Separational Issues

[gb93433]

Most of the time when I see a non-believer come to Christ they are thankful at how their life is different that they don't give a thought to any kind of separation but to tell their friends about Christ. But then they get some time in church and are told how to "be a Christian" that they begin to look like other "Christians." The fact is that the majority of people in churches have never led one person to Christ.

Look at Jesus and how he ate with sinners and never wavered in his purpose, conduct and doctrine.

 

[Justified]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Look at Jesus and how he ate with sinners and never wavered in his purpose, conduct and doctrine.

But, when Jesus came around, people knew He was different. He not only looked different, but He acted different.

Probably would be described as a MILITANT! or LEAGALIST! or SEPARATIST!or something on that nature.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Justified:


Probably would be described as a MILITANT! or LEAGALIST! or SEPARATIST!or something on that nature.

The Bible tells us that He was primarily militant in His separation from legalists.

Legalism is an attitude to be avoided every bit as much as leniency on sin.

 

[Justified]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Legalism is an attitude to be avoided every bit as much as leniency on sin.

You're right. I should not have used the term Leagalist in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ.

But the comment was made as to how some people might percieve Him.

 

[Scott Cline]

Andy nailed it on the head concerning the gap between BJ and HA. HA people wear pins which say "100% Hyles" to church! The life of Jack Hyles is a mandatory class there! They teach you to soul-win by tricking someone into saying a prayer and then putting another notch on their Bibles- then claim to have won many 100's of souls to Christ. I find it interesting that they win so many more than the rest of us, while using abhorent techniques. The believe that the KJV is an inspired translation, and Dr. Hyles specifically stated that if you're born again from any other translation than the KJV, than you're born again unto the Devil, and need to be born again again from the KJV. Not to mention they are rather anti-intellectual (go figure). The key here, concerning separation, is that they only fellowship with others like them on these issues. However, BJU is multi-denominational while maintaining a historic fundamental stand on separation and fellowship. They will fellowship with fundamental Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible churches, etc. They do not make an issue out of women wearing pants, Bible translations, or any of these other non-doctrinal issues. Why, there is such a gap between the two, that someone from the H-A type camp wrote an article about BJU, stating this, "We now must conclude that BJU has fully entered the New Evangelical camp." Sheesh, just tell Dr. Bob that!!!
Now, concerning the "left of Falwell" being far left...well from the perspective of anyone who has any grasp of the application of Biblical separation mandates to contemporary Christianity- well it IS pretty far left! Falwell practices fellowship with charasmatics and far far worse! He started off fairly fundamental, from what I have heard, but after starting that "Moral Majority" he went down hill. I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but to be left of Falwell is basically to be willing to fellowship with theological Liberalism.
For anybody questioning the validity of this whole debate, might I suggest "The Dividing Line", by Mark Sidwell.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scott Cline:
They do not make an issue out of women wearing pants,

Some do but not in a stridently legalistic way- at least not in my experience.

any of these other non-doctrinal issues.

The one area where I think they come the closest is on music.

Other than these two exceptions... a very good response you gave.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scott Cline:

You have the "lunatic fringe", such as Hyles-Anderson, who would separate over the King James issue....
So, in this matter of separation, where do you stand?

I just recently separated from a church over the KJVO issue.

A preacher got up in the pulpit and called all other versions "perverted" along with other comments. The pastor affirmed him with "amens". I talked with the pastor a few times over several weeks in an effort to resolve the difference. I told him that I considered the man's words blasphemy. He was not open to a meaningful discussion of which position was true and actually admitted that in an "intellectual" debate I would probably win (implication- his belief was by faith, mine by intellect). He did not want to resolve the issue. His desire was to retain my family in the church and silent on the issue- without really dealing with it.

His final decision, which I think was more pragmatic than anything else, was to take a decidedly KJVO position which was different from what he told me when we joined the church... so we left.

Am I on the lunatic fringe?

 

[MissAbbyIFBaptist]

I guess I'm part of the lunatic fringe as it was so called.

 

[Scott Cline]

When I said "lunatic fringe" I was referring to the very people you had trouble with. Those who separate from non-KJOnlys.

 

[All about Grace]

BJU = balanced fundamentalism
This whole thread reminds me why so many no longer want to be affiliated with the label fundamentalist!

So is life in IFB world

 

[Scott Cline]

I have labeled BJ as "balanced fundamentalism" for these reasons-
BALANCED: They fellowship within all of true fundamentalism, not just Baptists. They accept legitimate doctrinal differences on "non-fundamental" doctrines. They do not separate over non-fundamental issues, such as Bible translations, women wearing pants, or even music- regardless of their own positions. And most of all, they do what they do out of love and true conviction (not holier than thou), and they do it kind-heartedly.
FUNAMENTAL: They stand where historic fundamentalism has stood for the last century- withdrawing from fellowship with apostacy, unbelief, or compromising brethren- as we are commanded to do in Scripture. It ought to be noted that when they must avoid fellowship with other brothers, they do it regrettfully and in hopes of other's reform.
By the way, BJ is not IFB, tho I guess I am by deffinition. THat doesn't mean want to identify myself with much of the IFB camp, nor would I proudly bear the lable fundamentalist in SOME areas of the country (wear "fundamentalist" means Hyels disciple)- but by thier historic deffinitions, I am IFB.

 

[PastorGreg]

BJ is definitely balanced. Clothing is required for students and faculty, but not for "art." Can't get much more balanced than that.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

This thread shows that we cannot even agree on what "balanced" is, let alone define who is, or is not to the right, left, or the middle of it.

I have know people who graduated from schools as right-wing as Hyles-Anderson college. Some where very balanced and some where not. I worked in a church school for a principal who graduated from Bob Jones. He was as fine a Christian boss as I have ever worked for.

As I get older I find myself being more tolerant toward people on both ends of the spectrum without espousing everything they might believe.

I think that it is important to be as inclusive as we can be, yet not compromise our personal convictions in the process.

Rom 12:18
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
(KJV)

 

[All about Grace]

"Balanced" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. What are non-essentials to some are essentials to others. BJU definitely seperates from those who embrace the fundamentals. Eg., Billy Graham holds to the fundamentals. Yet they would seperate from Billy. Again secondary separation is a strange realm where balance and consistency are hard to come by (in my balanced opinion of course ).

 

[pinoybaptist]

I will separate with no second thoughts from any who teaches heresy, even if he is a fellow Primitive Baptist.

However, I will not separate from one who is simply in error with regards to doctrine even if he is not Primitive Baptist.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
BJU definitely seperates from those who embrace the fundamentals. Eg., Billy Graham holds to the fundamentals. Yet they would seperate from Billy. Again secondary separation is a strange realm where balance and consistency are hard to come by (in my balanced opinion of course ).

But we should remember that "holding to the fundamentals" does not make one a fundamentalist. A new evangelical holds to the fundamentals. The students of history here will remember that the dividing line between the fundamentalists (evangelicals of the first half of the century) and the new evangelicals was not doctrine but separation. The New Evangelicals (the name they gave themselves to distinguish them from teh old evangelicals, i.e., the fundamentalists) rejected the old evangelicals separatism while holding to the same doctrine. They wanted to be a "new kind of evangelical."

Thus, we see from history that fundamentalism/evangelicalism believed in separation, not simply holding to the fundamentals. The New Evangelicals wanted to hold to the fundamentals while rejecting fundamentalism because of the separation issue.

Remember, a little history is always helpful

 

[aefting]

Billy Graham holds to the fundamentals.

I think it is very doubtful that Graham holds to the fundamentals anymore. Consider this quote of his from an interview with Robert Schuller in 1997 (as cited in Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided, pp 73-74):

“… I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ. . . . He is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.”

Surprised by this Schuller was anxious for clarification, ‘What , what I hear you saying, that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they have been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?’

“Yes, it is,” Graham responded in decided tones.

Acts 4:12(ESV)
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

 

[MissAbbyIFBaptist]

When I said "lunatic fringe" I was referring to the very people you had trouble with. Those who separate from non-KJOnlys.

I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but it was just under my post. But to clear it up I DO seperate over the KJB issue. If I hear a pastor on the radio using another version, I turn it off. I don't visit churches in my area known for using another version. I don't even read something that has quotes from another version. My soul, that is a MAJOR issue with me. That's the Bible we're talking about!
So if being part of the lunatic fringe means I'm KJB only, well so be it. If that's considered crazy, let the world go crazy!
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB

 

[All about Grace]

But we should remember that "holding to the fundamentals" does not make one a fundamentalist. A new evangelical holds to the fundamentals. The students of history here will remember that the dividing line between the fundamentalists (evangelicals of the first half of the century) and the new evangelicals was not doctrine but separation. The New Evangelicals (the name they gave themselves to distinguish them from teh old evangelicals, i.e., the fundamentalists) rejected the old evangelicals separatism while holding to the same doctrine. They wanted to be a "new kind of evangelical."

Thus, we see from history that fundamentalism/evangelicalism believed in separation, not simply holding to the fundamentals. The New Evangelicals wanted to hold to the fundamentals while rejecting fundamentalism because of the separation issue.

Remember, a little history is always helpful

Thanks Larry. I am very aware of the history.

The point is that BJU has been labeled balanced b/c they do not separate over the "non-essentials" but in reality they do separate over the non-essentials. This is not an issue of who qualifies as a "fundamentlist". The question is whether one holds to the fundamentals. And BJU separates from those who hold to the fundamentals. So subsequently they do separate over non-essentials.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
The point is that BJU has been labeled balanced b/c they do not separate over the "non-essentials" but in reality they do separate over the non-essentials. This is not an issue of who qualifies as a "fundamentlist". The question is whether one holds to the fundamentals. And BJU separates from those who hold to the fundamentals. So subsequently they do separate over non-essentials.

What "non-essential" has BJU separated over?

My point in the history was that the issue of separation was not "essential" vs. "non-essential" but rather separation vs. non-separation. Essentials had little to do with it.

To separate from one who holds the fundamentals is not necessarily wrong. If someone who holds to the fundamentals is disobedient to Scripture, then separation is an act of lovign obedience to God. That is not separation over non-essentials. The question is not only "Does one hold to the fundamentals?" The question is also, "Is one obedient to the commands of God?"

Scripture says to separate from both. Obedience is essential; it is not a "non-essential."