Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

I am not familiar with all that they do today so I can't comment on the "extent of co-operation."

However, I am confused by your first paragraph. You think it is good for an organization that professes to preach the gospel of Christ to work with one that does not preach the gospel of Christ? How is that good?

 

Larry quoting Paul33 and his response:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that "separation" is not a Baptist dinstinctive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

This is why Larry is such a pompous jackass. He implies disagreement even when there isn't any. He is the prototypical independent Baptist. He must find conflict in order to show that he is fighting for the truth. So he manufactures it even when it isn't there. I said from the beginning that "separation" was not a Baptist distinctive "until" fundamental Baptists who lost their denominations made it one when they formed their "independent" organizations. Look at the doctrinal statements of these groups.

Secondly, Larry has already gone on record saying that separation from apostates has always been the case among folks like him (Baptists?). So maybe "separation" from apostates is a Baptist distinctive after all, like DHK has affirmed.

I agree with DHK. We need to define what separation is.

"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"

1920s separation was #1.

1940s separation was #2 and #3.

2000s separation by independent Baptists is all three with a heavy emphasis on #3.

Historic fundamentalists are those who are rejecting 2000s style independent Baptist separatism (#3) and advocating a return to #1 only, and in some cases #2 (charismatics).

 

I appreciate you raising hte level of dialogue.

If you agreed with me, then why did you say that? You kept saying that separation (in the form of the fundamentalist/modernist issue) was a baptist distinctive. Then, on this page, you admit it's not. When I point out that I have said that from page one, you call me names.

I didn't manufacture any conflict. I pointed out some factual errors on your part. You started the conflict with that, and then kept coming back for more.

Notice the word "until" that you pointed out five pages ago in one of your unfounded issues with me. You say it wasn't until." That is that you should say "It isn't" because that is the truth. This kind of separation is not a baptist distinctive, and you are proof of it. The doctrinal statements of these groups are not an attempt to set forth baptist distinctives, but rather their own position on this matter

Nope, again, look at the context. We are talking about the fundamentalist/modernist issue. Don't change the context. The truth is that people with the historic fundamentalist mindset that I have espoused here have always existed in church history. But it has spanned across denominations, and the 20th century brought a new and even changing landscape. History shows us that.

 

Paul33's very first post on this matter which Larry immediately rejected even though we both agree!

"Nonsense. Baptist dinstinctives did not include separation from true believers until the fundamentalist/modernist controversy forced the perceived "losers" to overreact and seperate from everyone who didn't agree with them on every jot and tittle."

I stand by my hyperbole. Independent Baptists separate from other believers over minor doctrinal matters! That was my point! And "some" independent Baptists (in deference to Gold Dragon , have made it a "distinctive."

We could go on forever arguing with Larry because until Larry "thinks" you have conceded he won't be content.

Larry, why can't you just admit that for some independent Baptist organizations like NBBC, "separation" is THE identifying characteristic. What is it about your personality that makes you argue when there is nothing to argue?" (That's me pretending to be Larry the psychoanalyst! ).

 

Larry, I've defined "historic fundamentalists" to be those who have returned only to the separation of #1 or maybe #2.

Why don't you enlighten us with your definition of historic fundamentalists. If I'm not mistaken, your defintion will be those who practice #1, #2, and #3 from the 40s forward. Even though the movement that coined the term "fundamentalists" only dealt with apostates and unbelievers.

But go ahead, enlighten us.

 

Here is GoldDragon following the argument and understanding Paul33's position that Larry can't seem to grasp:

"Paul isn't setting up Separation as a distinctive for certain kinds of Baptists. He is simply showing you what you don't want to see:
That many Baptists like DHK and those who chose option 1 in the poll have adopted the Doctrine of Separation as a "Baptist Distinctive", contrary to the historical understanding of Baptist Distinctive. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were self-identifying Baptist fundamentalists."

 

The reason I rejected that was made clear. It is the word "until." Separation never has been a Baptist distinctive and is not now.

Some do ... Some do not. I guess it depends on what "minor doctrinal matters" you have in mind. Most independent Baptists I know do not separate over minor doctrinal matters.

I could ... but 1) it wouldn't help this discussion since the question was about the Baptist distinctives. Separation is not one of them and 2) I don't know that it is true. It is part and parcel of what they believe they should be and do in light of what Scripture teaches. Why can't you, as a Baptist, grant them the soul liberty to practice that? Who appointed you the pope to say they are wrong? They may be right; they may not be. But in either case, it is not a Baptist distinctive. Call Sam Horn or Matt Olsen and ask them. Put this thing to bed.

That question assumes a premise I don't grant. One, this is a debate board. You don't get to be exempt from critique and challenge on your views (nor do I ... notice how I am not asking you to quit so that I can avoid critique). Two, there is a legitimate point of debate here; it is not a case of "nothing to argue." I believe that you are wrongly interpreting facts of history and I have the right to point that out.

You could do a better job you know ... ... Ask legitimate questions ...

 

Larry, I'll give you the last word!

Would you please define for me "historic fundamentalist?" Thanks.

And then when you get it wrong, I really will separate from you! Again, thanks.

 

64% of the respondents think that "separation" is a Baptist distinctive!

 

Historic fundamentalism involves all three, but within what I said above in my post. I in fact already addressed this. Fundamentalism has separate from apostates and disobedient brothers in obedience to God's word. It was not an overnight process. It was in fact one that took more than 15 years. The 30s and 40s were full of fighting in the NBC and other denominations for control. And W.B. Riley admitted at the end of his life that their stay in tactic was a mistake. The battles of hte 30s showed that staying in was ineffective. That is why they separated. That process began in the 30s.

Historic fundamentalists are those who "do battle royal for the fundamentals." That hasn't changed. They fight for them, and separate from those who do not hold them in high esteem or who give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Part of your mistake is not recognizing the development of movements. You want to think that because something was not explicitly stated in 1920, that it is illegitimate and no one believed it or worked towards. The reason they did not immediately separate is the same reasons I would not today ... there was hope for these organizations in the early years of their slide. But over time it became evident that their direction was not biblical.

Have you read Beale's history? His is the best history of the fundamentalist movement, completely documented. There is no substitute for reading history. Why do you want to make these same mistakes again?

 

And the truth is that these people don't get to rewrite Baptist history and polity because they were wrongly taught (if that is the case). How many people have voted? Do you really want to rewrite the Baptist distinctives based on that? I don't ...

 

Larry getting it wrong again:

"If you agreed with me, then why did you say that? You kept saying that separation (in the form of the fundamentalist/modernist issue) was a baptist distinctive. Then, on this page, you admit it's not. When I point out that I have said that from page one, you call me names."

I never said that separation (in the form of the fundamentalist/modernist issue) [#1] was a baptist distinctive, although you have since implied that it is for all practicing Bible-believers.

I said that separation [#2 and #3] is now seen to be a Baptist distinctive among independent Baptists, and my argument is that it shouldn't be.

Sorry, I cross-posted. I thought I would sneek in one more shot. I really will stop this time.

 

Larry,

Flesh this out for us. You are an independent Baptist, correct?

As an independent Baptist what groups do you separate from?

Baptist Geneneral Conference?
Conservative Baptist Association?
Southern Baptist Convention?
North American Baptists?
Liberty University?
Northwestern College?
Bethel University?
Jerry Falwell?
Pat Robertson?
Billy Graham?
Franklin Graham?

I believe that these are all Baptist denominations, institutions or individuals.

 

I have never had any connection with any of those groups. How could I separate from them? Separation assumes a relationship.

 

Don't cop out now, Larry.

Would you fellowship with any of these groups?

 

From non-Baptist groups. Larry, would you fellowship with:

Grace College
Grace Theological Seminary
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Bob Jones University
Dallas Theological Seminary
Wheaton College
Gordon College
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Chuck Swindoll
Max Lucado
Louis Palau
James Dobson
Focus on the Family
Radio Bible Class
Youth for Christ
InterVarsity
Campus Crusade for Christ

 

Larry, where did you go?

Why won't you tell us who you would fellowship with?

 

What about a non-Calvinist, Pastor Larry?

One of our youth admitted they refused to hold hands at their 'Meet me at the Pole' prayer morning with a Baptist who was not IFB because of the separation issue. I would never go THAT far!