Do it all in one post, Paul.
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?
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.Independent Baptists have adopted "ecclesiastical separaton" as a distinctive of their movement. That's a fact!
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.These are Larry's words clearly showing that he said separation 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?Here's Larry being the condescending little "donkey" that he is:
It is still advice worth taking. Your facts were wrong on several issues."If you are going to talk about separation and fundamentalism, at least get your facts straight."
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."A "Baptist" distinctive does not have to be unique only to them to still be a 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..He points out that historic fundamentalists of the 20s were interdenominational. The ones today who are carrying that mantle are the new evangelicals, who fellowship across denominational lines.
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.A conservative SBC, BGC, or CBA church that does not fellowship with liberals
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.is still off limits to independent Baptist fellowship.
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.So today, fundamentalists are disavowing the practice of earlier fundamentalists of the 20s.
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?