Is Separation a fundamental?

[sister christian]

This is part of my study on Fundamentalism.

Is Separation a Fundamental? Separation from the world? Separation from believers who do not meet your standards? Explain.

 

[rbell]

This is part of my study on Fundamentalism.

Is Separation a Fundamental? Separation from the world? Separation from believers who do not meet your standards? Explain.

one of the most abused beliefs in fundamentalism.

Is Separation a Fundamental? Well, it's a Scriptural command...I hesitate the term "fundamental" because of its baggage. In many circles, you violate "a fundamental of the faith" because your definition of "separation" differs from the next guy. Hence, fights.
Separation from the world? We should be different. This has nothing to do with total and complete segregation. In fact, that makes it impossible to carry out the Great Commission.
Separation from believers who do not meet your standards? Misuse of the Scripture that tells us to be separate.

 

[Daniel1654]

There is no way you can completely separate your self from the world.
"we are in the world, but we are not of the world".
You must keep your heart in check though. Keep your heart separate.
"love not the world nor the things in it".
If Christ is in your heart, it belongs to him.

 

[Crabtownboy]

What do you mean by "separate from the world?" The answer, I believe, depends on what type of separation you are thinking about.

Christ commanded we go into all the world.

 

[Dale-c]

Am I a fundamentalist? Sure. By my definition of what the fundamentals are.
Do I believe in separation from the world? Sure. BUt not by what the average IFB I know considers separation.

For many I know, the fundamentals for them have become one with what they consider separation.
To them, being a fundamental baptist means the following:

KJV only
No pants on women.
No alcohol, even in moderation.
No "rock" music, which is defined as anything with "more of a beat that I care for"
Door to door salesmanship of the gospel.


Now, I should add that not everyone takes all of the rules.
A lot of the fighting comes when one "fundamentalist" rejects one of the "rules"
Not one of these are truly fundamentals and should not be a cause for division.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Am I a fundamentalist? Sure. By my definition of what the fundamentals are.
Do I believe in separation from the world? Sure. BUt not by what the average IFB I know considers separation.

For many I know, the fundamentals for them have become one with what they consider separation.
To them, being a fundamental baptist means the following:

KJV only
No pants on women.
No alcohol, even in moderation.
No "rock" music, which is defined as anything with "more of a beat that I care for"
Door to door salesmanship of the gospel.


Now, I should add that not everyone takes all of the rules.
A lot of the fighting comes when one "fundamentalist" rejects one of the "rules"
Not one of these are truly fundamentals and should not be a cause for division.

What do you mean when you say "separation from the world?"

 

[4His_glory]

Separation has always been and will always be a key part of the fundamentalist make up. How far one must take it is a matter of debate. Sadly you find two extremes that are very come with in the broader spectrum of evangelicalism:
1. No or very little practice of separation.
2. Extreme separation to the point of being silly.

I would argue though that if one is going to stand on the fundamentals of the faith he will be a separatist of some nature.

 

[nunatak]

Aren't we separated by faith in Christ alone?

 

[swaimj]

Separation is the primary distinctive of fundamentalism, historically. Separation can be separation from worldliness, it can be separation from false doctrine, it can be separation from brethren who compromise. All fundamentalists have historically practiced some of these and most have practiced two or more of these.

 

[John of Japan]

Separation is the primary distinctive of fundamentalism, historically. Separation can be separation from worldliness, it can be separation from false doctrine, it can be separation from brethren who compromise. All fundamentalists have historically practiced some of these and most have practiced two or more of these.

Well put, swaimj.

Separation from worldliness is called personal separation. The goal of personal separation is not holiness, since that is what God gives us through Jesus Christ. It is when Christians believe that separation from worldliness means holiness in and of itself that it becomes legalism. Properly speaking, though, personal separation is separation from worldliness in that worldliness opens the door to temptation, and we are to deny worldly lusts (Titus 2:12) and pray for protection from temptation (Matt. 6:13).

Separation from false doctrine, or more particularly false teachers and false prophets, is called ecclesiastical separation. Fundamentalists believe in separating from anyone who does not believe the fundamentals, believing that you can't be a true believer and deny the doctrines of Christ (2 John 9-11): His virgin birth, deity, substitutionary atonement, resurrection and second coming. The Bible has definite commands to separate from false prophets and those who teach false doctrine. (2 Tim. 3:5, Titus 3:10, Rom. 16:17, etc.).

Practically speaking, this means that Fundamentalists fought against liberalism in their denominations in the 1920's and 1930's. Then when liberals could not be rooted from their denominations, they either left them or in some cases were kicked out. Again in the 1950's it meant that Fundamentalists fought against the rise of ecumenicalism, in particular through what was called "cooperative evangelism," in which evangelicals cooperated with liberals in evangelistic campaigns.

A third term is secondary separation, which some Fundamentalists practice and some don't. This is the act of ecclesiastical separation from a brother or church held to be continuing in sin. This should not be confused with church discipline, though it often is, with verses written about church discipline being used to prove secondary separation. In a famous dispute between Fundamentalists in the early 1970's, Bob Jones Jr. stood for secondary separation and John R. Rice stood against it.

 

[swaimj]

In a famous dispute between Fundamentalists in the early 1970's, Bob Jones Jr. stood for secondary separation and John R. Rice stood against it.

And John of Japan agrees with....? Knowing who you are I am just curious about this.

 

[John of Japan]

And John of Japan agrees with....? Knowing who you are I am just curious about this.

I was at BJU in 1972 when the whole thing went down--if you can imagine!

I investigated both sides with as open mind as I could, and came down on the side of John R. Rice. I felt that the Scriptures Dr. Bob Jr. was using just didn't prove his point. In particular he used 2 Thess. 3:6. However, I concluded that the context there was speaking about someone who didn't work to feed his family, and thus was a local church matter and not a passage you could apply for ecclesiastical separation as Bob Jr. wanted to. And then I transferred to Tennessee Temple. (Got tired of hearing about Grandpa in chapel.) :smilewinkgrin:

 

[swaimj]

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that the I Thess passage has a more limited application.

 

[skypair]

Y'all,

Aren't the critical issues of separation and discipline seen fully developed in 1Cor 5-6?

1) You have the "brother-fornicator" with whom NOT to fellowship (excommunicate him).

2) The "fornicators" outside the church with whom we must company else "then you must needs go out of this world."

3) You have keeping wrongs among the brethren within the church -- handling them "church judgment" (to the detriment of the communion if we don't, 1Cor 11:28-34).

4) You have the teaching that the body is the temple of Christ which is to be separated from sin.

5) Finally, 2Cor 7:12-16 tells us how to restore one who has been disciplined and has repented.

skypair