Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

Here's Larry blustering:

"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?"

Once a person separates, like I have done from Larry, he is not obligated to answer the disobedient brother's questions (That's an independent Baptist distinctive too!). Larry is wrong. He thinks the New Evangelicals were repudiating the fundamentalism of the 20s. They weren't! They were repudiating the fundamentalism of the 40s, the kind Larry practices and NBBC practices. The kind that is a "Baptist distinctive" today. Since I have separated from Larry, I don't have to answer him.

 

Here's Larry admitting that separation is a Baptist distinctive:

"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."

 

Which is markedly different than Paul saying that Larry said "nothing to do with." Why twist my words Paul? Can you not make your point using my words? Why do you keep changing them?

The fact is that BJU is not the "leader of the pack" among independent fundamental Baptists. You are pretty marginalized if you think that is true. It may be true among your small circle, but it is not true across the board. They have some influence, but comparatively little given the historical context in which fundamentalism come of age. I think the recent rise of IBF schools is in large measure a refutation of your point. If BJU is the leading influence, why are so many starting their own schools?

But as you should be aware, the landscape changed in the 30s and 40s with the advent of men who were willing to be disobedient to Scripture. That brought a new wrinkle that the historic fundamentalists addressed by separating from disobedient brothers. You are all too willing to overlook the historical reality that it is the new evangelicals who departed from historic fundamentalism. admittedly, some yo-yos have really distorted fundamentalism into separating from people who wear pants and have long hair and use guitars and the like. That is not historic fundamentalism, and neither is new evangelicalism.

This makes me laugh. It is you who is distorting the facts. Go back and read. The new evangelicals were rejecting historic fundamentalism in the 40s. They were not returning to it. That is absolutely laughable. They believed that fundamentalism was too uninterested in social issues, academic reputation, and were too separatistic. It is those three things that were at the heart of the fundamentalist movement of the 20s. Again, look at their own term. They wanted to be "new evangelicals," not "old evangelicals." That, as I pointed out, refutes your own claim.

So where are you doing your doctoral work?

 

They wanted to distinguish themselves from the screeching, secondary separationists, so they coined the term new evangelicals and reengaged society and academics.

 

YOu reveal yet another misunderstanding. The reality is that no one is obligated to answer anyone's question (except in a court of law). That has nothing to do with separation, even if you understood separation.

So where is the part of that where I identify is as a "Baptist distinctive"? Truth be told, you twisted my words again, didn't you, Paul? That is completely unacceptable for civil conversation. I did not admit that separation is a Baptist distinctive. That would be a false statement.

Are you embarrassed about the place where you are doing your doctoral work? Are you afraid that it will be found not to be reputable? Are you actually not doing doctoral work and now can't back down from the statement? I am not sure why you wouldn't say where you are doing it. I am not looking for ammuniation against you (I have plenty already ). I am just curious ...

 

For those interested, you might want to read:

Joel A. Carpenter's book Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism.

It is a wonderful walk down memory lane as we get to recall the many organizations that shaped fundamentalism in the 30s and 40s. His understanding of the facts is that the fundamentalism of the 20s reemerged in the 50s under the banner of the new evangelicals (moderate fundamentalists) who steered a course between modernism and fractious fundamentalism (149).

Evangelicals, reuniting across denominational lines, are the ones carrying forward the spirit of the fudamentalism of the 20s! He labels them "progressive fundamentalists" (233).

 

Here's Larry being dense yet again:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's Larry admitting that separation is a Baptist distinctive:

"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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where is the part of that where I identify is as a "Baptist distinctive"? Truth be told, you twisted my words again, didn't you, Paul? That is completely unacceptable for civil conversation. I did not admit that separation is a Baptist distinctive. That would be a false statement.

Larry said, "This is the way it has always been." In other words, separation has always been the practice of those who understand the Scriptures like Larry. Since Larry is presumably an independent Baptist it follows that separation is an independent Baptist distinction.

 

To everyone but Larry:

I am earning my doctorate at an accredited theological seminary in New England.

My mentor has an earned Ph.D. in history from the University of Minnesota.

His father was a co-evangelist with Billy Graham and is well known.

He is an eyewitness to the key players of this era.

 

Here's Larry attacking and ridiculing a fundamentalist:

"Are you embarrassed about the place where you are doing your doctoral work? Are you afraid that it will be found not to be reputable? Are you actually not doing doctoral work and now can't back down from the statement? I am not sure why you wouldn't say where you are doing it. I am not looking for ammuniation against you (I have plenty already ). I am just curious ... "

Larry, are you a new evangelical? Ridiculing someone and implying that they are embarrassed by their academic pursuits. It sure sounds like you are a new evangelical!

 

Is separation a Baptist distinctive?

Let's see if we can shed some light on this question with another question.

Was "Youth for Christ" a fundamental organization or a new evangelical organization?

Did the Baptist kids of the 40s and 50s attend Youth for Christ?

Would they be allowed to attend Youth for Christ today if it still existed?

 

I had that out looking at it this morning. Other good resources are Marden's Reforming Fundamentalism. McCune has a new book entitled Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. Both deal with the history. McCune's is written from a fundamentalist perspective, and interacts theologically with it. Marsden's and Carpenter's are more historically oriented, rather than theologically oriented. Beale's In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 is another must read to get an idea of the breadth. In Beale's history, you will find explicit evidence against Paul's assertions here. It shows that fundamentalism was and is interdenominational and is not a "baptist distinctive," or "an independent baptist distinctive" (as if they have their own).

Bad argumentation. I hope your seminary doesn't let you get away with that kind of thinking. To argue that "since I am something, it follows that so and so is something" is just plain bad. The fact that I do something does not make it a baptist distinctive. A baptist distinctive is something that is universally true about every baptist, and defines what baptists are and what makes them distinct from others. Fundamental Baptists and evangelical Baptists share the same distinctives. You yourself are proof that you are wrong ... You are a baptist, and yet not a separatist. What other evidence do you need? Do you really want to keep arguing that you are wrong and right at the same time??

I didn't ridicule you or imply anything. I asked (that's what those little question mark thingies mean). I was trying to figure out why you would not tell us. You gave us a little information. I wish I had more. I would like to read your dissertation when it comes out, but I won't be able to without more information.

Interesting case ... they were born right on the cusp of the new evangelical departure. The roots were fundamentalists, but they moved towards new evangelicalism. Carpenter devotes a chapter to YFC. Graham was the evangelist for YFC in his fundamental days before he turned from it. At that time, Graham and Jones Sr and Jr were still good friends. Later YFC turned thorougly new evangelical.

They probably did.

I am sure a great many do. But I am not sure what you mean by "if it still existed." It still does. And I am sure a good many Baptist still attend.

 

I believe that "separation" is not a Baptist dinstinctive.

Today, "separation" is a distinctive among independent Baptists. It defines their very existence.

By "separation," I mean separating from other believers on the basis of alleged compromise.

It wouldn't matter how scientific the poll is, Larry will not admit that for independent Baptists, separation as defined above, is a "baptist distinctive."

 

Correction: If "Youth for Christ" rallies still existed.

 

The poll was flawed from the beginning since separation was never clearly defined. What is meant by separation:
#1. Separation from apostasy and unbelievers only.
#2. Separation from erring evangelical denominations, i.e., Charismatics, Alliance, etc.
#3 Separation from all erring believers including other new evangelical Baptists.

What exactly is meant by separation.
Until that is defined, I believe there will always be confusion in the discussion of this topic.
DHK

 

Well, finally ... I said that all the way back on page 1. I said Baptist distinctives, per se, have never included ecclesiastical separation. It looks like we're making progress.

"A distinctive" is somewhat ambiguous. If by that you mean that some Baptists believe the Bible teaches separation from apostasy and unbelief and you do not intend to make that a indispensable part of being baptist, then I agree. It is what distinguishes them from other baptists. It is not a Baptist distinctive as that term is usually used.

I think "alleged" is too weak. The compromise needs to be demonstrated and proven to be a pattern. If we demonstrate that someone is compromising either in a core doctrine or in cooperating with an apostate or flagrantly disobedient brother, then we must separate, according to Scripture.

You are right that it ultimately has nothing to do with teh scientific-ness of the poll. My objection was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Baptist distinctive is.

 

I am not aware of any blacklist, but there may be one I don't know of.

The term usually gets applied whenever someone disagrees. It should get applied when someone joins hands to cooperate in ministry with a person or organization who is apostate, or who is disobedient to Scripture in a public and serious way. I think the important things are these when deciding this matter.

1. It needs to be about an issue that is core to the Christian faith. It is not about a disagreement on which version to use, or what to wear to church, or even on matters such a baptism or church polity. It is the load bearing doctrines that are in view.
2. It needs to be a demonstrated case of disobedience. For instance, when someone supports a Graham crusade, there is a demonstrated disobedience to the command of Scripture to separate from erring brothers. Graham has, since the 50s, refused to hold crusades with only fundamentalists or evangelicals. He would go only where the majority of churches would sign on to support him. That is a clear case of compromise.
3. It needs to be a pattern of behavior. A one time situation is not sufficient to label someone a new evangelical. It is a pattern of behavior, after having been confronted with Scripture.

We also need to understand that there are various levels of separation or fellowship. It is not a "band together for everything" or a "I won't even talk to you" type of deal.

YFC, since the 60s have banded together with Catholics in ministry. That is a clear compromise of the gospel. It wasn't a one-time thing; it was a pattern of actions. That is a prime case of new evangelicalism.