Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

Larry,

You are just plain stubborn and obstinate when it comes to the facts of fundamentalism. I'm doing my doctoral dissertation in this area so I no a little something about fundamentalism. I also grew up watching it in action. You are the most arrogant individual I have ever had the displeasure of discussing any issue with.

I used the word reason to refer to "separation from modernism and liberalism." Doctrine was the problem and the reason for the fundamentalist movement, that's why I referenced modernism and liberalism. They attempted separation first by seeking to regain control of their denominations and force some liberals out. When that didn't work they withdrew from their denominations. Fundamentalism was a broad, interdenominational movement. The reason for the movement was to seek a soluton to the problem of liberal doctrine. I think you knew that's what I meant, you just like to argue and act like others don't knwo what they are talking about.

You frankly look stupid doing it.

Yes, this poll reveals that independent Baptists are doing exactly what I said they are doing. Once they pulled out they made "separation" a Baptist distinctive and applied it against former friends who didn't pull out "fast" enough. I'm surprised that you and I are even debating this because I know you know it.

In what breath you explain accurately historic fundamentalism, and then in another you apply it to thos who misapply it! You are a typical fundamentalist! Don't bother me with the facts of history or the Bible, just let me fight!



As to only one kind of fundamentalist until the 40s; Riley stayed in the NBC right up until his death. So did others. Eventually, those who wouldn't come out were labeled compromisers! The new evangelical movement was a "corrective" to this faulty doctrine of "separation" from believers.

 

Here's Larry saying that the BGC and the CBA are fellowshiping with liberals:

"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."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative SBC, BGC, or CBA church that does not 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."

OK, Larryd didn't say "full" of liberals. But there apparently are enough liberals in the BGC and CBA that independent Baptist must separate from all BGC and CBA churches and pastors. Not that, my friend, is extreme! And it is not the practice of the historic fundamentalists of the 20s. It is the practice of many of those fundamentalists who saw compromise everywhere and withdrew into isolationism. Other fundamentalists reacted to this and started the movement called new evangelicalism, the true heir of the term fundamentalist.

 

Nothing like leaving the issues to discuss personalities. I am not sure why you launch these unprovoked personal attacks. Quite frankly, they are as wrong as they are misguided. I really hold no ill will towards you and I don’t know why you would towards me. This is a place of discussion and debate. If you don’t want your ideas to be challenged, then don’t put them forth. I am not worried about the facts of history. In fact, the part of church history I enjoy most is the 20th century. I have read, a number of works, doctoral dissertations, articles, and done class work and writing on this subject. But the fact is that your misrepresent fundamentalism, and give it the caricature that is typical … that fundamentalists are just trouble makers who separate from everyone who doesn’t completely agree with them.

If you are doing your doctoral work in this area, then pursuing the facts will certainly help you. So far, several things you said on the first page or so was simply incorrect, or they drew suspect conclusions, and my pointing out the fallacies involves did not make me arrogant in the least. If you are doing doctoral work, then you should appreciate the interaction. If nothing else, it will make you sharper and cause you to better present your positions.

That is correct, but it is not what you said originally. On page one you talked of the fundamentalists evicting everyone who didn’t agree with them on every jot and tittle. That was wrong. First, it appeared very antagonistic, since “every jot and tittle” is usually used to refer to minutae about which many fundamentalists disagree. Second, the fundamentalists were, as you admit, an interdenominational issue. They disagreed on many things, such as baptism, eschatology, etc. And the truth is that they still do. But they were still and are still fundamentalists. Today, there are fundamentalist Presbyterians who separate just like fundamentalists Baptists. There are fundamentalist Bible churches who separate just like Baptists. It is interdenominational.

Second, the words “reason” and “cause” mean the same thing. I wasn’t changing what you said. I apologize that I changed your word and offended you. I did not mean to, and I did not misrepresent what you said. Your above paragraph is much better than your original ones on this topic.

You are still incorrect on this. The fact that a few people here believe separation is a Baptist distinctive does not make it so. I can’t imagine you want to use this poll to argue that. Call Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Bob Jones, Myron Houghton, Larry Oates, Matt Olson, Sam Horn, Gerry Priest, Carl Abrams, Dan Davey, Kevin Bauder, and other fundamentalist pastors and professors and ask them if separation in the fundamentalist/modernist sense is a Baptist distinctive. I will bet you will get a virtually unanimous response, and it will prove me right. That’s not arrogant. It is simply the facts. And if you are doing doctoral research, then you should know better than to accept an informal, unscientific Baptist board poll as evidence of anything.

I didn’t misapply it. If you go back, you will see that I pointed out that the theological landscape is different now than it was then. Back then, you had only two groups: fundamentalists and liberals. Beginning with the formative stages of the NAE in the late 30s and 40s, you began to have a third group who didn’t want to cut fellowship. These were men like Ockenga, and others. Marsden defines this very well and says exactly what I say, but he doesn’t write from a fundamentalist perspective. As the landscape changed, those who “would do battle royale” for the fundamentals realized the necessity of “come out-ism” because of biblical principle, even though many held on for long time. You mention Riley. Towards the end of his life, I believe, he admitted he should have pulled out. Men like Bob Jones Jr were in the NAE (he was even a vice president) and tried to steer the NAE in the right direction. He stayed in it for a period of years, but when there was no hope, he and others like him pulled out to be biblically obedient.

In the end, I think your history is partaking of revisionism, and I think an objective doctoral study will bring that out. I wish you the best with it, and will be interested in your conclusions. In any case, I am not interested in this tit for tat stuff. I believe you misrepresented fundamentalism that I grew up in and continue to be a part of. I don’t know why you think you are above being challenged on your view. You certainly had no problem challenging mine. Isn’t that a double standard? Regardless, I wish you well and will be interested to see your work.

Where are you doing your work? And who are your mentors? I will be looking forward to reading it when it is finished.

 

Now, that is what I said. And it is true by any objective standard. The CBA separated from the SBC because the SBC was too conservative. They were the theological liberals. In teh CBA, you have those who deny the basics of inspiration and other doctrines, who accept homosexuality as a biblical lifestyle. That is liberal and wrong. In the BGC, you have Greg Boyd who was kept in the conference in spite of a completely unorthodox view of God. Piper, to his credit, has taken a stand against ti and fought. I was pleased to see that. But the fact that the BGC tolerates him is wrong. Those are not even questionable positions.

 

Pastor Larry

Please tell us that you are NOT a Baptist ...

The CBA spun off of a split from the Northern Baptists (*) ... At one time the CBA was Conservative.


(*) This was about 1947

 

I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 57% (12)

I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 24% (5)

I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 5% (1)

I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 14% (3)

 

Larry,

It is obvious that you cannot accept the historical facts of fundamentalism, and since you persist in your disbelief of the facts and are divisive in tone and nature, I'm just going to have to separate from you!

 

Saying that separation doesn't define an independent Baptist is like saying football doesn't define the Green Bay Packers.

BGC = Baptist General Conference, the Swedish Baptists who founded Bethel College and Seminary, now Bethel University. To call these folks liberal is insane.

CBA = Conservative Bapitst Association, the conservatives that broke from the National Baptists. Riley, single-handedly delivered the Minnesoata Association of National Baptists to the CBA in the 40s before he died. Founder of Northwestern College. To call these folks liberal is again insane.

The founder of Northland Baptist Bible College sent two of his daughters to this school in the 1950s. The same school that Billy Graham was president of when Riley died.

The founder of NBBC supported Billy Graham until his son who graduated from Grand Rapids School of the Bible and Music attended BJU for one year and married a MBBC graduate. When NBBC started, it was this son and his wife that directed NBBC into the extreme fundamentalist camp. His brothers and sisters' children, however, attended these schools: Liberty University, Bethel College, Northwestern College, TEDS, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Grace College, Grace Theological Seminary, Word of Life, Wheaton College, Marquette University, UW-Whitewater, UW-Stoughton, and other state schools. A son of the founder who sits on the board of NBBC is a member of a BGC church and the founder had family who served as missionaries with the Conservative Baptist Missions Association.

This is the background of the founder's family of NBBC.

The family represents "historic fundamentalism." The school represents "hyper-fundamentalism."

"Separation" is the hallmark of NBBC. It defines their very nature and causes them to exclude the family that started the school. This "separation" is the "identifying" characteristic of today's independent Baptists! But this wasn't always the case among independent Baptists. They have been bullied into the camp of the hyper fundamentalists, and the leader of the pack is BJU.

The fundamentalism of the family is the fundamentalism of the 20s.

The "fundamentalism" of NBBC is the extreme fundamentalism that was repudiated by new evangelicals, folks who said, "This is insane, what are we separating from other believers for?"

NBBC separates from the very family that started the school! That's insane.

First Baptist Church of Pound, the founder's home church, is split today by the "historic" vs. "hyper" fundamentalist issue. People have left in droves to attend the BGC church in Peshtigo. Really said.

None of this would be happening in independent Baptist churches if it weren't for BJU fundamentalists spreading their doctrine of separation. But because they have, many independent Baptists HAVE made the doctrine of separation from fellow believers the identifying characteristic of their churches, schools, colleges, and missions organizations, as shown by the BWM and NBBC doctrinal statements.

[ April 03, 2005, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

Please tell us that you are NOT a Baptist ...

The CBA spun off of a split from the Northern Baptists (*) ... At one time the CBA was Conservative.


(*) This was about 1947 </font>[/QUOTE]You are right. My mind was reading CBF for some reason. Yes, the CBA split off. This church was at one time a part of the CBA and later separated from them. The CBA has had its problems, but not to the extent of hte CBF. My fault on that one ...

 

Incorrect ... (are you seeing a pattern here?) I have denied no facts of fundamentalist history. I have pointed out several errors on your part, as well as interpreted certain facts differently. If anyone is remotely aware of fundamentalist history, they will know you are not being quite accurate.

Cute, but irrelevant. I didn't say that separation doesn't define an independent Baptist. I wouldn't argue with that. The discussion however was about Baptist distinctives. That has a historical meaning and you don't get to change it to chase your little trail here. The fact is that separation as used in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy is not a baptist distinctive, and if that isn't obvious, jsut look at yourself. You claim to be a baptist, but don't subscribe to it. Now, either you lie when you say you are a Baptist, or separation isn't a baptist distinctive. A distinctive is something you have to be to be something. Since you are a Baptist and not a separatist fundamentalist, you prove your own point wrong.

I don't know of anyone who calls the CBA liberal. I would not. I think they are new evangelical and have not taken a biblical stand on some issues, but they aren't liberal. (my comments were about the CBF, which was (not so kindly) pointed out to me.)

Incorrect on both counts. I believe the founding family is still involved at Northland, are the not?

Incorrect. The separation issues in independent Baptists have little to do with BJU. In fact, a great many Baptists dissociate with BJU because they are not Baptists. You are incorrectly informed and operating from a wrong conclusion. When you talk to some of the older generation of fundamentalists, like McCune, Houghton, Singleton (before he died), etc. you will find that BJU has nothing to do with their position. They lived the controversies of hte 50s and 60s and they can't understand why this new generation wants to refight these battles. Men like Woodbridge and Henry admitted the failure of the new evangelicals. In fact, McCune's new book is based on taht very issue. If you try to relive this history, you will find yourself right back here again. This battles were already fought. IT is true that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. That seems the road you want to head down. Fundamentalism has its warts and ugly step sisters, but so does evangelicalism. Don't be fooled. This tactic was already tried. It didn't work then. Why do you think it will work now?

I hope in your doctoral studies you will engage some of the men who actually fought these battles. It will be hard for you to be objective because of your antagonism that you have expressed in other places to me, but I hope you will at least pursue it.

BTW, where is your doctoral work being done and who are your mentors? When are you due to finish?

 

Larry, don't you get. I can't fellowship with you anymore. Your continued distortions and disbelief of the true nature of fundamentalism makes it impossible for me to fellowship with you. I must separate.

 

To anyone other than Larry,

NBBC leadership from the top down is led by BJU graduates. Look at their web site.

It is incredible to think that someone can say BJU had nothing to do with the independent Baptist movement. Their graduates are everywhere in the independent Baptist movement.

Revisionism once again.

Only one son of the founder works at NBBC. That man's oldest son is a pastor with the Evangelical Free Church of America. His son-in-law is studying at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His children have more sense than he does. His children reflect the actual views of their grandfather, who rented his "camp" to Lutherans and other religious groups regardless of doctrinal stands, before he started the bible college and the BJU/MBBC influence took over.

The board of family members has been reduced. One who is still on the board is a member of a BGC church. Another sent her children to LU, TEDS, UW-Whitewater. Still another boardmember sent his daughter to Word of Life. Yet another sent her sons and daughter to Wheaton, Northwestern, Bethel. Still another sent his son to Bethel. Are you starting to get a picture here? The school does not reflect the upbringing of the family.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I will let the readers decide what the nature of fundamentalism was in the 20s and what it became once the "fundamentalists" withdrew from the denominations in defeat. For "independent Baptists," separation became the issue! It is now a Baptist distinctive for "independent Baptists" that came out of the fundamentalist controversies.

The CBA came out of this controversy, but they aren't acceptable to independent Baptists! They were friends during the controversy, but not afterwards! Why? Because some fundamental Baptists adopted "separation from believers (compromisers)" as a Baptist distinctive.

I will let the readers decide if they think "new evangelicals" of the 40s represent the true nature of fundamentalism of the 1920s or if they think the "independent Baptists" of the 2000s, like NBBC, MBBC, PBBC, DBTS represent the true nature of fundamentalism of the 1920s.

Separation was not historically a Baptist distinctive. But as practiced today by "independent Baptists," it is. It is part and parcel of what it means to travel in that circle.

The founders of NBBC were fundamentalists of the 1920s type. The school they founded is "fundamentalist" of the 2000s type. Call it whatever you want, but the 1920s type is not the same as the 2000s type. But New Evangelicalism is the same as the 1920s type.

 

Larry admitting that the separation of the fundamentalist controversy of the 1920s consisted only of separating from apostates:

"If you go back, you will see that I pointed out that the theological landscape is different now than it was then. Back then, you had only two groups: fundamentalists and liberals. Beginning with the formative stages of the NAE in the late 30s and 40s, you began to have a third group who didn’t want to cut fellowship. These were men like Ockenga, and others. Marsden defines this very well and says exactly what I say, but he doesn’t write from a fundamentalist perspective. As the landscape changed, those who “would do battle royale” for the fundamentals realized the necessity of “come out-ism” because of biblical principle, even though many held on for long time. You mention Riley. Towards the end of his life, I believe, he admitted he should have pulled out. Men like Bob Jones Jr were in the NAE (he was even a vice president) and tried to steer the NAE in the right direction. He stayed in it for a period of years, but when there was no hope, he and others like him pulled out to be biblically obedient."

Historic fundamentalism of the 20s consisted only of separation from apostates.

There is a whole wave of young "fundamentalists" who have taken on the label "historic fundamentalists" to distinguish themselves from the virulent separation as practiced by today's fundamentalists. Historic fundamentalisms refers to separation from apostates but not from other believers who aren't "separated" enough.

Larry cannot apply the term "historic fundamentalism" in ways that contradict the intended meaning and usage of that term among young fundamentalists who coined the term.

The fundamentalism of the 40s no longer reflected the fundamentalism of the 20s and resulted in a correction called "new evangelicalism. "Historic fundamentalism" is a correction today among young fundamentalists to the even more extreme fundamentalism of today.

Historic fundamentalists believe that they should separate from apostates but not other believers who are fundamental but happen to be in fellowships, associations, or denominations, the so-called evangelicals.

 

Fellowship and separation is certainly a personal issue and you may fellowship and separate from whom you choose. Just remember than when you separate, you are proving my point. ... But I have yet to see any evidence that I have denied the true nature of fundamentalism. PErhaps you would be willing to discuss that. Please put it forth.

Notice again how you twist my words (in utter hypocrisy since you blasted me for supposedly doing that). I never said BJU had nothing to do with the movement. The discussionw as separation, and I said "little" to do with that aspect of it in the independent Baptist movement. The isssues of separation in the IBF movement started in the 30s when BJU was less than 10 years old. To this day, many Baptist repudiate BJU including on this very board because of their non-Baptisticness. BJU did have something to do with separation in the IBF movement, but it certailny wasn't exclusively them, and was probably less than more.

I didn't dispute that, I merely said that the family was still involved with the school, and in fact the founder was until his death in 2000. But all of that is irrelevant to the point. The Patz's do not get to decide what fundamentalism is, or should be. And whether NBBC is right or wrong, they should be entitled to obey God according to the dictates of their conscience, or have you forgotten one of the real baptist distinctives?

Repetition of an untrue statement will not make it true. Separation is not a Baptist distinctive, even of the independents.

YOu wanna know why??? Because that was the other group. This third group did not exist then.

Think about it. Why did they call themselves "new evangelicals"? The answer is simple: They were admitting they did not want to be the evangelicals of the 20s. Therefore, their own claim is a repudiation of your main point. They knew what the evangelicals of the 20s were, and they wanted to be different. Hence, they called themselves "new evangelicals."

Yes, and people like myself use that in the way it was originally used to separate ourselves from the people who have hijacked fundamentalism into separating over every jot and tittle. We separate over the core doctrines of hte faith and over obedience to Scripture. That is the way it has always been.

The more I read from you the less I can take you seriously. You are participating in the worst kind of argumentation. You revise history to try to support you; you misdefine key things; and you argue from illegitimate grounds. That simply cannot be taken seriously. There are some different interpretations of history that can't be regarded as fact to be sure. You are trying to force them into that category.

Give us an idea of what you actually know about this. Tell us what you have read and studied. Tell us the men you have studied under on this topic. Tell us the conversations you have had with the men you are saying are not historic.

And why not tell us where you are doing your doctoral work at?

 

Here's Larry saying that BJU had "little" to do with the independent Baptist movement:

First my quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this would be happening in independent Baptist churches if it weren't for BJU fundamentalists spreading their doctrine of separation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Incorrect. The separation issues in independent Baptists have little to do with BJU. In fact, a great many Baptists dissociate with BJU because they are not Baptists. You are incorrectly informed and operating from a wrong conclusion. When you talk to some of the older generation of fundamentalists, like McCune, Houghton, Singleton (before he died), etc. you will find that BJU has nothing to do with their position. They lived the controversies of hte 50s and 60s and they can't understand why this new generation wants to refight these battles. Men like Woodbridge and Henry admitted the failure of the new evangelicals. In fact, McCune's new book is based on taht very issue. If you try to relive this history, you will find yourself right back here again. This battles were already fought. IT is true that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. That seems the road you want to head down. Fundamentalism has its warts and ugly step sisters, but so does evangelicalism. Don't be fooled. This tactic was already tried. It didn't work then. Why do you think it will work now?"

Larry's statement implies that BJU is an insignificant player in the independent Baptist movement.

That's simply not true. BJU is the leader of the pack. Why? I don't know. But it is.

 

Here's Larry admitting that historic fundamentalism can only be separation from apostates. The other groups didn't exist yet. Tada!

My quote followed by Larry's admission.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic fundamentalism of the 20s consisted only of separation from apostates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOu wanna know why??? Because that was the other group. This third group did not exist then.

 

Here's Larry confusing the issue and misunderstanding the facts. New Evangelicals didn't want to identify with what fundamentalism had morphed into by the 40s. They returned to the fundamentals of the 20s. This is the same thing young fundamentalists are doing today. Returning to the fundamentalism of the 20s and identifying that return with the term "historic fundamentalism."

Larry said:

Think about it. Why did they call themselves "new evangelicals"? The answer is simple: They were admitting they did not want to be the evangelicals of the 20s. Therefore, their own claim is a repudiation of your main point. They knew what the evangelicals of the 20s were, and they wanted to be different. Hence, they called themselves "new evangelicals."