Separational Issues

[All about Grace]

Larry,

There is no need to go around the mulberry bush again We simply disagree on grounds for "separation". BJU separates on issues that I do not. Some see that as balance. I don't.

Agreeing to disagree.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
We simply disagree on grounds for "separation". BJU separates on issues that I do not. Some see that as balance. I don't.

My point was not about what you think we should separate over. My point was that you accused BJU of something that wasn't entirely accurate. To say that they separate over non-essentials is not the case. The reality is that they are far more lenient than I would be. But that is neither here nor there.

Whatever you are comfortable in your own conscience with is fine ... my point was that, historically, your analysis misses the boat of what the original rejectors of separation said. Their issue of separation was not what to separate over, but rather whether to separate at all. I was simply trying to add the historical context to it. Many people are confused over fundamentalism because they have no idea what it is and was all about. They associate with KJVOnlyism, pants on women, and the like, when in fact that had nothing to do with the issues of fundamentalism. Most do not know that in the first half of this century, there was no "fundamentalist/evangelical" distinction. They were all the same. And they were united against liberalism/modernism. Most do not know that the fundamentalists were not the ones who caused the split. The fundamentalists did not leave the New Evangelicals because of a willingness to tolerate and dialogue with modernists/liberals. The New Evangelicals were the ones who departed from the historically held position. Another interesting point that most do not know is that Graham and Jones were close friends, and Graham considered Jones Sr as a mentor. Jones Jr preached for Graham in his rallies on several different occasions.

As a side note, I would be interested to know where men like Machen and Riley would be today if they were still alive. IMO, Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism is not so much a movement today as it is an ideal. The theological world is so entirely different than it was 60 or 100 years ago. But those are all interesting topics for discussion.

 

[Kidz-4-HIM]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
[QB] 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.

AMEN!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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):


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“… 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How sad He was at one time very fundamental.


posted October 30, 2003 05:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!

Amen Me Too!!!!!!!!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Sorry for not posting to this, as I have been up in BEAUTIFUL upstate New York on a business trip. If you have never been through Mohawk River Valley (I think that is what it is called) you really need to visit this area of the world!!

Originally posted by Scott Cline:
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.

Once again, I will state that I am to the left of Jerry Falwell, albeit only slightly left. The extent to my leftness is contingent upon the location of the observer. If someone perceives me as being extremely left, it is directly proportional to their rightness.

Secondly, please define "theological Liberalism" as you perceive it, and I can comment from there.

As for fellowship with charasmatics, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I had a few charasmatic friends down in Tampa, and I enjoyed their fellowship. Remember: just because one don't agree with their worship does not mean that one cannot fellowship with another Believer. What does the Bible say about two or three gathered together in His name?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Kidz-4-HIM:
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!

Amen Me Too!!!!!!!!

As it has been stated many times before in multiple forums, there is no Scriptural basis for KJV-Onlyism. What rationale do you use to separate from other Believers simply based upon the Version of their Bible?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by aefting:
Here are some differences off the top of my head. Others may be able to add to the list:

1. One is KJV-only, the other is not.
2. One believes in man-centered soulwinning, the other does not.
3. One believes that soulwinning covers a multitude of sins, the other does not.
4. One believes in out-of-context topical preaching, the other does not.
5. One believes in easy-believism, the other does not.
6. One believes in leadership hero worship, the other does not.
7. One treats women like dirt, the other does not.
8. One maintains low academic standards, the other does not.
9. One emphasizes numbers, the other does not.


Andy

Greetings Andy:

Your post seems to exhibit a bias.
I really find it hard to believe that one of the schools states their doctrine in the following manner:

1. We are KJV-only.
2. We believe in man-centered soulwinning.
3. We do not believe that soulwinning covers a multitude of sins.
4. We believe in out-of-context topical preaching.
5. We believe in easy-believism.
6. We believe in leadership hero worship.
7. We treat women like dirt.
8. We maintain low academic standards.
9. We emphasize numbers.

Once again, what are the specific differences? I said it before: I have been to both schools, and there are more likenesses than differences.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Justified:
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.

Absolutely not!

Jesus was hardly considered to be a Legalist. In fact, quite the contrary is true. Jesus was preaching to the Gentiles!! Jesus associated with a tax collector!! Jesus spent time at the well witnessing to a divorced woman!! What's worse: Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and had the audacity to claim that nobody could come to the Father except through Him!!
The Legalists were the Pharisees. Come on: everybody knows that.

 

[aefting]

Your post seems to exhibit a bias.
I really find it hard to believe that one of the schools states their doctrine in the following manner:

1. We are KJV-only.
2. We believe in man-centered soulwinning.
3. We do not believe that soulwinning covers a multitude of sins.
4. We believe in out-of-context topical preaching.
5. We believe in easy-believism.
6. We believe in leadership hero worship.
7. We treat women like dirt.
8. We maintain low academic standards.
9. We emphasize numbers.

Once again, what are the specific differences? I said it before: I have been to both schools, and there are more likenesses than differences.

Yes, I probably am biased but I would say I'm biased because of these differences, not that I highlighted these differences because I'm biased. I certainly wasn't trying to be mean-spirited. My list came from years of observation and I believe it to be fairly accurate.

You will notice that I didn't state which school held what position, yet I'll bet most people familiar with both schools knew exactly what I was talking about.

Whether a school publishes these positions or not, their practice certainly indicates something about what they believe. This is always true. What you or I believe about God determines how we act.

Andy

 

[Scott Cline]

The diffinition of Liberalism is irrelevant now- you have said quite a bit about where you stand simply by being willing to work with charasmatics. I do not deny that your friends are our brothers in Christ- but they are in disobedience. EVEN if the sign gifts were still legit (and I don't believe they are), there are no modern charasmatics (to my knowlege) who practice them within Scriptural guidlines. The the lack of translators, the disorderliness, etc...all very dissobedient. So, why must I separate from them? Well, according to the principal laid out in 2 Thess. 3:6, I'm to withdraw from any brother who does not live in accordance with apostolic tradition/teaching... and today that includes the disorderly charasmatics.
Concerning our KJOnly brethren- I sympathize with your position. I have many friends who hold such beliefs. However, in the case of every one of them who is so adament as to separate over it (and not all are so adament), it is based in a lack of knowlege. I realize you've probably been taught your position in your church for a long time- however, unless you're familiar the debates surrounding textual critisism and translation philosophy, you won't be able to intelligently argue for your belief. Emotional ties run deep here- no doubt, you sincerely believe that the KJB is the only accurate copy of God's Word available, and that all other translations are, in fact, "Per-versions". If I believed this, I'd be just as adament as you. As you said "This is God's Word we're talking about!" I don't want you to take my word for it, I want you to study it out yourself- but I guarentee you that the KJB is not perfect, that no translation is, and that there are some (certainly not all) modern translations that do God's Word at least as much justice. I believe that God will preserve His Word, as I'm sure you have been taught- but did He ever promise to preserve it in one place, one language, to one people, etc.?? He merely promised that it would be preserved, and I believe it's been preserved in the majority of existing manuscripts, tho not all in one place. But regardless of where you stand on this, it is not a matter of doctrine, and therefore you are separating over what you shouldn't...other wise known as divisiveness, which is sin. I know you do it sincerely, but now that you have been presented with some facts which could bear serious ramifications on whether your separation is divisive or not, you ought to feel responsible to search the matter out. Might I humbly suggest "The Difference Between Bible Versions", by Gary Zeolla.
To comment on what else has been said- Billy Graham most deffinatly does not adhere to fundamental doctrine, which ought to be manifestly evident to any who have read those quotes. And Bro. Larry is absolutely right in his history of Fundamentalism vs. Neo Evangelicalism. The issue is not orthodoxy in non-separation doctrines, but separation itself, which we fundi's hold to be a fundamental doctrine- for it is so clearly laid out in Holy Writ. By the way, Billy Graham is an excellent examply of one who would try to maintain orthodxy while compromising separation- give it a few years and that orthodoxy will get thrown out the window as quick as the separation did.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kidz-4-HIM:
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!

Amen Me Too!!!!!!!!

As it has been stated many times before in multiple forums, there is no Scriptural basis for KJV-Onlyism. What rationale do you use to separate from other Believers simply based upon the Version of their Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Separation over KJV is just pure ignorance, pure ignorance!! It is sad to see so many believe lies that lead to division. What is worse is when they are told the truth they decide to be ignorant!!!! So many will stand in judgement for slandering the Word of God!! The KJVO stand is a sin. Repent from worshiping an idol.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kidz-4-HIM:
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!

Amen Me Too!!!!!!!!

As it has been stated many times before in multiple forums, there is no Scriptural basis for KJV-Onlyism. What rationale do you use to separate from other Believers simply based upon the Version of their Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Separation over KJV is just pure ignorance, pure ignorance!! It is sad to see so many believe lies that lead to division. What is worse is when they are told the truth they decide to be ignorant!!!! So many will stand in judgement for slandering the Word of God!! The KJVO stand is a sin. Repent from worshiping an idol. </font>[/QUOTE]When did displayed ignorance presume to call another ignorant? I suppose fighting ignorance with ignorance is somewhat like fighting fire with fire. Huh? There’s something in Scripture about a house divided against itself. Remember? Those who call KJVO ignorant are simply displaying their own ignorance and lack of Bible knowledge. If one’s conviction is KJVO, regardless of another’s opinion of KJVO, should that KJVO person use other translations? Of course not! Whatsoever is not of faith is sin! Read your Bible. Then, why do the pious anti-KJVO crowd try to persuade sincere KJVO Christians to violate their convictions? You may not agree with their logic, convictions, or beliefs but you have no call to resort to name-calling (i.e. ignorance). By so doing, you display your own lack of knowledge, discernment, and spiritual character.

If a man’s beliefs are different from mine and he is offended by my beliefs and behavior, then he ought to separate from me. Separation is not necessarily a bad thing. Let him pursue the will of God for his own life. Let him go his way. When Barnabas and Paul separated over a sharp disagreement, much good came of it. BTW, it was not over a theological principle either. It appears there is a latent ecumenism in people’s arguments opposed to separation. The person who holds convictions must decide what beliefs are worth separating over, not the crowd from whom he is separating. Use your brain instead of listening to your emotions!

Bye!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Scott Cline:
Most Fundamentalists and Evangelicals agree that there is Biblical mandate to separate from unbelief and apostacy. However, what divides the two camps is who, among other believers, they are willing or unwilling to fellowship with.
You have the "lunatic fringe", such as Hyles-Anderson, who would separate over the King James issue. You have balanced Fundamentalists,such as Bob Jones, who separate from compromise. You have mild Evangelicals, such as Cederville, who would probably separate from extreme apostacy, but certainly not from compromise. And you have blatant New Evangelicals, such as Billy Grahams' organization, who will hold hands with unbelief and apostacy.
So, in this matter of separation, where do you stand?

I can't vote the poll because I am not one of them - NONE!

 

[tinytim]

Paidagogos, I stand behind my statement that the KJVO movement is built upon ignorance. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Most KJVO refuse to listen to truth when presented. I know I used to be one! I used to be ignorant. (If you talk to my wife she will say nothing changed

) Anyway, most KJVOnlyist I know slander anyone that God has allowed to go to seminary, they condemn higher learning.
If I had to do my post over I would accentuate that being ignorant of something is not a sin, but being willingly ignorant of the truth is!
As I said I used to be ignorant of the KJVO issue until I studied my Bible and church history. BTW I've never been to seminary but hope to some day.

 

[Nomad]

Frankly, I don't worry much about what other groups believe. I just try to walk as closely to the Lord as I can, and immerse myself in the teachings of His word. This, I believe, is my main responsibility as a Christian. The fact that I often fall short here keeps me from feeling superior to the failings of others (probably the real source of separation mania).

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Paidagogos, I stand behind my statement that the KJVO movement is built upon ignorance. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Most KJVO refuse to listen to truth when presented. I know I used to be one! I used to be ignorant. (If you talk to my wife she will say nothing changed

) Anyway, most KJVOnlyist I know slander anyone that God has allowed to go to seminary, they condemn higher learning.
If I had to do my post over I would accentuate that being ignorant of something is not a sin, but being willingly ignorant of the truth is!
As I said I used to be ignorant of the KJVO issue until I studied my Bible and church history. BTW I've never been to seminary but hope to some day.

But, you never addressed the issue that I raised—you only restated your own position. Would you ask a sincere KJVO believer to violate his conscience and attend a church that held to a multi-translation view? Please face the hard questions. Deal with it Scripturally, not emotionally.

Thank you.

 

[paidagogos]

I find several of the posters on this thread to hold an inconsistent position on separation. They want to define what issues they are justified in separating from other believers but they will not allow others to determine the issues (e.g. KJVO) for which they are compelled by conviction to separate from the aforementioned party. In other words, A feels justified in separating from B but A is highly incensed when C separates from A over a different issue? Each one must determine his own convictions based on the Word of God.

Where is the Baptist view of individual conscience? (BTW, I am not exalting conscience over the Word of God which is our final and absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice. However, there is room for interpretation and differing viewpoints based on the Word of God since every matter is not revealed in explicit “thou shalt not” form . There are both precepts and principles.) If a brother feels that he must separate from me because I am not KJVO, then by all means, separate from me. If a brother must separate because I am KJVO, so be it. Depart in peace, brother. I admire a man who stands by his convictions even though he may disagree and separate from me. This is the historic Baptist position because Baptists are historically separatists. In fact, I respect the one who separates true to his convictions more than the compromiser who remains to achieve personal benefit without conviction. Give me a man with backbone any day over the smooth-talking, slick compromiser. Not everyone has to agree with me. Of course, the essence of political correctness is everyone toes the party line. I hate it. Give me honest individuals who stand by their convictions.

In all fairness and honesty, we must allow for others the things that we claim for ourselves. Don’t try to dictate to another’s conscience and convictions. He is perfectly within his rights to separate from you whether you agree that it is a reason for separation or not. Nuff said.

 

[Emily]

"As it has been stated many times before in multiple forums, there is no Scriptural basis for KJV-Onlyism. What rationale do you use to separate from other Believers simply based upon the Version of their Bible?"


Well.. Jehovah's witnesses use the NWT.. I would say that that would based upon their bible.. I would definately separate from them.

I am not a KJV-onlyists.. My version of choice is NASB, but I can understand where the KJV-onlyists are coming from..

I can imagine the fear of knowledge. What you have been trained to know, is hard to let go of.
If you had ALWAYS been taught that the newer versions are "per-versions" and that anyone who tries to tell you different is using a "seducing spirit", you would be scared to death to even entertain the idea that your bible may not be perfect.

Having said that however, I still find it very frustrating to try to show textual criticism to a KJV-only, because they do most of the time chose to stay ignorant about the issue... I've actually just kinda taken to not saying anything at all in the real world anymore other than admitting that I am not an onlyist.

separation from charismatics

As for me, the church I was saved at was a disorderly charismatic church using the NIV bible. My husband and I have since gotten away from the charismatic movement, but i couldnt dream of getting away from some of my great friends who still go there. Some of them I can totally look up to and they are amazing prayer warriors and scripture quoters. They carry that double edged sword with them at all times.. In a word I can get them praying for me. If I ever was in need of Christian charity, it is they who I can count on. I can understand that I do not agree with how their worship is constructed, but I would never divide myself against them.

 

[tinytim]

[[/qb][/QUOTE]But, you never addressed the issue that I raised—you only restated your own position. Would you ask a sincere KJVO believer to violate his conscience and attend a church that held to a multi-translation view? Please face the hard questions. Deal with it Scripturally, not emotionally.

Thank you. [/QB][/QUOTE]

To answer your question.. Absolutely not. That would be in violation of Romans 14. But I do believe that we should encourage one another to search for truth. As I said before I used to be KJVO, I have multitudes of friends that still are. Some are not ready for the "meat" of discussion about the issue. Some are searching. And some have gotten bad info from people like Ruckman. I feel that it is our duty to show them the errors. But until their views change, They should stay where they are. Otherwise it would be a sin to them. I hope this answered your questions.

 

[DAVID P. BLACK]

none of these "camps" NOW ANYTHING ABOUT SEPARATION. all of them are libral

 

[paul hadik]

paidagogos:

would you separate from our group? We use a parallel Bible to help the islanders who are weak in English. The KJV is there as is the NKJV and about 6 other translations. It has proved to be an invaluable tool in Bible study.

But would you separate from us for doing this?