What issues drive your view of separation?

DD, would you explain or define for the purpose of the poll whether you mean ecclesiastical separation, fraternal separation, neither, both, or something else? Thanks.

 

DD
I answered with the subjects in mind as a Pastor with another Pastor and would I allow him to speak in my place.
Thanks ------Bart

 

I answered yes to some and no to others. Right now, I seem to be in the majority.

 

I separate from those who indulge in sin. Doctrinal stands cause others to separate from you, you don't have to "push" them away, they just leave, but always with some accusation flung at you for your stand.

 

What do you mean by separation?

 

This is difficult because there are levels of separation/fellowship. For instance, I might (and have) gone to a conference at a Presbyterian church (and learned much). BUt I Wouldn't have a presbyterian to speak at my church. I might be good friends with an amill but not have him at my church to speak. IN other words, I Would have no ecclesiastical fellowship with these, though I Might have personal fellowship. But with a professing believer living in immorality, I would have no fellowship at all with them, not even to eat (in the words of Paul).

There are many different factors that make a yes/no answer difficult on many of these.

 

The question I would separate from those who have a different view of Scripture. is comfusing.

Take any two people on the board at random, and I guarantee you, they'll have differing views on scripture.

 

#4 on baptism.... I would seperate over baby baptism, but not over the Landmark view or over specifics like indoors or outdoors....

 

Agreed.

Then I would like to change my vote!

 

Hello,

Could someone give me some guidance on this, please? Having been an Anglican most of my life, I never heard anything preached about "separation". What exactly does this mean? Should I not talk to someone who isn't a Christian, or should I not invite him to a birthday party? And as for believers in open sin - what kind of sin are we talking about? What about doctrinal errors? Should I not talk to them, or go to the same church as them, or should I not talk about the Bile with them? Or should I not evangelize with them, or what? Sorry - I'm just lost at sea on this one...

 

I'd have to say separation is to stay out of fellowship with a person involved in sin as to not be on a regular basis going out to diner and to ballgames and over each other's house, etc., so that people in general would not associate your behaviour with the same type as theirs. Of course that would be if they were well known for an illicit or brawling nature, or a drug addict, drunk,womanizer, etc., on a regular basis, going to bars, strip clubs, gambling casinos,etc. Making sure that the general public and the brethren know why you're "hanging around" them.

Also this would not limit the evangelization of any individual. We are to go into the highways and hedges compelling them to come to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, but not to hang around long enough for the "bird" to make a nest on our heads and lay eggs.

 

Seperation from a fellow believer would be should be something that is very difficult and painful to arrive at. There are many who celebrate just how many people they can seperate from, like a ribbon won at the fair for best pig. What a tragedy! There are reasons for seperation no doubt, but why is everyone so excited about it?

 

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Isn't avoiding, separating?

I agree it's disheartening to have to separate from the brethren we are commanded to love. Romans 16 deals with the doctrine of brotherly love and anyone exhibiting anything contrary to brotherly love should be avoided, so they might see themselves as isolated and therefore all alone. They are to be "marked" is what Paul said.

This would be the only example of separation from the brethren scripturally for doctrinal reasons, also it is so the erring brother might be restored into fellowship, not cast away.

 

Titus, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude also deal with separation for doctrinal reasons. The erring brother can be restored, only after he has repented.

 

I put yes on all except the one on rapture,millenium,and the Lord's Supper.

Good poll!

Molly

 

I answered it in regards to church separation...not who to hang around with.

I have very good friends who are covenant presbyterian...they are godly people who choose to baptize their babies...that's fine,I understand their thinking on it...but we couldn't go to the same church and we love eachother still the same.

 

I am so hardnosed that sometimes I won't even talk to myself. I answered "yes" on all of them. I took it that the difference was to the point of being "wrong" and not merely technically different. For example, the Lord's Supper, if someone thinks it should be done once a month and I think it should be done every week then we are "different" but I would not seperate over that but, if they take it praetertranssubstantiationalistically then I would seperate. (First time I have actually used that word in conversation. )

Edited for spelling...guess which word?

[ May 10, 2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Artimaeus ]