Dr. Bob, I agree on the KJV issue. Separation on this matter is an example of separation to the 4th or 5th degree. It is separating over opinions rather than doctrinal deviation. This is where the commands to separate actually cause one to disobey the command to love the brethren and separation, as practiced, becomes unbiblical. It is interesting that in II Thess 3, that even when separation becomes necessary, we are to entreat the disorderly as a brother, not as an enemy.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Degrees of Separation
- Thread starter swaimj
- Start date
DocCas
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Satan wants us to be divided over non-issues.
Look at my historic ifb movement - we will stand together on the inspiration, virgin birth, pre-trib rapture, so what does Satan do? He divides us over English translations of God's Word?
<snip>
Satan must be happy. The KJVonly movement is destroying the doctrinal unity within the fundamentalist ranks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I might add that the "Anti-KJVOnly" movement is just as guilty. I received a copy of a church resolution from Calvary Road Baptist Church in Monrovia, Calfornia where my friend John Waldrip is pastor. This church resolution stated that any church, or any church who's pastor, believed the King James Bible was inspired, was not a true church and Calvary Road Baptist Church was officially breaking fellowship with all such churches, and Calvary Road Baptist Church would not accept the baptism of such churches as being valid. I don't know of any KJVO churches which have so publicly broken fellowship with nonKJVO churches, and refuse their baptism. There may be some, but if so I am not aware of them.
It seems to me there is plenty of guilt to go around, and we should be very careful of being too one-sided in fixing the blame.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
Satan wants us to be divided over non-issues.
Look at my historic ifb movement - we will stand together on the inspiration, virgin birth, pre-trib rapture, so what does Satan do? He divides us over English translations of God's Word?
<snip>
Satan must be happy. The KJVonly movement is destroying the doctrinal unity within the fundamentalist ranks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I might add that the "Anti-KJVOnly" movement is just as guilty. I received a copy of a church resolution from Calvary Road Baptist Church in Monrovia, Calfornia where my friend John Waldrip is pastor. This church resolution stated that any church, or any church who's pastor, believed the King James Bible was inspired, was not a true church and Calvary Road Baptist Church was officially breaking fellowship with all such churches, and Calvary Road Baptist Church would not accept the baptism of such churches as being valid. I don't know of any KJVO churches which have so publicly broken fellowship with nonKJVO churches, and refuse their baptism. There may be some, but if so I am not aware of them.It seems to me there is plenty of guilt to go around, and we should be very careful of being too one-sided in fixing the blame.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
The one who stands AGAINST the extreme KJVonly heresy (and I use that word on purpose) is "just as guilty" or culpable as the ones who INSTIGATED the controversy (extreme KJVonly)?
No, I would not agree with that. BTW, I commend a church that would take a strong position AGAINST the evil and divisive teaching of extreme KJVonly. There is a pastor who is guarding his sheep from a pernicious error.
Now, I won't win friends for that, but I still hold strongly that the REAL GUILT lay in the lap of those who started this movement. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who CAUSE divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I would not agree with that. BTW, I commend a church that would take a strong position AGAINST the evil and divisive teaching of extreme KJVonly. There is a pastor who is guarding his sheep from a pernicious error.
Now, I won't win friends for that, but I still hold strongly that the REAL GUILT lay in the lap of those who started this movement. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who CAUSE divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with Dr. Bob here ... although refusing their baptism may be too much. It is certainly not too much to separate from the extremem elements.
DocCas
New Member
I never ceases to amaze me how I can post a fairly simple statement, then see it added to by subsequent posters and then see the subsequent posters disagree, not with my original statement, but with what they added to my original statement, insinuating the extreme they added was actually part of my original statement! Is this practice mentioned anywhere in that book on Phariseeism?
Lots of good points, but I think we've failed to do one very important thing--address the pertinent passages in their contexts.
swaimj, you mentioned Rom. 16:17 and 1 Thess. 3 (I assume you meant 2 Thess. 3).
Romans is commanding separation from those that cause divisions. 2 Thess. is commanding separation from believers that are lazy and undisciplined. I do not see an application to "disobedient brothers" in a broad sense in these two passages. This contextually sensitive interpretation eliminates the need for discussion of how many degrees of separation we need to observe.
Ironically, our fundamentalist brethren who practice poor exegesis and demand separation at various degrees for all sorts of perceived disobedience are perhaps those we are truly commanded to separate from in Romans 16:17.
[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
swaimj, you mentioned Rom. 16:17 and 1 Thess. 3 (I assume you meant 2 Thess. 3).
Romans is commanding separation from those that cause divisions. 2 Thess. is commanding separation from believers that are lazy and undisciplined. I do not see an application to "disobedient brothers" in a broad sense in these two passages. This contextually sensitive interpretation eliminates the need for discussion of how many degrees of separation we need to observe.
Ironically, our fundamentalist brethren who practice poor exegesis and demand separation at various degrees for all sorts of perceived disobedience are perhaps those we are truly commanded to separate from in Romans 16:17.
[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Dr. Cassidy,
I would not separate from a church that held an onlyKJV position (in contrast to a KJVonly position) but would brace myself as many of them would choose to separate from me. I think that Dr. Bob's point is, in part, that some who hold a more moderate postition separate when they should not.
Siegfried,
Many do take the command in II Thess to refer only to the laziness mentioned. However, in the broader context, Paul speaks of holding the tradition you were taught, by word or epistle (2:15) and he says to note the man who does not obey our word in this epistle and do not keep company with him.(3:14). Paul's tradition by word or epistle and his word in this epistle includes more than the specific admonition on laziness; consequently, I think the application of the command would be broader as well.
I would not separate from a church that held an onlyKJV position (in contrast to a KJVonly position) but would brace myself as many of them would choose to separate from me. I think that Dr. Bob's point is, in part, that some who hold a more moderate postition separate when they should not.
Siegfried,
Many do take the command in II Thess to refer only to the laziness mentioned. However, in the broader context, Paul speaks of holding the tradition you were taught, by word or epistle (2:15) and he says to note the man who does not obey our word in this epistle and do not keep company with him.(3:14). Paul's tradition by word or epistle and his word in this epistle includes more than the specific admonition on laziness; consequently, I think the application of the command would be broader as well.
swaimj,
Let me develop my point a little more regarding the message of 2 Thessalonians.
Chapter 1 is essentially an account of Paul's thanksgiving for the God's using opposition to strengthen the Thess. faith.
Chapter 2 deals with Paul's command for the Thess. not to be deceived by bad eschatology, but to stand firm in what he had taught them before. That is the only command I see in the letter besides the command to separate. Whoops, almost forgot the command to pray in 3:1.
In chapter 3 Paul addresses the issue of separation from those who are being lazy. Now correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have a Thess. commentary handy, but if I recall correctly, I believe it is considered likely that some in Thess. were selling their property, abandoning their jobs, and living it up because they thought Christ's return was immediately imminent.
Paul's admonishments about laziness and separation were closely tied to the immediate problem faced in chapter 2. The oral teaching he refers to in 3:6 probably points to the eschatology he says (in 2:5) that he had dealt with in person.
Even if my historical reconstruction is incorrect, I still don't see any broad application to all sorts of differences in doctrine or practice, and certainly not standards. 2 Thessalonians simply doesn't deal with a broad range of issues.
[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Let me develop my point a little more regarding the message of 2 Thessalonians.
Chapter 1 is essentially an account of Paul's thanksgiving for the God's using opposition to strengthen the Thess. faith.
Chapter 2 deals with Paul's command for the Thess. not to be deceived by bad eschatology, but to stand firm in what he had taught them before. That is the only command I see in the letter besides the command to separate. Whoops, almost forgot the command to pray in 3:1.
In chapter 3 Paul addresses the issue of separation from those who are being lazy. Now correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have a Thess. commentary handy, but if I recall correctly, I believe it is considered likely that some in Thess. were selling their property, abandoning their jobs, and living it up because they thought Christ's return was immediately imminent.
Paul's admonishments about laziness and separation were closely tied to the immediate problem faced in chapter 2. The oral teaching he refers to in 3:6 probably points to the eschatology he says (in 2:5) that he had dealt with in person.
Even if my historical reconstruction is incorrect, I still don't see any broad application to all sorts of differences in doctrine or practice, and certainly not standards. 2 Thessalonians simply doesn't deal with a broad range of issues.
[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Seigfried,
You make a good case and I agree with the flow of the book that you have stated. I think that Paul was making a specific application to a situation in Thessalonica in ch 3. However, he also states his theme in a broader way in ch 2 which allows for and consequently requires broader application. In 2:15 he calls them to obedience to "the traditions, whether by word or by epistle". The traditions are not just the specific ones in this book or even in I Th, because he grounds them in their entire experience of salvation (v. 13) and sanctification (v. 14). Based on this comprehensive tradition he prays that God will "establish you in every good word and work."(v.17). Based on the general, he goes to the specific. But in making a specific application, he lays out a general pattern for all churches.
You make a good case and I agree with the flow of the book that you have stated. I think that Paul was making a specific application to a situation in Thessalonica in ch 3. However, he also states his theme in a broader way in ch 2 which allows for and consequently requires broader application. In 2:15 he calls them to obedience to "the traditions, whether by word or by epistle". The traditions are not just the specific ones in this book or even in I Th, because he grounds them in their entire experience of salvation (v. 13) and sanctification (v. 14). Based on this comprehensive tradition he prays that God will "establish you in every good word and work."(v.17). Based on the general, he goes to the specific. But in making a specific application, he lays out a general pattern for all churches.
P
Pioneer
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:Satan must be happy. The KJVonly movement is destroying the doctrinal unity within the fundamentalist ranks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is the modern Bible version movement that is destroying fundamentalism. The King James Bible was here 270 years before the modern Bible version movement was spawned into existence.
[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is the modern Bible version movement that is destroying fundamentalism. The King James Bible was here 270 years before the modern Bible version movement was spawned into existence.
[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
Pioneer, you hit the nail on the head.
For the record, the BB is as close as I want to get to some of the rabid Nothing Onlyrs on this board. They are in denial and say that we are the ones that are causing division. They bring up Ruckman and people of his mentality and paint the whole KJV Only camp with that brush.
If it were a KJV Onlyr who posted something like that, how long do you think it would have taken for someone to jump his case?
For the record, the BB is as close as I want to get to some of the rabid Nothing Onlyrs on this board. They are in denial and say that we are the ones that are causing division. They bring up Ruckman and people of his mentality and paint the whole KJV Only camp with that brush.
If it were a KJV Onlyr who posted something like that, how long do you think it would have taken for someone to jump his case?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
It is the modern Bible version movement that is destroying fundamentalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fundamentalism never has been King James only. The original document, The Fundamentals, expressly contended for inspiration in the original autographs. The KJVOnly controversy is really a product of the last 30 or so years.
As for Larry, no one here much talks about Ruckman that I know of, unless someone brings up something he says.
I think we should separate from the rabid KJVOnlyites, in order that they might either 1) realize the error of their way or 2) not destroy the body with needless controversy. I have no problem with those who prefer the KJV or those who prefer a different textual basis. The KJVOnly movement is a far different horse.
It is the modern Bible version movement that is destroying fundamentalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fundamentalism never has been King James only. The original document, The Fundamentals, expressly contended for inspiration in the original autographs. The KJVOnly controversy is really a product of the last 30 or so years.
As for Larry, no one here much talks about Ruckman that I know of, unless someone brings up something he says.
I think we should separate from the rabid KJVOnlyites, in order that they might either 1) realize the error of their way or 2) not destroy the body with needless controversy. I have no problem with those who prefer the KJV or those who prefer a different textual basis. The KJVOnly movement is a far different horse.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
What is fragmenting fundamentalism is pharisees on both sides who condemn the other side for disagreeing with them, call them names, and generally make a ministry out of demeaning their Brothers and Sisters in Christ!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well said.
What is fragmenting fundamentalism is pharisees on both sides who condemn the other side for disagreeing with them, call them names, and generally make a ministry out of demeaning their Brothers and Sisters in Christ!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said.
I am not a part of the KJVonly or the MV (modern version) crowd. I am a recovering Pharisee and disdain both groups.
I am LVO - Latin Vulgate Only. THAT was the best translation of the Word of God for 1200 years.
To me, KJV or MV are ALL "modern".
And WHY are there divisions? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am LVO - Latin Vulgate Only. THAT was the best translation of the Word of God for 1200 years.
To me, KJV or MV are ALL "modern".
And WHY are there divisions? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>