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).