Secondary Separation

[jw]

Twaddle! Which dictionary? The Little Golden Book of Words? Try OED.

Try Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition:
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional

The Law was the standard--it was God's revealed standard. Jesus kept the Law and fulfilled it. He confronted the sin and evil of the pious crowd but he was not radical. He was what they ought to have been.

He was what they ought to have been, but He was not following the traditional or usual view. In that sense He most certainly was a radical.

Now, try to address the rest of my points.

You still haven't made any. The only point you had in that thread was "Jesus isn't a radical because of x, y, z..." But, as I just showed, according to the very definition of the word, He was indeed a radical.

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Nope, I wouldn't preach in a Catholic church, a mosque or a Hindu temple (shudder--have you ever even seen the entrance to one of those? Hinduism is a sexually perverted religion). I wouldn't want to put my seal of approval on any of these by being there. I certainly wouldn't preach in a Buddhist temple of Shinto Shrine. What would the people of the community think? "Oh, Missionary Himes thinks Buddhism and Shinto are okay."

Yes, Paul preached on Mars Hill, but come on. That wasn't a temple, it was an open forum, the first century equivalent of an Internet forum on comparative religion.

Now, if you could prove to me that Paul preached in the Temple of Diana of the Ephesians, that would be a different matter.

Actually Mars Hill was a place where the high court of Athens met, not an open forum like you suggest.

It was thought to be the place where Mars was brought to trial for murder, hence the name. The High court of Greece today is still caled the Areopagus (which was the official name of where Paul was).

Personally if a Catholic priest invited to preach at his church I would. I certainly would never be invited back again! As to a Hindu temple I don't really have knowldege of that so I can't say.

 

[4His_glory]

In response to the OP. I think that perhaps there is a place for secondary separation, but it certainly is abused and carried to the "nth" degree. I do not see a very strong case for it in Scripture, but I think one can be made. IMHO the level of relationship ought to determine the level of separation.

I would not participate in a ministry endeavor with an SBC pastor, but that does not mean that I would not fellowship with him on a personal level. Then again my reason for separating from the SBC is not because of any fellowship with liberalism, but because I disagree with the co-oprotive system, so then that would be acual "first degree" separation.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />StraightAndNarrow asked:
If you believe people from other denominations will be in Heaven and are therefore accepted by God how can you justify rejecting them? (Read carefully so you understand what I'm saying.)

What do you mean by rejecting them? Separation is not rejecting them in the sense that I understand rejection. Yet, the Bible clearly and specifically commands us to separate from a so-called brother who is continuing in sin.

Read and understand the two following clear admonitions:
1Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
2Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

As I said, you don’t understand separation and don’t know it. Sir, you are caught up in petty rationalizations more than properly exegeting and understanding the Word of God. BTW, I do understand what you’re saying and repudiate it as specious reasoning.

</font>[/QUOTE]Note the issues that required separation.

Secondary separation is a spurious doctrine that is invoked to cover a multitude of sins, primarily the sins of envy, jealousy, strife, contention, empire building, etc.

The same Bible that advocates separating from immoral brothers teaches us to strive for unity with humility and forebearance.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Boy, that’s cute! You are playing on the meaning of the term church. I simply assumed that you were referring to the local churches or denominations since this seemed to be the context of the discussion. From my reply, it is obvious that I am taking "churches" to mean something other than the universal church. It's how you use the term that defines it. Context gives meaning. Now, you pull the universal church out of the hat. Or, do you not believe in the local church? If not, how do you read the seven churches in Revelation?

Your argument and hat trick is spurious. BTW, you gave a misleading question by asking how many churches (plural). Your whole argument is striving about words to no profit. Bah! My answer wasn’t wrong; you just pulled a trick question and answer. You’ve proven nothing.

If Christ recognizes ONE church why should you say there are many? And then call it Universalism. And then refuse to cooperste with most of them because they don't exactly match your beliefs on some obscure theological issue? I'll tell you. I'm a UNIVERSALIST if Jesus says that there is only one church. How about you?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:

Actually Mars Hill was a place where the high court of Athens met, not an open forum like you suggest.

It was thought to be the place where Mars was brought to trial for murder, hence the name. The High court of Greece today is still caled the Areopagus (which was the official name of where Paul was).

Personally if a Catholic priest invited to preach at his church I would. I certainly would never be invited back again! As to a Hindu temple I don't really have knowldege of that so I can't say.

What little research I've had time to do today bears out your story here, 4His_glory.

I sit corrected!

Having said that, my original premise was right, in that Mars Hill was not a pagan temple to which Paul voluntarily went to preach.

 

[4His_glory]

You are correct, it was not a pagan temple, I would emphasis though that it was historically a seat of high philosophy.

I also forgot to mention that I also separate from the SBC because there is a a prevelance of New Evangelicalism, which I believe is an affront to the Gospel. This also would be primary separation, and again, the level of the relationship determines the level of separation.

 

[Brother James]

This debate about seperation is getting pretty amusing considering most Baptist churches are in borderline idolatry today anyway. With flags behind the pulpit, christ-mass celebrations and christ-mass trees in the building along with easter egg hunts, with good friday services, pictures of Jesus on the wall this whole conversation is too funny. Gee, I almost for got "super bowl" Sundays and 501c3 tax ID's from the government.

 

[Paul33]

Brother James, you are correct.

At what point do we stop separating?

We have elevated personal interpretations of minor significance into absolute requirements of separation. And if others don't see it our way, we must separate from them too!

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Brother James, you are correct.

At what point do we stop separating?

We have elevated personal interpretations of minor significance into absolute requirements of separation. And if others don't see it our way, we must separate from them too!

I guess I'm destined to be a loner Bro Paul.

 

[Paul33]

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
You are correct, it was not a pagan temple, I would emphasis though that it was historically a seat of high philosophy.

I also forgot to mention that I also separate from the SBC because there is a a prevelance of New Evangelicalism, which I believe is an affront to the Gospel. This also would be primary separation, and again, the level of the relationship determines the level of separation.

Paul had no trouble preaching to philosophers, as witness his work at the School of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). What he never did, though, was preach at idolatrous temples. The Old and New Testaments are both loaded with commands to separate from idolaters and idolatry. Therefore, I will never preach for a Catholic, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, etc.

And please, don't anybody say, "Duh, prove the Bible commands us to separate from idolaters!" I really don't have time to do such basic research for you. It's the weekend, and I have to go work at the church for the Lord!

P. S. 4His_glory, you may get pounded on the SB statement. Batten down the hatches!

 

[David Ekstrom]

Right, John R. Rice wasn't a secondary separationist because he said he wasn't. Even Jones wasn't one because the term didn't exist. That's confusing the use of the term with the teaching. That's like saying the Apostles weren't trinitarians because the term hadn't been coined yet. Rice may not have thought of himself as a secondary separationist, but his comments in the Sword of the Lord speak otherwise.
What is so often done is that people quote verses on separation (a rather minor thread in the Bible) and then stretch it to cover things the Scripture doesn't say.
So we are told that if you preach the Gospel in a pagan temple, you are "endorsing" and "associating" with paganism. Who says?
In Thess., Paul writes to a local church that if members are leaching and not working, they should receive church discipline. That is somehow stretched to mean that if another local church is SBC, we can have nothing to do with it.
Paul warns the Corinthians who are participating in idol festivals that they can't worship in idol temples and also worship Christ. That is stretched to mean that if your second cousin lives on the same block of someone who once listened to a sermon by Billy Graham, you are to be excluded.
Yes, separation is taught in the Scripture. But the teaching by so-called fundamentalists is not biblical separation.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
Right, John R. Rice wasn't a secondary separationist because he said he wasn't. Even Jones wasn't one because the term didn't exist. That's confusing the use of the term with the teaching. That's like saying the Apostles weren't trinitarians because the term hadn't been coined yet. Rice may not have thought of himself as a secondary separationist, but his comments in the Sword of the Lord speak otherwise.
What is so often done is that people quote verses on separation (a rather minor thread in the Bible) and then stretch it to cover things the Scripture doesn't say.
So we are told that if you preach the Gospel in a pagan temple, you are "endorsing" and "associating" with paganism. Who says?
In Thess., Paul writes to a local church that if members are leaching and not working, they should receive church discipline. That is somehow stretched to mean that if another local church is SBC, we can have nothing to do with it.
Paul warns the Corinthians who are participating in idol festivals that they can't worship in idol temples and also worship Christ. That is stretched to mean that if your second cousin lives on the same block of someone who once listened to a sermon by Billy Graham, you are to be excluded.
Yes, separation is taught in the Scripture. But the teaching by so-called fundamentalists is not biblical separation.

David, you seem bitter. Have you been hurt deeply by Fundamentalists or something? My heart goes out to you. Please don't be bitter about the whole thing, though. Billy Graham was not (though some of his family was, as I have directly from people who read the letters when the split occurred). Graham had a soft place in his heart for JRR (I do not say for Bob Jones) to the end. One of his staff members told JRR so in an airport once, and JRR told me the story himself. Furthermore, Graham sent a huge wreath of flowers to JRR's funeral. I know--I was there and saw it myself.

Further, let me say just for the record, that JRR did not use the Thessalonians passage (2 Thess. 3) for separation. That was the position taken by Bob Jones, Jr., in his 6-page foldout, "Scriptural Separation: 'First and Second Degree.'"

If you have evidence of JRR's advocating secondary separation in the SOTL, please trot it out. Otherwise, you are speaking out of school. JRR wrote a book, Come Out or Stay In?, in which Chapter 11 specifically states his objections to secondary separation. What JRR actually wrote (and this chapter was originally an article in the SOTL, as opposed to what you say he wrote), is: "But what is called 'secondary separation' means not only must the Christian be separated from liberals, modernists, unbelievers, but he is to separate from anybody who does not separate enough from unbelievers. Those who insist on secondary separation say that if a man leaves the denomination because of some modernists in the denomination, then he ought also separate and break all fellowship with others who do not leave the denomination" (pp. 218-219) JRR then went on to point out that he still had revival campaigns convention churches, used convention preachers in conferences, printed their sermons in the SOTL, instead.

I see a massive ignorance in this forum about what actually happened between the Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals in the 1950's. I hope to find time soon to start a new thread telling the actual facts, such as the news release of Harold Ockenga (the inventer of the term "New Evangelical"), what really went down at Graham's New York Crusade and who opposed it (you might be surprised), etc.

That's for the future. Time fails me tonight. It is late Saturday night here in Japan, and I must get to bed, so that I can faithfully serve the Lord tomorrow. Oyasumi nasai. (Good night!)

[ October 15, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: John of Japan ]

 

[David Ekstrom]

So Rice didn't have Graham removed from the board of directors of the SOTL? Rice didn't print scathing articles about Graham in the SOTL over many years, some written by himself, some by Jones (Jones had had a byline in the Sword in the 50s), some by Sumner (who had a byline in the Sword in the 70s)? Rice didn't disassociate from Graham?
One may accuse Graham of failing to be separate. But separating from Graham because Graham wasn't separate = secondary separation.

 

[Paul33]

David,

You are right on. And, no, you don't sound bitter to me. Anyone who has the courage to speak the truth concerning the spurious doctrine of secondary separation often gets accused of being bitter.

Keep preaching the truth in love, like you are doing David. I, for one, applaud you.

 

[Paul33]

Again, correct, David.

Many today who are labeled "new evangelical" have never fellowshiped with liberals. They may have attended a Billy Graham crusdaed or participated. They may take their men to Promise Keepers! But they themselves have never fellowshiped with liberals.

But alas, they are labeled new evangelical for not finding a reason to separate from the Baptist General Conference, Piper, Rick Warren, a SBC pastor, a Free Methodist Pastor, a Grace Brethren pastor, etc. You get the point. They are "new evangelical!"

Not!

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:
David,

You are right on. And, no, you don't sound bitter to me. Anyone who has the courage to speak the truth concerning the spurious doctrine of secondary separation often gets accused of being bitter.

Keep preaching the truth in love, like you are doing David. I, for one, applaud you.

Please don't twist my words, Paul33. I did not accuse David of being bitter. I asked him if he was, and thought I did it graciously. I know in my heart was compassion, whatever you thought I was saying. If you look at some of his other posts, like I did after I wrote the above, maybe you will learn something.

I realize that there are many good New Evangelicals out there. It is not an epithet to me--it describes a position. The term was not invented by Fundamentalists but by noted evangelical Harold Ockenga. At one time evangelicals were proud to be called "New Evangelical," but in recent years they have abandoned the term.

There is a lot of bitterness in this area, and I certainly don't mean to add to it. I am simply trying to defend John R. Rice, a man I admired greatly and loved much.

You men are perfectly entitled to redefine secondary separation if you want. John R. Rice was the man who invented the term, though, and he didn't mean it like you do. When I said John R. Rice was not a secondary separationist, using his definition, you men invented your own definition, then jumped on me and said, "Oh yes he is!!" This makes it hard to talk to you about it.

The reason for the separation was that Graham wanted to fellowship with liberals and Rice did not. It is as simple as that. For Rice to have continued his relationship with Graham would have meant that Rice would have had to fellowship with liberals, so he elected to break the fellowship. You may wish to call that secondary separation by your own definition. I call it primary separation.

Furthermore, some inluential evangelicals are reexamining the results of the Fundamentalist vs. New Evangelical controversy. Have you read The Great Evangelical Disastor? by Francis Schaeffer? It is an eye-opener.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
So Rice didn't have Graham removed from the board of directors of the SOTL? Rice didn't print scathing articles about Graham in the SOTL over many years, some written by himself, some by Jones (Jones had had a byline in the Sword in the 50s), some by Sumner (who had a byline in the Sword in the 70s)? Rice didn't disassociate from Graham?
One may accuse Graham of failing to be separate. But separating from Graham because Graham wasn't separate = secondary separation.

David, Paul33 seems to think I was calling you names. If you took it that way, I'm sorry. Forgive me. I was not trying to insult you.

Yes, under Rice's leadership, Billy left the board of the SOTL, but Rice did not "have Graham removed." According to the Viola Walden biography (p. 165), John R. Rice: the Captain of our Team, Graham himself resigned from the SOTL board because he could no longer sign the SOTL doctrinal statement which says, "Opposes modernism, worldliness and formalism." You see, Graham no longer opposed these things, so it was right for him to resign from the board. Secondary separation? I think not.

And no, John R. Rice did not write scathing articles about Graham, nor did the SOTL publish any. (I know personally of cases where he refused articles for the SOTL which were personal attacks.) Rice wrote scathing articles about Graham's position, but he never, EVER attacked Graham personally, and there is a huge difference.

On this forum we are not allowed to personally attack each other, but we can write scathing posts about each other's position, and I think that is right. You yourself have written some scathing things. I don't personally consider that to be wrong. Jesus was scathing towards the Pharisees, as was Paul towards the Judaizers. If you believe something, stand up for it, right?

Have you actually read the SOTL articles about Graham you are talking about, David, or is your knowledge hearsay? If you really want to know the truth about what I am saying, and have the wherewithal, the University of Chicago has the SOTL on microfilm. The articles are in the public record.

Rice had a strong conviction against attacking people personally, as well as against answering personal attacks on himself. This position went way back to his short association with the J. Frank Norris. JRR was editor of Norris' paper for awhile until Norris wrote a vicious attack against Evangelist Sam Morris, which Rice, as editor, refused to print. Norris fired him and spread lies about him, trying to get Rice's next evangelistic meeting (Binghampton, NY) cancelled by calling Rice a "holy roller."

Historical note: John R. Rice actually did not separate from the Southern Baptist Convention. They kicked him out due to his association with Norris. You can read the whole story in his biography, Man Sent From God in Chapter 9, "The High Cost of Discipleship." A committee of three Southern Baptists came to Rice and threatened to blackball him (no evangelistic meetings, etc.) if he continued to speak on Norris' radio station. Secondary separation? I think not.

 

[paidagogos]

JW posted:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I said that your analogy was wrong. Why do you persist in denying allegory when I specifically stated that I never accused your of allegorizing? Your analogy (read A-N-A-L-O-G-Y) is bad. I said as much in the above quoted post. You have a comprehension problem. Allegory and analogy have the same weakness of being subject to multiple interpretations. Obviously, all the interpretations cannot be true.

You orginally said I was allegorizing and my analgy was bad. I asked about the allegorizing, you retracted. You've yet to show how my analogy is bad though other than just saying, "it's wrong".</font>[/QUOTE]As usual, you are WRONG again. Why do I feel as if I am communicating with a child who doesn’t want to accept reality? I repeat: I have never said that you were allegorizing. In fact, I have denied it repeatedly. Quote me! Show me the post! All you or anyone else has to do is scroll back through this thread. In my first post to you I said:

Obviously, you don’t understand the Biblical doctrine of separation. You are morphing it into something that it is not. Your illustration and analogy is fatally flawed. Paul was not preaching under the sponsorship of the pagans. His preaching on Mars Hill is more comparable to preaching on the street or in a park than preaching in a Roman Catholic church or Hindu temple. The problem with your reasoning is that your mind is already made up before you begin the process. Your analogy is crafted to provide your bias rather than elicit the truth.

Now, I defy you to find anything that says allegorizing. When you began ranting about Paul preaching in synagogues, I replied:

You don't have a valid analogy. The synagogues are not comparable to pagan temples. Jesus came to fulfill the OT Law. The Law was taught and preached in the synagogues. However, you never found Jesus preaching in a heathen shrine. It is your false assumption that he would go anywhere under any sponsorship to reach people. You have no Biblical backing.

Furthermore, you embrace a faulty hermeneutic. One cannot build doctrine on narrative and events. Doctrinal teaching, such as Biblical separation, must come from clear statements in the Word of God. Allegory and analogy are subject to any number of interpretations. Then, it is every man to his own interpretation. The hope of knowing is destroyed. The NT theology of separation is founded in an understanding of OT separation. Your theology is of the WWJD variety. It is unknowable and spurious.

After you began your spiel about allegorizing, I plainly said:

I was speaking of the faulty analogy that you used. Allegory was included because it suffers from the same weakness. You’re grasping at straws.

I did not say you were allegorizing and I did not recant anything. You are reading whatever you want into my posts. I don’t have the time to waste. One cannot debate blather and nonsense.