Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

I am not copping out. Who I would fellowship with would depend on the situation. Given the right situation, I might fellowship to some degree with any or all of them. On other matters, I might not fellowship with any of them. Some of them would be viable targets for the biblical command to rebuke publicly. Others I would simply let it be and let them do their thing.

You see, separation isn't a "list" type of approach for most of us. We aren't checking in with the pope to see who we can do something with. I could go through each person on your list and give your pros and cons ... well maybe pros and cons for all of them. Some I would have to think pretty hard about. But what purpose would that serve? What exactly do you want me to do?

But this it the nuts and bolts of separation ... It is largely theoretical. I have an ongoing relationship with only one group on that list. With the rest, I can't separate from them because I was never with them.

 

BTW, a lot of times I do things other than post here ... EVery now and then I have to do a little work ... So my absence should not be construed as "copping out" ...

 

You are still evading the question. You waxed eloquently about the need to separate from apostates, unbelievers, and disobedient brethren. This isn't theoretical. Its practical and realistic. For someone who has just spent 6 pages speaking to this issue, surely you know who you would or wouldn't fellowship with. To make it easier, I will pose a hypothetical situation, please answer.

Would you have any of these individuals or representatives of these organizations pray from the pulpit of your church during a Sunday morning service. If so, which ones?

 

Apparently this debate that I had with Larry was all nonsense. Since separation is not a "Baptist distinctive," why can't Larry answer this question in public for all to see?

Larry, would you have any of these folks pray from the pulpit in your Sunday morning service?

 

How am I avoiding the question? I have answered it in public for all to see. I told you that in some cases I would fellowship on some level with all, and in some cases, I would would not fellowship at all with any. I am not sure how that was confusing. It depends on the situation.

Would I have any of them pray from the pulpit? I can see no reason why I would ever have anyone from outside the church pray from the pulpit, whether they are from this list or not.

It seems you are trying to create debate where there is none. I have no relationship with any (except one) of the people/places you list above. How can I separate from someone with whom I have no relationship? There are some on that list with severe theological and associational problems. But that is theoretical for me ... You would have to ask someone who fellowships with them whether or not they would separate. I can't answer a question with a false premise.

 

Larry, this is so typical of you. You know who these individuals and institutions are.

Your answer is obvious. You wouldn't let any of these folks pray from your pulpit! You admit it in that sly way of yours.

Here's Larry: "I can see no reason why I would ever have anyone from outside the church pray from the pulpit, whether they are from this list or not."

So Larry, who knows that "separation" is not a Baptist distinctive won't let anyone from the above lists pray in his church from the pulpit!

I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.

 

I know something about most of them (as I said). And I can give good things and bad things about all of them that I know about (as I said). So what?

I said I see no reason to have anyone from outside the church pray from the pulpit, whether they are from this list or not. There are people in my church that I won't let pray from the pulpit. So what?

The fact that I will or will not let someone from anywhere pray from the pulpit means nothing with respect to Baptist distinctives. How is that not clear?

What conclusions do you think should be drawn? That certainly isn't clear. You are trying to paint me as some rabid far out fundamentalist, not because of some problem you know about, but because you read into something I am not saying. To me, that seems out of place. Personally, I am not concerned with what conclusions you draw. Until you come and visit this ministry and sit down and talk with me about these things, then I see no reason for you to be bent out shape or caustic towards me. That is very judgmental of you.

 

Larry,

You can converse ad nauseum about what a Baptist distinctive is or is not. Fine.

We happen to be talking about whether separation is a Baptist distinctive. We agree that it isn't.

You then turn the whole discussion into an irreleveant endeavor by saying that "separation" from folks on the above lists is "theoretical." It isn't. That's what separation is all about.

It is practical and relevant.

I ask a simple question that can easily be answered. I even have a poll on this very same issue that many can answer.

My answer is: Yes. I would let any of these individuals and/or representatives of these institutions pray from my pulpit.

But you can't answer the question simply. You become slippery and evasive.

But your answer is: No. You wouldn't let any of these individuals and/or representatives of these Baptist institutions pray from your pulpit.

What's so hard and difficult about saying what you would do. A simple yes or no. Pretty easy, eh?

Not for Larry! Because for Larry, separation, whether a Baptist distinctive or not, is a distinctive for him! And he is afraid to admit it, because it does paint him as "some rabid far out fundamentalist," and he knows it! Or, he can't admit his true thoughts because his church members would jump all over him.

Larry, you lack the basic integrity to carry out discussions of any substance. I'm through discussing this with you. You have shown by your response that this whole issue is irrelevant. It's, how did you put it? Oh, yeah, theoretical!

DHK, do you agree? Is separation theoretical or practical? Can you answer the question that I posed for Larry?

 

What in the world was slippery or evasive about "I see no reason to have anyone from outside the church pray from the pulpit"??? That is pretty clear. Perhaps we need to define "I see no reason" or "slippery and evasive." My answer was a simple answer to a pretty ridiculous question. \

Why does any of that matter? With one exception, I have no fellowship with anyone on that list. As I poitned out there are good things and bad things about all of them that I know about. I can't comment on those that I know nothing about. And I can't separate from someone that I have no fellowship with.

The reason this is theoretical is because I don't have any contact with any of those people/places with the exception of one. I have no fellowship with them, so I can't separate from them. How can you separate from someone you don't have fellowship with?

You accuse me of not being able to carry on a conversation of any substance. For nine pages I have carried on a conversation of substance with you, correcting errors in both fact and thinking on your part. I had the integrity to stand for the truth, even when some others did not like it. I didn't back down when you starting calling names. And even now, I have the integrity to answer you question yet a third time. At the end, you finally agree with what I said from page 1. But along the way you manage to attack me for no real reason. That is shameful. You have no basis on which to attack me. I realize you don't like to be challenged, especially by someone who knows what they are talking about. It tends to make you look bad. But this is a discussion board, so I discussed it, I put the facts on the table, and you respond with personal attacks.

I am not a rabid far out fundamentalist. I believe what fundamentalists have historically believed. I know you don't like that, but that is just the way it is. I am not worried about what church members would say. I don't care what people from other churches or places say. I don't answer to them.

But why don't you tell us why you chose that list. Tell me, how could I separate from any of those people or places?

 

The only organization on the above lists in which Larry would allow a representative into his pulpit to pray is Bob Jones University.

Why can't you just state that simple fact? What are you ashamed of? Why do you keep defending yourself from a charge that I haven't made (rabid far out fundamentalist).

Hypothetical situation: Franklin Graham shows up in my church one Sunday morning. Since I believe in the fellowship and unity of believers, I invite Franklin Graham to give the morning prayer.

Would Larry? Not on your life. He has admitted that only one organization is acceptable on that list, the one he already fellowships with. He doesn't, nor will he, fellowship with any of the other names on the above lists.

So why is he embarrassed to just state his position?

 

Is that kind of like being a litle bit pregnant? You either have fellowship or you don't. I see nowhere in scripture where we are admonished to have partial fellowship with other believers.

 

Sounds like situation ethics to me!

 

BWM and NBBC style separation may not be a Baptist distinctive, but it sure is a distinctive for Larry.

The truth is, it is a "distinctive" for some independent Baptists. And then they steal the good name "fundamentalist" for their perverted doctrine of separation. True fundamentalists had to abandon the label to the extremists in the 40s. Today, an attempt is being made to reclaim this label by "historic" fundamentalists who are repudiating the separation articulated by BWM and NBBC. I know many of these fine young men, graduates of NBBC and other independent Baptist schools.

 

That is flat out false. Period.

Nothing. I find it ridiculous to get caught up in a theoretical discussion about separating from people I have no fellowship with.

Really?? Then what did it mean when you said Not for Larry! Because for Larry, separation, whether a Baptist distinctive or not, is a distinctive for him! And he is afraid to admit it, because it does paint him as "some rabid far out fundamentalist," and he knows it! ??

Has Franklin shown up at your church? He hasn't at mine. And it wouldn't matter who showed up at my church, they are not praying from the pulpit.

[qutoe] He has admitted that only one organization is acceptable on that list, the one he already fellowships with. He doesn't, nor will he, fellowship with any of the other names on the above lists.</font>[/QUOTE]That is a false statment and I already answered. I said I would probably fellowship with all of them to some extent. Did you miss me saying that? Or did you just make this up anyway?

Out of everything I might be, embarrassed to state my position is not one of them. I have been stating my position for nine pages, and you were here for every single one of them.

 

Is that kind of like being a litle bit pregnant? You either have fellowship or you don't. I see nowhere in scripture where we are admonished to have partial fellowship with other believers. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it isn't like being a little bit pregnant. I don't know anyone who denies various levels of fellowship. I will have lunch with people I would never preach with in a conference. I could preach in a conference with someone that I would never have preach in my pulpit. As I have pointed out many times, in this thread and others, separation and fellowship exist on various levels.

As a biblical example, look at Paul and Barnabas. They separated from each other over philosophy of ministry, but still had fellowship at another level, I am quite sure. Separation is not the same as being an enemy, though sometimes it will be.

I think your misunderstanding is all too common and really clouds the issue up.

 

You keep saying like you hope it will be true one day. At least we agree finally that separation is not a Baptist distinctive. I believe separation is required of those who would be obedient. I do not believe that everyone must parse it the same way I do.

Still untrue ... the fact that you keep repeating it doesn't change it.

Yes, we are attempting to reclaim the label of historic fundamentalism from those who have abused it. I hope you will join with us.

Until then, I hope you will at least get the facts straight, and quit making personal attacks.

 

Paul,

I went back and read your post previously (the one to which my response is messed up because I mispelled "quote"). I can't imagine you would write something like that. I have seen a lot from you, and it is hard to believe I am still surprised. But in that post, you said things that you know to be untrue. After I said on the previous page that I would probably fellowship with all of these groups to some degree in some cases, it was simply wrong for you to say that I would fellowship with only one of them (and then to misidentify them at that). Your tactics are shameful.

You and I can disagree on how history should be interpreted. But there is no excuse for the kind of post in which you put words in my mouth, especially when I have previously given a direct statement that showed your words to be false. Your tactic was unethical and has no place on this board or in any civil discussion. Please do not do it again.

 

An argument between two people with two opposing viewpoints doens't really solve anything. Over 60% of the respondents believe that separation is a Baptist distinctive, and I don't believe that they can just be easily brushed off as "ignorantly wrong." It is wrong of you to say that or even infer it.

Separation is more than just theoretical. I believe, as many others do, that it is a Baptist distinctive, and therefore has its practical outworkings. It must be carried out in practice. We separate from unbelievers and from those who walk contrary to the truth of the Word of God. The Bible directs us to do so. Anything less than that would be disobedience on our part.

A quick check on the internet, and you will find that Baptists cling to varying distinctives ranging in number from five to eight. Many of them list separation as a distinctive; many don't. I do find a pattern however; and that is that many of the ones that don't use an acronym of "BAPTIST" to define their distinctives, where separation is not included. It seems that this set of distinctives has been copied (probably for ease of memorization), by many of the churches. But it doesn't necessarily make it the most historically accurate set of distinctives. People tend to copy what others already have written.

I find that separation is an historic distincitive held by Bible-believing churches down throughout the centuries. That combined with the other distinctives that I have alread previously mentioned is what makes us Baptist. Baptist distinctives do not stand by themselves, but as a whole. For example there are more than just Baptists that claim to have the Bible as their only rule of faith and order.
DHK

 

I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 57% (16)


I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 29% (8)


I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 4% (1)


I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 11% (3)