Secondary Separation

Well, at least you are consistent—consistently wrong! From your statement above, you seem to be saying that I have given no Scripture (i.e. not any, none, not even one) supporting separation. You are WRONG again. I have posted the following unambiguous commands of separation along with several other passages. I even recommended that you read II John but you didn’t want to do that either. Since there’s no reasoning with you, I won’t even try but I will point out your false statements. Scroll back and read my posts. You will find references to one or two other Scriptures as well. So, I have given more Scripture than you since I think you got stuck on one passage.

Don’t you get embarrassed by posting your nonsense?

 

Paul, what is your definition of a Neo-evangelical or "New Evangelical"? I don't know that one must associate with liberals to be termed a "New Evangelical". Have you read Lindsell's book, "The Battle for the Bible"? This gives you the feel of what Neo-evangelicals are. It was Woodbridge and Ashbrook who pretty much defined what was wrong with their views on separation. It's more of an attiutde, now discernable in Neo-fundamentalism, than a doctrinal position. IMHO, Neo-fundamentalists are basically the old Neo-evangelicals (i.e. Henry, Lindsell, et. al.) half a century later. IMHO, I think you are visualizing Neo-evangleicals as the more extreme cases of the movement.

 

I'll have to disagree with you here, paidagogos. The original New Evangelicals took conservative Christianity in an entirely new direction by advocating dialogue and cooperation with liberals. To be a real New Evangelical by the standards of the originals, you have to at least want to cooperate (not just associate) with liberals.

The New Evangelical mantra is, "Can't we all just get along?" Of course the liberals are happy to take converts from Graham's meetings into their churches, etc., but they will never respect evangelicals. My son recently attended a lecture by an evangelical archaeologist who had recently debated a liberal. The liberal used his whole time to say that archaeology can never prove the Bible right, and never would discuss the findings of the evangelical. Liberals just plain look down on evangelicals as long as they refuse to deny their Biblical faith. But the evangelicals just keep on trying!

 

This is getting ridiculous. OK, I'll QUOTE your exact words to me.

Thus saith the Padi:
"Furthermore, you embrace a faulty hermeneutic. One cannot build doctrine on narrative and events. Doctrinal teaching, such as Biblical separation, must come from clear statements in the Word of God. Allegory and analogy are subject to any number of interpretations."

Why do I feel as if I'm communicating with a KJVO who denies even his own words then results to insults when proven wrong repeatedly?

Now, PLEASE give me any scriptural support for Secondary Separation.

 

Oooooh, you schooled me! Oh wait, you still haven't made an argument.

Let's examine this...

Yet there are no commands following... interesting.

I have read 2 John many times, there is no secondary separation there. To debate a point you need to actually show what specific scriptures apply to your made up doctrine and explain why you interpret them that way. Anyone can say, "I believe XYZ doctrine, if you don't believe me read Matthew." 2 John deals with a lot of things, I'm not going to try to make your arguments for you. Give some scripture, PLEASE.

You haven't tried yet Give me some reason, any reason at all to believe this new doctrine of Secondary Separation.

Nope, ya haven't pointed out any of those yet.

By quanity you have given more (i.e. the entire book of 2 John). But by actual quality and making an argument you have give ZERO. It is hard for me to argue against a made up doctrine if you can't describe where it comes from. The closest you came to presenting anything resembling an arguement was, "In the OT they were not to marry pagans." Which has nothing to do with associating with those who associate with pagans (secondary separation) or preaching the Gospel to a pagan congregation.

You are out on a big limb, please give some Scriptural support! I'm begging and pleading. I want to see anything in the Bible that tells me I can't associate with those who associate with pagans. I want to see anything in Scripture that tells me not to preach the gospel to a pagan congregation.

And if you are interested in quanitity only, I've got you beat. I'll argue like you do, "There is no such thing as secondary separation. If you want a reference, read the entire Bible."

 

Fundamentalists need more men like John R. Rice today. He took good, strong postional stands along with balance and a graceful attitude.
From all I've ever read regarding Graham both pro and con it was Graham himself who made the decision to become a full-blown ecumenical evangelist.
I've talked to preachers that are the same age as Graham and were ministering during those times. One of them made an interesting point. He said
"Graham was packing out stadiums before he ever yoked up with the liberals." "The liberals needed Graham,Graham didn't need them"
I have often wondered after reading different biographies of Graham such as "Just as I'am" which is huge BTW. I wonder if Graham maybe got stars in his eyes when it came to going the route he chose to take. I'm just saying he is made of flesh like the rest of us. Maybe the move to go ecumenical was him getting ahead of God. BG has always preached the clear Gospel though. I believe the outcome of BG's ministry will only be made clear at the Bema seat just like our own. He was a man that preached the Gospel to alot of folk yet he also helped to muddy the theological waters around the world due to his affiliations with those who do not teach biblical salvation such as Roman Catholics.

 

No matter where you stand I need your prayers.

Please look at this thread at my post on the bottom of the page: www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5578.html

please pray that God will lead us.

 

Huge decision. I'll be praying.

 

Sorrow I'm so late in respondind. Was out of town for a conference.
I was asked if I was bitter. I felt the remark was condescending at the time, but it was explained that the person meant it sincerely so I'll take his word for it. We feel passionately about our faith and we always need to beware of being bitter against our brethren with whom we disagree.
Now a point of fact. I was asked if I actually read the SOTL. I was a regular subscriber for many years. Robert Sumner, in a sermon printed in the SOTL using the story of Balaam as a platform to berate Evangelical Christians said, "So you see, the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of Billy are the same."
I did a paper in seminary re: Rice's change in position re: Graham. TEDS has every issue of SOTL on microfilm. As I recall, I searched every issue at least through '56 through '57 and probably a little before and a little after. This was the time of Graham's NY crusade when Rice turned against Graham.
Before then, Rice championed Graham. In fact, he made a point of defending criticism of Graham by liberals with respect to his London crusade.
Then at the time of the NY crusade, Bob Jones in his byline attacked Graham. Rice published an article, "With Fractured Skull Editor Writes." Rice had been seriously injured in a fall down a set of stairs, but said he felt compelled to write. Attacks on Graham knew no bounds. In fact, this is the watershed event that finally, in my opinion, pushed fundamentalism finally off the map. "Separation" became the sine quo non of fundamentalism--by their own admission. Fundamentalists began to say that fundamentalism wasn't a theology but a position.
I finally left fundamentalism because I read "Pursuit of Purity" published by BJU. I realized that the men who were held up as heroes would be unmercifully treated with scorn if they were on the scene today. What paraded itself as fundamentalism was a myth. The house of cards collapsed for me. One thing led to another and it wasn't long before I came to believe that what calls itself fundamentalism bears no resemblance whatsoever to the heroic men and women who stood against modernism in the 20s and 30s.

 

Hello, David. Glad you got back with me. I am encouraged that you have actually read the articles you were talking about.

Forgive me, I don't mean this as criticism, but you sounded very emotional in your previous posts, as much as one can tell from the written word. If this is true, I can understand where you are coming from. I myself have been hurt very deeply by Fundamentalists, and I know they can be nasty some times. I was driven by my deep hurt to examine the Scriptures for myself. I came out of the process a solid Fundamentalist in the historic vein (unlike these newbies who make a Bible version or whether women should wear pants a test of fellowship).

I hope you will consider carefully once again what I have written. You have not referred in your post to what I wrote concerning your previous post, so I'm not sure you understand my points.

(1) John R. Rice never attacked Billy Graham personally in the SOTL. He attacked his position, which is perfectly all right to do. We both are discussing positions right now in a gentlemanly and Christian way, I trust. Did other Fundamentalists attack Graham personally? Yes, and that was wrong. I can't guarantee (without doing the research) that personal attacks never appeared in the SOTL, though I know from JRR himself that he didn't believe in them. Sumner himself, good man that he is (I knew him years ago), sometimes has a sharp tongue, and BJ Jr. certainly did. But I am positive that you cannot find a personal attack on Graham by Rice anywhere in the SOTL archives. On the other hand, Rice and other Fundamentalists were attacked viciously by Graham surrogates. I have talked to people who read the nasty letters from a certain Graham in-law. (By the way, Fundamentalism was never "pushed off the map," as you put it. About 10,000 churches now call themselves Fundamentalist.)

(2) This thread is about secondary separation. You have attacked John R. Rice for being a secondary separationist. I have answered your charges that Rice believed in secondary separation. What sayest thou?

(3) Now concerning your statement that Rice "turned against Graham" because of the New York Crusade (1957), no, he never "turned against Graham." Rice did not change. He had always been against cooperating with and promoting liberals. (See his 1948 book, Is Jesus God?) Graham is the one who changed. In 1957 for the first time, Graham INSISTED that liberals be included in the Crusade committee. (I document this in another thread.) In fact, he turned down invitations by conservatives (led by Jack Wyrtzen) and accepted instead the invitation by the Protestant Council of New York, headed by noted liberal Gardner Taylor.

(3) I find it very sad that you allowed a book put out by BJU to turn you against Fundamentalism. The movement is huge--BJU is only a part of it. I am a Fundamentalist, but there is no way I would let BJU stand for me. The original principles and stand of Fundamentalism are sound, even if some take it too far.

 

shannonL, your gracious words about John R. are right on target. Everyone who knew him personally agrees about that. As I have said elsewhere, Bob Jones Jr. quietly attended the funeral, and Billy Graham sent a huge wreath of flowers. (I saw Dr. Bob and the flowers.) If he were so nasty, as David Ekstrom is trying to say, why would men he differed with so profoundly care so much about him?

You are also dead on target that it was Graham himself who changed, not the Fundamentalists. David and others seem to think that separation from the liberals was a brand new thing for Fundamentalists in 1957, without realizing the huge upheavals in the SBC and ABC (then Northern Baptist) in the early part of the century.

 

shannonL, your gracious words about John R. are right on target. Everyone who knew him personally agrees about that. As I have said elsewhere, Bob Jones Jr. quietly attended the funeral, and Billy Graham sent a huge wreath of flowers. (I saw Dr. Bob and the flowers.) If he were so nasty, as David Ekstrom is trying to say, why would men he differed with so profoundly care so much about him?

You are also dead on target that it was Graham himself who changed, not the Fundamentalists. David and others seem to think that separation from the liberals was a brand new thing for Fundamentalists in 1957, without realizing the huge upheavals in the SBC and ABC (then Northern Baptist) in the early part of the century. </font>[/QUOTE]The Fundamentalists are cussed for separating and causing divisions but it is actually the one who departs from the originally held teaching or practice that causes the separation and division. This is the sense of Romans 16:17-18 (also Jude 1:19).

 

Well said. Some are cussed because they are mean spirited and holler and do little or no work to share their faith. On the flip side I have been associate with fundamentalists for years who are not mean spirited and know their Bible well and attempt to live out what the Bible teaches.
Some of the so called fundamentalists are nothing more than shamans who put on a show in their churches without giving much meat. It is a time of wasted showmanship. They continue to lead people in ignorance.

Our goal should be to be like Christ who loves people enough to give them the truth and yet be patient with them.

 

That is not true. Both have changed. They have gotten further apart form the center point. Look at KJVO and godhatesfags.com



Does anyone really believe that sign descibes the gospel which the website protrays that Jesus gave in spirit and truth?

 

I'll have to disagree with you here, paidagogos. The original New Evangelicals took conservative Christianity in an entirely new direction by advocating dialogue and cooperation with liberals. To be a real New Evangelical by the standards of the originals, you have to at least want to cooperate (not just associate) with liberals.

The New Evangelical mantra is, "Can't we all just get along?" Of course the liberals are happy to take converts from Graham's meetings into their churches, etc., but they will never respect evangelicals. My son recently attended a lecture by an evangelical archaeologist who had recently debated a liberal. The liberal used his whole time to say that archaeology can never prove the Bible right, and never would discuss the findings of the evangelical. Liberals just plain look down on evangelicals as long as they refuse to deny their Biblical faith. But the evangelicals just keep on trying! </font>[/QUOTE]John, I agree with your assessment. The "New Evangelicals" as coined by Ockenga sought dialogue with liberals.

Many today who are called "New Evangelicals" have never sought dialogue with liberals. In fact, I would submit that the vast majority of those called new evangelicals in the 50's didn't dialogue with liberals. However, supporting Billy Graham became the litmus test of whether one was a fundamentalist or a new evangelical.

 

Today, there is a large stream of "historic fundamentalists" and/or conservative evangelicals that are often being labeled "new evangelicals."

I believe this is the strand that represents the fundamentalism of the 20/30s.

 

The gradual evolution of fundamentalism has been documented by others. I took a course in seminary, "Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism." George Marsden documents it in, "Fundamentalism and American Culture," and "Reforming Fundamentalism." A treatise in Trinity Journal pointed out, I think it was, five stages in the evolution of fundamentalism. I pointed out the BJU book, "Pursuit of Purity" simply because it shows the changes without even intending to do so.
I double-dog dare you to read the book and see if the people that are called the heroes of fundamentalism wouldn't be called "neo-evangelical" if they were on the scene today.
I have not been "hurt" by fundamentalism, as some would want to dismiss my posts. I came to believe that today's fundamentalism is unbiblical. Period.
BJ and Rice demanded that everyone respond to liberalism the same way that they did. This was a change from earlier fundamentalists. Who were they to make these demands? It wasn't Rice's business to tell Graham how he was supposed to preach the Gospel and with whom he could associate.
Now, I agree with John that Rice was much, much better than BJ and his progeny. But Rice doesn't get off the hook so easily. On more than one occassion, Rice said that people should not pray for the Billy Graham crusades. He said he would not pray that God would bless his sin. Did this mean that Rice didn't want to see people get saved during Graham's meetings?

 

I would like to read "Pursuit of Purity," but don't have it, can't buy it over here and have other priorities right now. Having said that, I would urge you not to make judgments based on a monolithic view of Fundamentalism. Granted, Fundamentalism has changed. However, it is a very complicated movement nowadays. I'll look for the Trinity article--I have the Theological Journal CD, albeit an older one. I don't have time right now to interact more than this with your statements, it being a very busy weekend.

I didn't intend to mis-characterize you. However, By your statements in the "The REAL Jack Hyles" thread, it was very easy to assume you had been hurt by Fundamentalism.

I challenge you on your statement, "Rice said that people should not pray for the Billy Graham crusades." I never heard him say this, never read this statement. When I edited his book of sermon illustrations I read every single one of his books, and nothing like that ever appeared. Can you give me the exact quote and where he made it? I personally prayed with Rice many times, and personally heard him pray for God to bless Billy Graham. Furthermore, he never, EVER, desired for souls NOT to be saved.

This is really getting old, David. You make slanderous accusations without reference, I disprove them, you don't back down, but then you make additional accusations. You have a good education--I know you can do better than this.

 

Ekstrom,
Don't give up on Fundamentalism yet. The pendulum is swinging back.

 

Seems to me like it is swinging both drections. The liberals are getting more liberal and have split into two groups One is mean spirited and militant. While the other is sweet and both are wrong. The fundamentalists of yesterday have split into two groups. One group has a a mean sprit and does not have that much integrity (more talk than walk) and the other group is serious about knowing God and sharing their faith while they disciple others.