context gives meaning. Now, you pull the universal church out of the hat. Or, do you not believe in the local church? If not, how do you read the seven churches in Revelation?

Your argument and hat trick is spurious. BTW, you gave a misleading question by asking how many churches (plural). Your whole argument is striving about words to no profit. Bah! My answer wasn’t wrong; you just pulled a trick question and answer. You’ve proven nothing.

 

What do you mean by rejecting them? Separation is not rejecting them in the sense that I understand rejection. Yet, the Bible clearly and specifically commands us to separate from a so-called brother who is continuing in sin.

Read and understand the two following clear admonitions:
1Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
2Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

As I said, you don’t understand separation and don’t know it. Sir, you are caught up in petty rationalizations more than properly exegeting and understanding the Word of God. BTW, I do understand what you’re saying and repudiate it as specious reasoning.

 

I’m sorry that it’s over your head but I thought it was a simple and obvious comparison. As for the one bride concept, you’ll just have to figure that out on your own. I don’t know which view of the Bride you hold (i.e. Who makes up the Bride of Christ?).

 

You didn’t give the reference but I believe this is in III Corinthians 12. How do you reconcile your spiel with what is obviously written to believers in II Corinthians 5:8?

 

Aren't you glad folks have company with you inspite of this verse?

I'm glad folks have company with me even though I many not agree with all of their interpretations of 2 Thessalonians and inadvertantly not obey their interpretation of it.

I think the next verse also has something to do with it.

 

This is what I have understood separation & secondary separation to mean.

 

In other words, I allegorized nothing and you have still failed to show where I was at fault.

You said I was basing my argument on narrative, which I did not. Then you talk about an understanding of OT separation (which is historical narrative). Not much existentailism there.

Marrying a pagan and preaching to a pagan are totally different things. I'm not saying go and pastor a Buddhist temple, I am saying if they invited you to come and preach the Gospel by all means do it.

I totally agree. We should not marry pagans or unbelievers. We should not live with pagans or unbelievers. The "existential leaps" as you called them are being made by you here. Going from "do not marry" to "do not preach to" are pretty large leaps.

How would I be associated with a false religion if I went to one of their worship centers and publically proclaimed Christ over their false religion?

If I were to visit the Vatican while in Rome would that associate me with Catholicism? If I were to visit Temple Mount in Jerusalem would I be associated with Judaism or Islam? I was invited a few weeks ago to a Muslims house for dinner, am I now associated with them? The only people who would draw any such association are gossiping pastors who know better, but only wish to tear another Christian down.

Let's look at your next statement in response to mine, it's almost comical:

paidagogo responded:
You’re dead wrong. Read II John. </font>[/QUOTE]Instead of showing error you say, "your wrong". And in spite the requests I have made for you to show any of this "clear" doctrinal messages on this form of secondary separation you tell me to read a book.

Make your case, I've made mine. Show where I have faulted in my argument.

 

Nonsense! This is a liberal lie for the simple, the unthinking and the indoctrinated. You hear it enough and then you begin to believe it without thinking. What is a radical person? Radicals are extremely rebellious individuals who are intent on overturning the established order. Jesus specifically said that He did not come to destroy the Law; He came to fulfill the Law.

The following can be easily substantiated by anyone knowledgeable of the Scriptures:
1. Jesus kept the OT Law perfectly.
2. Jesus fulfilled the OT Law perfectly (different meaning from #1).
3. Jesus totally submitted Himself to the Father’s will.
4. Jesus completely obeyed the Father’s will.
5. Jesus was humble, meek and mild.
6. Jesus did not seek His own interest.

I do not think the above items are descriptive of a radical. We cannot label Jesus as a radical simply because people rejected Him and would not accept His teaching. We cannot call Him a radical because He confronted sin and hypocrisy.

 

The dictionary disagrees with you:

Radical:
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary

 

In other words, I allegorized nothing and you have still failed to show where I was at fault. </font>[/QUOTE]I said that your analogy was wrong. Why do you persist in denying allegory when I specifically stated that I never accused your of allegorizing? Your analogy (read A-N-A-L-O-G-Y) is bad. I said as much in the above quoted post. You have a comprehension problem. Allegory and analogy have the same weakness of being subject to multiple interpretations. Obviously, all the interpretations cannot be true.

You said I was basing my argument on narrative, which I did not. Then you talk about an understanding of OT separation (which is historical narrative). Not much existentailism there. </font>[/QUOTE]OT separation is specifically commanded and taught in the prohibitions against intermarriage with the heathen. This is not ambiguous allegorical interpretation. You’re arguing over trifles because your basic thesis is bankrupt. I don’t have time to waste in answering your twisting of my words.

Marrying a pagan and preaching to a pagan are totally different things. I'm not saying go and pastor a Buddhist temple, I am saying if they invited you to come and preach the Gospel by all means do it. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you are avoiding the issue. You jump from topic to topic and point to point. You are begging the question by assuming and put words in my mouth. Bah! I see no need to answer your inanity.

I totally agree. We should not marry pagans or unbelievers. We should not live with pagans or unbelievers. The "existential leaps" as you called them are being made by you here. Going from "do not marry" to "do not preach to" are pretty large leaps. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you won’t stick to the point. I simply established one small point. Separation is a Biblical mandate. Now, we can argue over the grounds of separation but I have established with your agreement that separation is a valid Biblical doctrine.

How would I be associated with a false religion if I went to one of their worship centers and publically proclaimed Christ over their false religion? </font>[/QUOTE]If you appear under their sponsorship (i.e. were invited), then you are associated with them. By speaking on their platform, you give credibility to their false religion. In effect, you have put their cursed doctrine on the same level as your own teaching as a competitor. There are no competitors with the truth. The pragmatic cry of the opportunity for witness is nullified by reality. Christianity is confrontational to all other religions.

Are you a tourist or a guest of the Pope?

How do you square this with II John? Acceptance of their religion does not favor to these poor lost sinners. It makes them secure in a religion that will carry them to Hell.

My, my! Such a mean, biased, judgmental spirit! How can you read another’s motives? Seems that this is exactly what Christ condemned and is warned against in James.

paidagogo responded:
You’re dead wrong. Read II John. </font>[/QUOTE]Instead of showing error you say, "your wrong". And in spite the requests I have made for you to show any of this "clear" doctrinal messages on this form of secondary separation you tell me to read a book.

Make your case, I've made mine. Show where I have faulted in my argument. </font>[/QUOTE]I can’t refute your argument because you have given no argument. You stated your belief but you gave no exegesis or supporting rationale. How can I refute it when it doesn’t exist? You’ve made no point and won no argument. No, you haven’t made any case at all except to say that II Corinthians 6 refers to intermarriage with unbelievers, I assume. My point is that II Corinthians 6 does specifically deny marriage with unbelievers (agreed) but this is not the lynchpin, as you seem to think, of separation theology. Separation is a principle taught throughout both the OT and NT in many forms (marriage, ecclesiastical, doctrinal, personal, etc.). For example, the end of church discipline is separation. I don’t think that I even brought up II Corinthians 6—this was your doing.

 

The dictionary disagrees with you:

Radical:
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary </font>[/QUOTE]Twaddle! Which dictionary? The Little Golden Book of Words? Try OED.

The Law was the standard--it was God's revealed standard. Jesus kept the Law and fulfilled it. He confronted the sin and evil of the pious crowd but he was not radical. He was what they ought to have been.

Now, try to address the rest of my points.

 

You orginally said I was allegorizing and my analgy was bad. I asked about the allegorizing, you retracted. You've yet to show how my analogy is bad though other than just saying, "it's wrong".

LOL, you are twisting the words. Once again, there is an astronomical leap between MARRYING a heathen and PREACHING TO a heathen.

I'm avoiding? I'm just asking for a simple explanation on how you get "don't preach the Gospel to a heathen congregation" out of "don't marry heathens". Give me a real case. I'm not jumping around topics, I'm responding to your statements.

I'm sticking to the point. You are the one pulling scriptures out of context, applying them to situations that have NOTHING to do with secondary separation or preaching the Gospel to a heathen congregation.

The scriptures you quoted are in regard to separation as it pertains to marrying unbelievers. No one is saying we should marry a Buddhist. The topic we are trying to discuss here is whether or not it is wrong to preach the Gospel in a Buddhist temple. Use applicable scripture and applicable arguments please.

How does that associate me with them? Simply stating it does does not make it so.

Now this is a big leap. If I were to stand on their platform and tell them Buddhism was OK, that would be giving credibility to thier religion. If I were to stand on their platform and say, "JESUS is the ONLY way" and preach the Gospel to them, that would be publically denouncing their religion, not adding to it.

And what part of preaching the gospel does not confront Buddhism or other religions as being false? You aren't truly preaching the Gospel if you present it as a way to God, only if it is the way to God.

Show me a verse in 2 John that says I can't eat with them.

How does accepting a dinner invitation equal "acceptance of their religion"? Did Peter sin when he went to Cornellius' house, though he had not yet been saved? Did Jesus sin when He ate with sinners? Did Jesus sin when He ate with Pharisees? You obviously have no concept of building relationships to reach people.

By their fruits you will know them. Anyone who would condemn me for reaching people with the gospel in a biblical way is simply tearing down the work of other Christians. They should know better and quit their gossiping.

OK, here it is again...

I think you are getting me confused with you. You have given ZERO scripture you back up your position.

See, the "assume" part is dangerous. You haven't even read what I posted to you.