Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

Do it all in one post, Paul.

Perhaps, but that wasn't the discussio. The discussion is about "Baptist distinctives." It is not about independent Baptist distinctives, or commitments. Baptist distinctives are clearly defined in church history. Separation is not among them.

I am the one who said that Paul. I pointed out that I said the accusation of "separation over every jot and tittle" was a caricature. But that is not what you said. You responded as if I said that separation over doctrine was a caricature, (go back and look at it in yoru 3:35pm post). This time, you got what I said right, and yes, the accusation that separation is over every jot and tittle is a caricature.

No hidden intent there, Paul. Why not just use the word? Everyone knows what you mean. YOu think veiling it is more acceptable?

It is still advice worth taking. Your facts were wrong on several issues.

But it does have to be a baptist distinctive. YOu don't get to change the meaning of Baptist distinctive. I share the Baptist distinctives with the SBC, BGC, CGA, GARBC, etc. But I do not fellowship with them all. Again, you misunderstand "Baptist distinctive."

That is not true really. The new evangelicals today are not the historic fundamentalists. They do not separate, and again, you can find the truth in any one of a number of sources. Start with Marsden. He describes in detail where new evangelicalism comes from, and how they split from the fundamentalists to have fellowship with liberals..

Not quite accurate. By their existence in teh SBC, BGC, or CBA, they are fellowshipping with liberals. They are joined together in that fellowship. It may not be close fellowship, but it is still fellowship.

And with good reason. There are biblical principles at stake, such as in Rom 16:17-18, 2 Thess 3, Jude, 2 and 3 John, Titus 3, etc. We fundamentalists take those words seriously.

Not true. First, the theological landscape is so vastly different, you really can't compare. Second, it is the fundamentalists who are holding the spirit of Laws who talked of doing battle royale for the fundamentals. It is we who are maintaining that position, rather than compromising it.

Lastly, your citation of NBBC shows your understanding. That is their doctrinal statement for their organization. It is not a Baptist distinctive. Call Sam Horn or Matt Olsen and ask them if they think separation is a Baptist distinctive, and let us know what they say. In fact, why don't you contact these institutions you have listed and ask them this question. Then post their response. I would be willing to be they agree with me, not with you. You willing to find out?

 

Condescending even in telling people how to post, eh?

 

No, just pointing out the ease of posting your comments in one post. They are easier to respond to. Man, you need to get out a bit and relax some. You are way too uptight.

 

"Jot and tittle" is doctrine.

The question of this thread is: "Is the doctrine of separation a Baptist distinctive."

The answer: Historically, no.

Today among the independent Baptists, yes.

You see, I agree that speration from liberals and modernists was and is necessary. This was the reason for the fundamentalist movement. When the movement failed, the "doctrine" of separation became part and parcel of those who pulled out.

What makes an independent baptist "independent" is the doctrine of separation. Without this "distinctive" they wouldn't be independent.

Independent Baptists are so sure of themselves that they would say that "separation" is a "distinctive" of being Baptist and all those who don't practice it aren't true Baptists!

Wanna make a bet? And it wouldn't matter what they say, what they do is more telling than what they say.

Ecclesiastical separation is a "Baptist" distinctive for independent Baptists.

 

There you go again! Mr. Psychoanalysts! or is that Mr. Psycho!

 

One thing I've noticed. Larry take a person's statement that is in response to someone else, puts a different spin on it, as if you don't know what you are talking about, and then seeks to correct someone for something they never said.

In posting for several months now, I see that problem croping up again and again with Larry. Hmm.

My original statement that Larry thought was so wrong was in response to Jim who said that separation was a historic baptist position. I said that it wasn't and that it only became one after fundamental baptists lost their denominations. They then "overeacted" not against modernism, but against each other if they didn't agree on every jot or tittle. That is exactly the case today. Independent Baptists (the children of those who lost in the 20s) separate over all kinds of doctrinal issues that shouldn't cause separation.

Anyone, besides Larry, think that this is an incorrect assessment?

 

Not typically. Jot and tittle is usually used as a reference to small and minor things, over which some separate (hair length, women wearing pants, etc). Most fundamentalists do not insist on absolute unanimity in those things. They usually insist on the fundamentals. If you meant doctrine, then that would been a clearer way to say that

I am not sure when you think the Baptist distinctives changes. I missed that memo. But just to verify that you are right, contact those institutions and ask them is separation is a Baptist distinctive.

This doesn't quite seem to make sense. Separation was the cause for the movement and when the movement failed separation become part and parcel??? The cause for the movement was not separation. Separation was teh answer to the problem. The cause was bad doctrine. The movement did not fail. IT still exists. The movement failed to rescue the denominations and conventions involved. So, because they were associating themselves with liberal doctrine, they separated. What should they have done?

Incorrect. What makes one "independent" is the lack of convention association. An indepedent Baptist is one who is not associated with the mainstream conventions. There are independent Baptists who don't separate.

Find a reputable independent Baptist that says this, and then it will be grounds for discussion. I know men at virtually every place you listed on the previous page and I know of none who will agree with that statement.

Really??? Strangely enough, that is exactly the point that fundamentalist pastor and seminary president Dave Doran made in a recent response to Phil Johnson. This has long been the position of fundamentalists ... that words are cheap. When the new evangelicals professed to hold to right doctrine but associated with those who did not, what they did spoke louder than what they said.

But I must confess that I notice you had no problem citing the words of NBBC. Why? Because you thought it would make your point. (It actually didn't ... since it wasn't about Baptist distinctives).

No, it's not. As an independent Baptist, I can say with no hesitancy that that is not a distinctive.

Go ahead, ask around ... If you dare.

 

Actually, Paul, I responded to what you said. If you think I misrepresented something you said, then feel free to point it out. I am not beyong misunderstanding. However, I certainly do not do it intentionally. I am not always clear in my own writing and leave room for misunderstanding. That is not the reader's fault. Very often, people such as yourself react negatively when they misrepresent the facts (either on purpose or not) and it gets pointed out to them. I can understand that becuase there is a certain amount of public embarrassment when you are caught. On this case, that happens to be what happened. You so far have yet to provide any one who says that separation is a Baptist distinctive. And that was the point of the thread.

And this is precisely a wrong statement. Separation was not a Baptist distinctive before the fundamentalist/modernist controversy, and it is not one after. Your word "until" that you tried to hang your premise on was insufficient. It is not "until" but "still isn't." Separation is not a Baptist distinctive.

Again, simply wrong. There are some who do this, but that is not the spirit of fundamentalism. It is not about agreeing on every jot and tittle, whether that is doctrine or not.

First, why do you keep saying "they lost"? What does that exactly mean? Second, what are the doctrinal issues that they are separating over that they shouldn't?

That would actually be a profitable discussion. Chances are, you and I probably would agree on a lot of those things. And chances are, more fundamentalists than you would like to admit probably agree with you.

 

Eccesiastical separation has always been a Baptist distinctive. I think that we have to take many of the distinctives in a historical context. Many of our Baptist distinctives, though clearly written down now, were not so written down as distinctives, in centuries gone by because there was no need for them to be. There was no need for a "Baptist" to write the distinctive: "Regenerated and baptized membership," until about the fourth century, when baptismal regeneration started to become common. True Bible-believing Christians only identified themselves as the need became apparent to do so. Hindsight is better than foresight.

One of the contentions of many Baptists is that they were not part of the "Protestant" movement. They did not come out of the "Reformation." They were not in the Catholic Church in the first place (as Luther) trying to reform it. Neither were they protesting against it at that period of time only. They always were against the Catholc Church in every period of history vociferously preaching against the heresies of the Catholic Church. They are not Protestants, for they were never of the Protestant movement. They were "separated" from them, and from the Catholic Church throughout history. There has always been ecclesiastical separation, though not always written down. The Baptist distinctives, as its history is, is one that is written in blood more than in ink.
DHK

 

That is true, DHK, but that is not the sense of separation used in the foregoing discussion between liberalism and Christianity.

 

I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 47% (8)

I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 29% (5)

I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 6% (1)

I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 18% (3)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the non Baptists who wanted to see the results and are unable to vote.

 

Apparently, since we have people who think separation is a Baptist distinctive. The separation involved in the fundamentalist modernist controversy is not a distinctive, otherwise, you couldn't be Baptist without it. Yet there are many Baptists who don't practice that kind of separation. Then you Paul who is apparently setting up Baptist distinctives for certain kinds of Baptists which, again, reveals a misunderstanding of what a Baptist distinctive is.

 

Gold Dragon,

You are correct. That is precisely my position and understanding of the historical context.

Separation was not a historic Baptist distinction. The evangelicals in the main line denominations were alarmed at the abandonment of the fundamentals of the faith and tried to save their denominations. They lost, meaning they couldn't rescue their denominations from the liberals. They would have remained in their denominations if they could have maintained control, even with the presence of liberals. Having lost, they withdrew, and many adopted "separation" as a tennant of true Biblical Christianity. They were not going to let their new movements, churches, agencies, fellowships become tainted with liberalism again. Not if they could help it. Separation than expanded to not only withdrawing from apostates, but also withdrawing from compromisers - those who had yet to withdraw from apostates. And thus a new "Baptist" distinctive developed, namely, separation from apostates and compromisers. Soon that extended to "pet" doctrines. One had to be premill, pre-trib, dispensational, noncharismatic, etc. and the former fellowship across denominational and doctrinal lines ended! The theory was then embraced that true Baptists had always separated from apostacy and the Catholic church. They were always separated from apostacy in obedience to the NT. This is now the position of independent Baptists and the poll shows that over 50% believe this "separation" is a Baptist distinctive. These are the facts. They are indisputable.

One poster demonstrates this fact even as he claims that "seperation" is not a Baptist distinctive. But his example in his own words proves that it is for independent Baptists. He said that BGC and CBA Baptists are full of liberal and must be seperated from. These two Baptist denominations are not full of liberals. They are the very kind of people who banded together in the 20s to oppose apostacy, modernism, and liberalism. But today, these people are called compromisers and rejected by independent Baptists. His example proves the point that I'm making and shows how "extreme" independent Baptists have become in dealing with fellow believers. They are no longer the rightful heirs to the title "fundamentalists."

 

Larry twisting words again. I didn't say "cause," I said "reason."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, I agree that speration from liberals and modernists was and is necessary. This was the reason for the fundamentalist movement. When the movement failed, the "doctrine" of separation became part and parcel of those who pulled out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't quite seem to make sense. Separation was the cause for the movement and when the movement failed separation become part and parcel??? The cause for the movement was not separation. Separation was teh answer to the problem. The cause was bad doctrine. The movement did not fail. IT still exists. The movement failed to rescue the denominations and conventions involved. So, because they were associating themselves with liberal doctrine, they separated. What should they have done?

Larry, we agree in principle. But you have a nasty habit of taking words out of context or just plain finding an arguement where there isn't any.

 

Apparently, since we have people who think separation is a Baptist distinctive. The separation involved in the fundamentalist modernist controversy is not a distinctive, otherwise, you couldn't be Baptist without it. Yet there are many Baptists who don't practice that kind of separation. Then you Paul who is apparently setting up Baptist distinctives for certain kinds of Baptists which, again, reveals a misunderstanding of what a Baptist distinctive is. </font>[/QUOTE]And why not? Do all the "Baptists" on this board adhere to all the Baptist distinctives? I doubt it? There are some very liberal-minded "baptists" who post on the board, who I would be ashamed to call baptist if I had the choice.
Here are a list of Baptist distinctives as I learned them over a quarter century ago:

1. Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
2. Regenerated and baptized church membrship
3. Autonomy of the local church
4. Priesthood of the believer
5. Soul liberty
6. Baptism by immersion and the Lord's Table are the only two ordinances of the local church
7. Separation: ecclesiastically and morally
8. Separation of church and state.

Those are the distinctives which differentiate a Baptist from others.
However as we trace our lineage back throughout the ages we note that not all groups had all these same distinctives, and yet we are still willing to call them Baptistic in doctrine.

It is not a constitution, nor a statement of faith, not even a creed. It is simply a simple set of Baptist distinctives. In a previous post I contended that this list may have grown longer as time progressed because issues have become more complex in recent decades.
Paul never had to deal with the KJVO, nor the Third Wave, not even the Downgrade Controversy. Consider listing all thse distinctives in a poll and see how many believe in each one as a Baptist distinctive. There won't even be a consensus on just the most basic of the distinctives.
DHK

 

Surely you and Paul are not under the impression that a poll of a few people on a internet website gets to establish baptist distinctives are you??? If so, then we need to be having another conversation, I imagine ... Seriously, if everyone in the world believe something false to be true, it still wouldn't be true. Separation is not, nor has it ever been, a Baptist distinctive. You can be a Baptist and not practice it.

Second, with respect to Paul's statements, he continues to be historically inaccurate. Biblical separation is from apostates and disobedience. It always has been, and that was at the heart of why the FF pulled out of the NBC. And that tradition continues. There continue to be caricatures such as Paul is making about what the issues are. I dont deny that some people do exactly what he says, and they are wrong. But that is not fundamentalism. It is a sad hijacking of it.

But biblical separation requires separation both from apostates and from disobedient brothers. Nothing else is fundamentalism.

 

What do you think a "reason" is? Have we really stooped this low in dialogue? The reason why you do something is the cause of your actions. You were really reaching to find something to say I did wrong, and you missed on this one.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reason

Where did I do that?? The fact that you are not familiar with the history of fundamentalism does not mean that I am wrong. I used a synonym for your word. That wasn't a change of context, or finding an argument where there isn't any.

But it is interesting to me that you complain about this. In the post just above, you said: He said that BGC and CBA Baptists are full of liberal. Would you mind telling me where I said this? And since you can't do it, will you please explain why you jump on me for allegedly doing something that we can see you did? I think an apology is in order for changing my words.

The bottom line, Paul, is that historic fundamentalism separated from apostasy and from disobedience. In the 20s there was only one kind. There weren't a middle ground wanting fellowship with both. That did not happen until the 40s, with the NAE.

Studying history brings a lot of clarity to these kinds of issues and avoids some of these kinds of things. Fundamentalism is not perfect, and there are many people claiming the name who have no right to it. But we should not make up history to try to fix that ... Let's kick them out.