Theology of Separation

[John of Japan]

I heard of a preacher once that went into beer joints to befriend the patrons there with the goal of sharing the gospel with them. He did actually lead several to the Lord and helped them return to a sober life. He didn't drink anything but soft drinks, until one day tragedy struck him personally. He went to the bar and ordered a beer, and then another. Within 6 months he was no longer pastoring his church, but he was at the bar every day drinking.

The pastor that told me this story gave me this example. He stood on a chair. He said that he represented the pastor trying to pull the lost souls out of the bar. And that I standing on the floor represented the lost souls. Then he said to take his hand and pull. When I did I pulled him off of the chair and down to the floor with me.

He told me that it is easier for evil to pull us down than for us to pull people up out of evil. He wasn't suggesting that we don't witness and share the gospel, he was just pointing out that we have to do it on our terms and not the terms of the world.

He said this is why we must stay seperate from evil. We should share the gospel with the world but not participate in the evil of the world.

Sometimes that is a tight rope to walk.

John

There is a similar story in Communicating Christ Cross Culturally, the excellent missiology book by David Hessalgrave. A missionary to Germany bought into the idea that he had to drink beer because all the Germans did who he was trying to win to Christ. He ended up an alcoholic, having to leave the mission field and go into rehab.

 

[HankD]

Sometimes the line is closer to me, and sometimes the line is closer to you. (rhetorical answer). :saint:

Real response

HankD

 

[glfredrick]

You have badly misrepresented my position. I don't protect my church from outside influence, but from bad outside influence. We fellowship with many churches on Hokkaido, and have summer camp with at least 6 other churches. Again, when in Japan I teach Greek to a Methodist man who wants to be a pastor. I once had him fill the pulpit when I preached elsewhere. Again, our pastors' fellowship has had a non-Baptist speak to us.

Then, I would suggest that you and I are on a similar page regarding my take on ecumenicism below. You would not allow your congregation to BE Methodist, but see no problem in fellowshipping with a Methodist. I am in agreement. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, but there are several interpretations of how that works out in a practical matter in the local congregation. We ought not separate from true brothers and sisters, but neither do we need to adopt their interpretation of doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

Then, I would suggest that you and I are on a similar page regarding my take on ecumenicism below. You would not allow your congregation to BE Methodist, but see no problem in fellowshipping with a Methodist. I am in agreement. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, but there are several interpretations of how that works out in a practical matter in the local congregation. We ought not separate from true brothers and sisters, but neither do we need to adopt their interpretation of doctrine.

Then I take it that you are a separatist, though not a secondary separatist.

 

[JesusFan]

Then I take it that you are a separatist, though not a secondary separatist.

Think that the question though does God want us to seperate from those in the Body who view theology differenent?

Such as between cals/Arms, those in reformed/free churches?

I think you and I would have fellowship, as I am an Evangelical/very moderate charasmatic, while you and I would differ on secondary issue maybe, still would see agreement on the'essentials!"

 

[John of Japan]

Think that the question though does God want us to seperate from those in the Body who view theology differenent?

Such as between cals/Arms, those in reformed/free churches?

I think you and I would have fellowship, as I am an Evangelical/very moderate charasmatic, while you and I would differ on secondary issue maybe, still would see agreement on the'essentials!"

Something that may not be clear on this thread yet is that ecclesiastical separation is not about individuals fellowshipping and being friends, no matter what their theology. I could easily fellowship with you on an individual basis, and I am sure I would profit from the friendship. My best friend for decades is a 5 point Calvinist.

Ecclesiastical separation is about churches cooperating in God's work. One important passage for this doctrine is 2 Cor. 6:14-18, esp. v. 14: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" A yoke is where two animals work together. Therefore, Paul was telling the Corinthian church not to work together in God's work with those who are not true believers. (In my book, that starts with Catholic churches, theologically liberal churches and other aberrant ministries.)

If you were (are?) the pastor of a church and wished our churches to cooperate in an endeavor, at that time I would sit down with you (over Starbucks maybe) and discuss whether we were agreed enough to walk together in the effort (Amos 3:3).

 

[JesusFan]

Something that may not be clear on this thread yet is that ecclesiastical separation is not about individuals fellowshipping and being friends, no matter what their theology. I could easily fellowship with you on an individual basis, and I am sure I would profit from the friendship. My best friend for decades is a 5 point Calvinist.

Ecclesiastical separation is about churches cooperating in God's work. One important passage for this doctrine is 2 Cor. 6:14-18, esp. v. 14: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" A yoke is where two animals work together. Therefore, Paul was telling the Corinthian church not to work together in God's work with those who are not true believers. (In my book, that starts with Catholic churches, theologically liberal churches and other aberrant ministries.)

Wouldn't it be based though upon IF the church is teaching the Gospel and jesus, the biblcal versions of each?

If you were (are?) the pastor of a church and wished our churches to cooperate in an endeavor, at that time I would sit down with you (over Starbucks maybe) and discuss whether we were agreed enough to walk together in the effort (Amos 3:3).

Think that you would like our church pastor, as he is "open" to diiferent aspects of Christianity, but very fundemental in core doctrines!

 

[glfredrick]

Then I take it that you are a separatist, though not a secondary separatist.

No, I am neither a separatist nor an ecumenicist. I don't draw the distinctions. Others do. They may be separatists or ecumenicists, and as a result, I end up having to play ball in their court from time to time.

I am in the biblical gospel camp myself -- Jesus prayed that we would be one because of the gospel -- we violate His will at almost every turn, to our own peril. So, while I admit that there are reasons to separate, and that people do separate, I don't hold to the sort of separatism so often seen here on the board. That is because I hold to a biblical model of a church universal. All who are "in Christ" are brothers and joint heirs -- period -- even if I don't agree with them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, I am neither a separatist nor an ecumenicist. I don't draw the distinctions. Others do. They may be separatists or ecumenicists, and as a result, I end up having to play ball in their court from time to time.

I am in the biblical gospel camp myself -- Jesus prayed that we would be one because of the gospel -- we violate His will at almost every turn, to our own peril. So, while I admit that there are reasons to separate, and that people do separate, I don't hold to the sort of separatism so often seen here on the board. That is because I hold to a biblical model of a church universal. All who are "in Christ" are brothers and joint heirs -- period -- even if I don't agree with them.

I concur with that! :thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

No, I am neither a separatist nor an ecumenicist. I don't draw the distinctions. Others do. They may be separatists or ecumenicists, and as a result, I end up having to play ball in their court from time to time.

I'm sorry, but that all sounds so vague, so "mugwump" to me. I don't know what you mean by "the sort of separatism so often seen here on the board."

How far does your "in Christ" model go? Who do you believe are "in Christ"? Can you be more specific?

(1) As a pastor, would you lead your church to cooperate with the Catholics in an evangelistic effort?

(2) As a pastor, would you lead your church to cooperate in an evangelistic effort with a liberal church where the pastor does not believe in the deity of Christ?

I am in the biblical gospel camp myself -- Jesus prayed that we would be one because of the gospel -- we violate His will at almost every turn, to our own peril. So, while I admit that there are reasons to separate, and that people do separate, I don't hold to the sort of separatism so often seen here on the board. That is because I hold to a biblical model of a church universal. All who are "in Christ" are brothers and joint heirs -- period -- even if I don't agree with them

That sounds very spiritual--but very impractical. That doesn't help the pastor who is struggling with the issue of how to relate to theological liberals in his town, for example. As for the prayer of Christ, I believe that was answered. I mean really, an unanswered prayer by Christ? So if it was answered, how can we help Christ by answering it for him by fellowshipping with everyone who claims to be "in Christ"? That would be impossible.

 

[John of Japan]

Wouldn't it be based though upon IF the church is teaching the Gospel and jesus, the biblcal versions of each?

I assume you wrote this, though it was inside the quote of what I said. So yes, it is based on this.

Let me be specific about who I would absolutely not fellowship or cooperate with. There are specific Biblical statements about this.

(1) Those who get the doctrine of Christ wrong (2 John 9-11).
(2) Those who get the Gospel wrong (Gal. 1:8-9).
(3) Those who add to or take from Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19).
(4) Those who bring division within the local church of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:17--Note that this was written to a specific local church at Rome, not the church universal.)

Think that you would like our church pastor, as he is "open" to diiferent aspects of Christianity, but very fundemental in core doctrines!

No doubt. :thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

I assume you wrote this, though it was inside the quote of what I said. So yes, it is based on this.

Let me be specific about who I would absolutely not fellowship or cooperate with. There are specific Biblical statements about this.

(1) Those who get the doctrine of Christ wrong (2 John 9-11).
(2) Those who get the Gospel wrong (Gal. 1:8-9).
(3) Those who add to or take from Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19).
(4) Those who bring division within the local church of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:17--Note that this was written to a specific local church at Rome, not the church universal.)

No doubt. :thumbsup:

amazing that we will be living in Eternity together, yet cannot learn to co exist down here!

Also, don't think ever asked a Christian if cal/Arm, gifts or not, etc right off the bat!

Some of my friend disagree on Cal/Arm others if Gifts are still today, but we have agreed to respect eachother views, and still focused on our "core doctrines" that we share!

 

[glfredrick]

I assume you wrote this, though it was inside the quote of what I said. So yes, it is based on this.

Let me be specific about who I would absolutely not fellowship or cooperate with. There are specific Biblical statements about this.

(1) Those who get the doctrine of Christ wrong (2 John 9-11).
(2) Those who get the Gospel wrong (Gal. 1:8-9).
(3) Those who add to or take from Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19).
(4) Those who bring division within the local church of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:17--Note that this was written to a specific local church at Rome, not the church universal.)

No doubt. :thumbsup:

So, what you are saying is that (your version) of orthodoxy is a test to determine if one is a true Christian or not. I reject that concept, for the same Bible you cite states very clearly that God is the one who sees the heart and knows whether or not a person is truly saved, whether orthodox or not -- and it is very possible that many who are saved are not orthodox, and potentially even heretical.

Just happened to be a great article on the very subject today by Trevin Wax.

http://trevinwax.com/ -- "Confessions of a Former Apollinarian."

 

[John of Japan]

So, what you are saying is that (your version) of orthodoxy is a test to determine if one is a true Christian or not. I reject that concept, for the same Bible you cite states very clearly that God is the one who sees the heart and knows whether or not a person is truly saved, whether orthodox or not -- and it is very possible that many who are saved are not orthodox, and potentially even heretical.

Just happened to be a great article on the very subject today by Trevin Wax.

http://trevinwax.com/ -- "Confessions of a Former Apollinarian."

This is getting ridiculous. First you falsely accuse me of not wanting any outside influence in my church. Now you falsely accuse me of wanting to judge if someone is a true Christian or not. I said no such thing, and believe precisely the opposite. And judging from your link to Trevin Wax's article you are falsely accusing me of separating from an individual who is confused in his doctrine. I'm not talking at all about separating from individuals!! It's ecclesiastical separation, not individual separation.

I'm disappointed in you. You are not using the excellent brain that you seem to have. Will you actually try to understand what I'm saying here and interact with it, or continue chasing rabbits?

 

[JesusFan]

This is getting ridiculous. First you falsely accuse me of not wanting any outside influence in my church. Now you falsely accuse me of wanting to judge if someone is a true Christian or not. I said no such thing, and believe precisely the opposite. And judging from your link to Trevin Wax's article you are falsely accusing me of separating from an individual who is confused in his doctrine. I'm not talking at all about separating from individuals!! It's ecclesiastical separation, not individual separation.

I'm disappointed in you. You are not using the excellent brain that you seem to have. Will you actually try to understand what I'm saying here and interact with it, or continue chasing rabbits?

Might be referring to "what degrees" of theology willing to seperate or not on!

Will modes of water baptism seperate at church levels?
Versions of Bible accepted?
IF Calvinistic/Arminian in salvation modes?
Think that he was seeking what theology for church seperation, not co operating in play!

 

[glfredrick]

This is getting ridiculous. First you falsely accuse me of not wanting any outside influence in my church. Now you falsely accuse me of wanting to judge if someone is a true Christian or not. I said no such thing, and believe precisely the opposite. And judging from your link to Trevin Wax's article you are falsely accusing me of separating from an individual who is confused in his doctrine. I'm not talking at all about separating from individuals!! It's ecclesiastical separation, not individual separation.

I'm disappointed in you. You are not using the excellent brain that you seem to have. Will you actually try to understand what I'm saying here and interact with it, or continue chasing rabbits?

Not chasing rabbits at all. I am trying to interpret some of your mutually exclusive doctrines and unfortunately, not doing a good job at all. Coherence is an important theological tenet, and I feel that you lack coherence in some of your doctrines, and that based more on your theological tradition than actual exegesis.

 

[John of Japan]

Not chasing rabbits at all. I am trying to interpret some of your mutually exclusive doctrines and unfortunately, not doing a good job at all. Coherence is an important theological tenet, and I feel that you lack coherence in some of your doctrines, and that based more on your theological tradition than actual exegesis.

So it's my fault that you have falsely accused me? What a strange viewpoint that the one sinned against is responsible for the sin. I suppose that's why you did not apologize for bearing false witness against me--it's my fault that I was sinned against.

I gave a clear statement of the doctrinal basis for ecclesiastical separation in Post #8. You did not answer this. I directed questions to you in Post #70, trying to clarify your postion. You did not answer, nor have you asked me anything to clarify my position, which you clearly do not understand. I have quoted various other Scriptures supporting ecclesiastical separation throughout this thread, none of which you have answered.

I think it is clear that you are the one with presuppositions that hinder you, not me.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I gotta question John.

Can you have ecclesiastical separation without having at least some measure of individual separation?

This idea that you can divide the two is foreign to my raising (within IFB circles). We weren't encouraged at all to have any sort of friendship outside our own denom and certain denoms were absolutely forbidden except as one had to deal with them because of a blood relationship. After all, we wouldn't want those other denoms to lead us astray... (that was the main excuse given)

 

[John of Japan]

I gotta question John.

Can you have ecclesiastical separation without having at least some measure of individual separation?

This idea that you can divide the two is foreign to my raising (within IFB circles). We weren't encouraged at all to have any sort of friendship outside our own denom and certain denoms were absolutely forbidden except as one had to deal with them because of a blood relationship. After all, we wouldn't want those other denoms to lead us astray... (that was the main excuse given)

That is completely different from how I was raised as an IFB. Personally I think it is contrary to the great soul-winning emphasis that IFB chuches should have and have traditionally had. How can you witness for Christ to say, a Catholic or a liberal Methodist if you have separated individually from them?

In the IFB circles I was raised in and have gotten my missionary support from, we were and are encouraged to get to know lost people to lead them to Christ, even if they are ostensibly Christians. So for example I dated a Lutheran girl in high school who came to our youth group. Her brother eventually became a Baptist and has served in various IFB colleges. My parents encouraged me to bring lost friends home, and my parents were always building bridges to lost people to try to help and win them.

At a large IFB church that supports, I recently asked the pastor how the church was prospering so. He told me that some years ago he realized that the church people didn't seem to know any lost people, since they had a Christian school and many church activities. He began encouraging people to get out and participate in the community, and they have had people saved all the time since then. This in my mind is true to the traditional emphasis on evangelism that fundamentalism has always had, going back to the articles on soul-winning and world evangelism the original "Fundamentals" pamphlets had in 1910 or so.

Ecclesiastical separation is to keep the church pure and true to the holiness of God. However, that does not describe our personal relationships. Remember that Jesus was called a friend of publicans and sinners.

 

[glfredrick]

So, it is only brothers in the Lord with whom you disagree... :laugh: