What is biblical Separation then?

[JonC]

No, it doesn't, and it never did.
Again, one faith ( not "several" ), one Lord, one baptism ( Ephesians 4:4-6 ).

However, since the two of us can't even agree on this, then I feel that it's time that we dropped it... as such things only lead to arguments and bad feelings.
But, I feel that in the process of solely my posting in this thread, we can both see why my hometown, of less than 6,000 people, has eleven churches in it instead of only one, like was present at Jerusalem.

Because all those that profess Christ today cannot, in these last days, find agreement in much of anything...
Especially doctrine.

Good evening to you.

Sure the church in Jerusalm had different doctrines and practices than the church in Corinth.

The church in Jerusalem maintained doctrines and practices in accordance with their traditions. They were still Jewish and still fell under the Jewish authority. They also went to the Temple on Saturday and attended synagogue as was their custom. The church in Corinth was comprised mostly of Gentiles, and it was determined by the Jewish Christians not to impose their practices under the Law (like circumcision) on to them. These Gentiles had orher issues as they were coming out of a pagan culture.

But yes, they were united in Christ. They had the same gosoel, the same Lord, the same faith, and the same baptism


My point was that if you visited the church in Jerusalm and in Corinth you would notice that they were very different, although united in Christ and in faith.

 

[JonC]

That is my point.

..and where did those come from, if not from the apostles?
There's only one answer outside of that, Jon.

My friend, if Satan hadn't done a bang-up job over the centuries by secretly planting false teachers and teachings among God's people, then we wouldn't have the mess that we now have in these last days.

Would we?

So, the easy part, as I see it, is to determine, from God's word, what to separate over... and what to bear graciously among ourselves.
If it's a false Gospel, then that's important enough for me to separate over.
If overt worldliness among those who profess Christ, another.

What the Scriptures tell us, is what we as believers should be ready, willing and able to separate over.

Scripture warns us not to be carried away by vain philosophies. The thing we need to be mindful of is the point where people are carried away. Vain philosophies will exist as long as we are human, on this side of existance. But we need to be able to distinguish between God's Word and what we belueve is being taught by God's Word (our understanding).

Take Calvinism. A Calvinist can be one who considers his understanding correct but also realizes it is his understanding. Bit tge Calvinist could also be one who believes his understanding is God's Word itself. One is a Christian holding but not leaning on his understanding while tge other has been carried away from the faith.

Many of the doctrines and practices held by the Church in Jerusalem came from the Old Covenant. Many came from Jewish tradition. They remained a oart of the Jewish people even though they had a matured faith.

Many of the doctrines of the church in Corinth was developed to address their experience coming out of pagan religions.

 

[Ben1445]

I think many here would agree that the bible teaches separation from unbelievers and unrepentant Christians. I think the controversy is "second degree" separation. Is it biblical?

2 Thes. 3:14-15
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. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Is this your definition of second degree?

 

[JesusFan]

2 Thes. 3:14-15
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. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Is this your definition of second degree?

I would see some seperating themselves not due to another in known sinning, nor in false doctrines, but just due to disagree on nonessentials of the Faith

 

[Ben1445]

I would see some seperating themselves not due to another in known sinning, nor in false doctrines, but just due to disagree on nonessentials of the Faith

Sinning and false doctrine being first degree and nonessential the second degree.
That makes more sense than how I read you the first time.
The difficulty comes when one conscience holds something to be sinful when another does not. While the second persons view doesn’t sanctify the action on its own, the first persons view that the action is sinful makes doing the thing sinful.
There is a biblical teaching here that is rarely followed by either side, in my experience.

 

[JesusFan]

Sinning and false doctrine being first degree and nonessential the second degree.
That makes more sense than how I read you the first time.
The difficulty comes when one conscience holds something to be sinful when another does not. While the second persons view doesn’t sanctify the action on its own, the first persons view that the action is sinful makes doing the thing sinful.
There is a biblical teaching here that is rarely followed by either side, in my experience.

We should be able to overcome this, as evidence by those such as a RC Sproul and Dr macAthur, who really loved each other in the Lord, despite some big differences regarding theology

 

[Ben1445]

We should be able to overcome this, as evidence by those such as a RC Sproul and Dr macAthur, who really loved each other in the Lord, despite some big differences regarding theology

The problem is not theology. The problem is that some people look at what other people do as sin. They make a judgement call for themselves determining not to fellowship with someone they believe is sinning. If the two wanted to get together, the one would not do the thing their friend believes is sin in order to not be a stumbling block. The other’s responsibility is to not judge the other person in regard to God but to live the way they feel they should.
I think this is the bigger issue.
But if the two cannot agree, it is better that they not walk together.

 

[John of Japan]

This is really ironic! Here we are in the Fundamental Baptist Forum, where the history is that many years ago fundamentalists were persecuted in other forums, so the admin gave them this one. If you are here opposing fundamentalism, then you ought to leave because of that!!

Fundamentalists have always practiced two kinds of separation besides the separation of church and state: personal separation and ecclesiastical separation.
1. Personal separation is the practice of having standards of holiness. That has very often been mistakenly called "legalism," but it is only legalism theologically if the person separating believes that makes him holy. The truth is that all evangelicals used to hold to this. I could give various illustrations from church history.
2. Ecclesiastical separation is separating from apostacy. This came to a head in 1957 when Billy Graham rejected sponsorship of his New York crusade by fundamentalists, and went with the NY ministerial council, which had out and out liberals on it, men who didn't even believe in the deity of Christ.

And the rest is history, though very misunderstood by most modern Christians.