• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Separation

John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Are you still looking at your thread, hvnsaved? I've asked you how the term "ecclesiastical separation" is a contradiction in terms.

I would further like to know, if you are (or ever become) a pastor, what churches would you allow your church to fellowship with? Absolutely everyone? Liberal churches that deny the deity of Christ? Catholics? Seventh Day Adventist? Churches of Christ which believe in baptismal regeneration? Mormons? JWs?

If you would protect your church from any of these churches with false doctrines, you are practicing ecclesiastical separation. :type:
 
I

IIJohn7

New Member
John of Japan said:
The last IFB pastor I know of who tried for a nationwide TV ministry was Jerry Falwell, and of course he doesn't claim the IFB label anymore. The last evangelist I know of to do so was Jack Van Impe, also no longer IFB. Frankly, I believe that compromise is necessary to operate on a national level like that, as these two cases prove. I think our movement does much better on a local level and then a world level, leaving the national level to others who are willing to compromise in the area of ecclesiastical separation.
Click to expand...


Therein lies the problem. In order to play on the world's stage you must play by the worlds rules. And, as we all know, the world and the Bible are contradictory.

So where do you draw the line? Do you say "no" to all mass media? Lester Roloff had his own radio program (you can still hear replays on some AM stations around here). Was he wrong? I don't think so. I think that you can do "mass media" and still keep it local. For instance, the AM radio stations. Even the FM stations are not all owned by mega-corps. The problem comes whenever you start making compromises.

Curtis Hutson had a great anology about this. He said that we could go knock over a bank (no one would expect preachers) and use the money to print the Gospel in every major newspaper and show it on every major TV network. Would that be right?? No? Why not? We could get 100's of 1,000's saved by doing that, isn't that the purpose of the Great Commission??? Why, because that would be compromising our stand on Thou Shalt Not Steal. It's never right to do wrong to do right.

If a IFB preacher could get on a major network and preach the truth without compromise, then I say it's all good. But I don't see that happening. The god of this world isn't going to let the Eternal Truth be broadcast if he can at all help it.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
IIJohn7 said:
Therein lies the problem. In order to play on the world's stage you must play by the worlds rules. And, as we all know, the world and the Bible are contradictory.

So where do you draw the line? Do you say "no" to all mass media? Lester Roloff had his own radio program (you can still hear replays on some AM stations around here). Was he wrong? I don't think so. I think that you can do "mass media" and still keep it local. For instance, the AM radio stations. Even the FM stations are not all owned by mega-corps. The problem comes whenever you start making compromises.

Curtis Hutson had a great anology about this. He said that we could go knock over a bank (no one would expect preachers) and use the money to print the Gospel in every major newspaper and show it on every major TV network. Would that be right?? No? Why not? We could get 100's of 1,000's saved by doing that, isn't that the purpose of the Great Commission??? Why, because that would be compromising our stand on Thou Shalt Not Steal. It's never right to do wrong to do right.

If a IFB preacher could get on a major network and preach the truth without compromise, then I say it's all good. But I don't see that happening. The god of this world isn't going to let the Eternal Truth be broadcast if he can at all help it.
Click to expand...
Well said! :thumbs:
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hvnsaved said:
John of Japan: Ecclesiastical separation - What I mean is in relation to individuals, not whole churches.
Click to expand...
This is not the common definition of ecclesiastical separation, Hvnsaved. I've never heard of a Fundamentalist saying this or read a book by a Fundamentalist giving this definition. What a Fundamentalist means by this term is one church separating from another church, church body, denomination or ecclesiastical leader. This can clearly be discerned by the meaning of the term "ecclesiastical":

ec·cle·si·as·ti·cal​
​
​
​

ec·cle·si·as·ti·cal​
(​
​
î-klê´zê-às¹tî-kel) adjective
Abbr. eccl., eccles.
1. Of or relating to a church, especially as an organized institution. 2. Appropriate to a church or to use in a church: ecclesiastical architecture; ecclesiastical robes. (Microsoft Bookshelf 98)​

 
H

Hvnsaved

New Member
J of J,

I don't what ecclesiastical means. What I am saying is that "eccl. sep", as practiced by IFBaptists, "may" need some re-thinking. How can we write off INDIVIDUALS within other labels without even getting to know them?
 
B

bapmom

New Member
That's the point, Hvnsvd.

Writing off "individuals" is NOT ecclesiastical separation. Ecclesiastical separation as practiced in IFB churches is simply deciding which other CHURCHES your church will be fellowshipping with in organized activities.

That doesnt mean that we wouldn't speak to the individuals within those other churches, nor does it even mean we wouldn't have friendships and associations with them.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hvnsaved said:
J of J,

I don't what ecclesiastical means. What I am saying is that "eccl. sep", as practiced by IFBaptists, "may" need some re-thinking. How can we write off INDIVIDUALS within other labels without even getting to know them?
Click to expand...
You don't know what ecclesiastical means? After I gave you a dictionary definition? And then you still insist on talking about "ecclesiastical separation as practiced by IFBaptists???" Forgive me for saying so, but you are just not making sense!

As bapmom said, ES among us IFB types is not the practice of refusing to fellowship with individuals. In fact, I know of no term for such a practice among us, and I don't think I'm being arrogant to say that if anyone on the BB would know, I am the one, having grown up in a prominent IFB family.

Now, if you want to back up and start again, if you will kindly stop using the wrong terminology and simply discuss the issue you want to, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Your original OP was about there being no IFB preachers on the TV on the national level. Do you still want to discuss that? You have not yet interacted with anything I've written about your OP.
 
K

kjv1611

New Member
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

enmity

EN'MITY, n.

1. The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice,and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient.

I will put enmity between thee and the woman. Gen.3.

The carnal mind is enmity against God.Rom. 8.

2. A state of opposition.

The friendship of the world is enmity with God. James 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top