Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

This doctrine is right and true and Baptists have historically seperated from unholiness in many forms. Ecclesiastical as well as personal.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I voted for the second. I also believe the doctrine is right; however, I do not know if it can be considered a Baptist Distinctive throughout history. Today, I believe that maybe more Baptists than any others may be practicing the doctrine. Of course, I have no way to substantiate this. There are the Amish and other communal living arrangements that separate from the socieity, and claim a specific doctrinal approach supporting it.

 

Nonsense. Baptist dinstinctives did not include separation from true believers until the fundamentalist/modernist controversy forced the perceived "losers" to overreact and seperate from everyone who didn't agree with them on every jot and tittle.

 

Apply the concept the way you are advocating and there wouldn't be anyone left to fellowship with.

This was Roger Williams problem. He wasn't sure that he could even have communion with his wife!

The Apostle Paul wouldn't have had any churches if he applied the doctrine of separation the way fundamentalists now apply it.

 

Boy, Paul. You have it bad for those fundamentalists--even the way they eat. I'm glad you are a Packers fan, or I couldn't fellowship with you.

I have no problems finding Baptists to fellowship with. With my Lutheran, Methodist, etc. brothers, I explain to them that it is just a game of golf, nothing less, nothing more. Every once in awhile I also tell them why they are wrong, but they quickly forgive me.

 

Speaking of fellowship. The Lutherans can smoke, dance, gamble, swear, and drink, but they can't have communion with a fellow believer who isn't Lutheran. Go figure.

 

The doctrine, as stated on BWM's website is a reflection of their stance as historic fundamentalists, not as baptists per se.

 

I consider separation a fundamental distinctive, not a Baptist distinctive. I feel strongly in favour of the historical view of separation.

 

Baptist distinctives, per se, have never included ecclesiastical separation. The early fundamentalists were interdenominational, in a much different theological landscape. Secondly, separation is not about separating from those who don't agree on every jot and tittle. That is a typical caricature that has no basis in reality. Separation was not an overreaction. It was the culmination to years of efforts to rid the denominational heirarchies of liberalism and modernism. In recent years, some pseudo-fundamentalists have separated over "every jot and tittle" and as "overreaction," but that is not the case historically, nor it is the case now among historic fundamentalists.

If you are going to talk about separation and fundamentalism, at least get your facts straight.

 

Larry, my facts are straight.

You need to understand words like "until."

And you need to read more carefully what others write.

Baptist distinctives, today, among many independent Baptists includes ecclesiastical separation. Check out NBBC, MBBC, PBBC, DBTS, FBTS, etc. They then import their position back into their "history." But as you pointed out so ably, historic fundamentalists were interdenominational because they were fighting for their very existence within their denominations.

Ecclesiastical separation over doctrine is not a caricature that has no basis in reality. If you are not pre-trib, you are not welcome at certain independent Baptist schools. That goes for your stand on Calvinism/Arminianism; dispensationalism/covenant theology; pre-trib/post-trib; premill/postmill/amill; charismatic gifts/no charismatic gifts; etc. The list is endless.

Instead of maintaining fellowship with other fundamentalist, once they "lost" their denominations and pulled out, they stopped fellowshiping with each other over doctrine!

Historic fundamentalists are new evangelicals who fellowship with one another.

Hyper fundamentalists are those who call historic fundamentalists compromisers and "neo-evangelicals." Separation is an overreaction when it causes independent Baptists to "not" fellowship with other Baptists (BGC, CBA, SBC).

There are thousands of Baptist organizations that have made ecclesiastical separation a "Baptist" distinctive.

Once again, Larry, your assessment of what is taking place in Baptist circles is wrong. Independent Baptists will not fellowship with others outside their circle because "ecclesiastical separation" is their "baptist" distinctive. And they "trace" it back to the New Testament!

[ April 02, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

Several points of correction (yet again).

First, I know of no Baptist who claims separation is a baptist distinctive. I have never seen that claimed. If you have, then point it out. The institutions you listen don't claim that. You need to separate "Baptist distinctive" which has a distinctive meaning (no pun intended), and fundamentalist distinctives, which is different.

Second, ecclesiastical separation over doctrine is not a caricature, and I didn't say it was. You talk about me needing to read more closely, but you failed in taht very thing. I never said separation over doctrine was a caricature. I said the caricature was that separation was over every jot and tittle. Yes, go back and look at it, and then admit you were wrong about what I said. Separation over doctrine is a biblical teaching that fundamentalism is based on.

That is a misrepresentation, and shows you don't have your facts straight. The fundamentalists pulled out over false doctrine. It was a principled stand out of love for truth. The people they left were not fundamentalists. If you study the history, at that time there were only fundamentalists and liberals. There was nothing else.

That is plainly false. Historic fundamentalists separated over doctrine and obedience. New evangelicals in the 40s and 50s left the fundamentalists because they wanted to fellowship with those who did not hold to doctrine. That is their own story. The fundamentalists did not make that up about them. Read Marsden's Reforming Fundamentalism for a non-fundamentalist confirmation of exactly what I said.

That is false, and a gross misunderstanding of the issue. Separation can be an overreaction. You happened to bring up two horrible examples. Both of those groups are noticeably in doctrinal and practical error.

Your facts are not straight. In your demeanor, you are revealing yet again an apparent bitterness that resides from your past. Your statements are simply wrong. I hope you will work out your issues on this matter and get the facts of history straight. There is plenty of room for disagreement on the issues without distorting the facts of the matter.

 

Larry, do you work at it, or does it just come natural to you?

 

You changed your original statement. That's okay. But I will respond to this. Yet again, you show a misunderstanding of what "Baptist distinctive" means. Separation is just not one of them. It is a NT teaching. But it is interdenominational, and is expected of every believer. We don't all agree on how to appropriate it, but one of the actual Baptist distinctive is the autonomy of hte local church and the soul liberty ... actuallly that's two ... Those allow us to differ on separational application.

You need to figure out what a Baptist distinctive actually is. Your whole objection is based on a wrong understanding.

 

The thread started with BWM's position on separation, a position that they trace back to the Scriptures. If that isn't a "Baptist" dinstinctive, then I don't know what one is.

Independent Baptists have adopted "ecclesiastical separaton" as a distinctive of their movement. That's a fact!

 

These are Larry's words clearly showing that he said separation over every jot and tittle is a caricature:

"Secondly, separation is not about separating from those who don't agree on every jot and tittle. That is a typical caricature that has no basis in reality. Separation was not an overreaction. It was the culmination to years of efforts to rid the denominational heirarchies of liberalism and modernism. In recent years, some pseudo-fundamentalists have separated over "every jot and tittle" and as "overreaction," but that is not the case historically, nor it is the case now among historic fundamentalists."

Here's Larry being the condescending little "donkey" that he is:

"If you are going to talk about separation and fundamentalism, at least get your facts straight."

 

Here's Larry playing his favorite role of psychoanalyst:

"Your facts are not straight. In your demeanor, you are revealing yet again an apparent bitterness that resides from your past. Your statements are simply wrong. I hope you will work out your issues on this matter and get the facts of history straight. There is plenty of room for disagreement on the issues without distorting the facts of the matter."

Larry, you crack me up.

 

A "Baptist" distinctive does not have to be unique only to them to still be a Baptist distinctive.

I know of no independent Baptist church, school, college, or agency that does not hold to "ecclesiastical separation" that is still allowed to remain within the circle of "independent Baptists."

Larry is losing his grip on reality.

He points out that historic fundamentalists of the 20s were interdenominational. The ones today who are carrying that mantle are the new evangelicals, who fellowship across denominational lines.

Today, fundamentalists, on average, do not fellowship across denominational lines. A conservative SBC, BGC, or CBA church that does not fellowship with liberals is still off limits to independent Baptist fellowship. That is a fact. So today, fundamentalists are disavowing the practice of earlier fundamentalists of the 20s.

But because Larry has something in his "past" (this is my chance to play psychologist ), he has to twist history.

 

This statement from NBBC is typical of the "Baptist" distintive of independent Baptists (taken from their doctrinal statement, what they believe defines them as independent Baptists):

15. We believe God has called believers to live a life characterized by personal, ecclesiastical, and even familial separation. Personally we are to refrain from all things that would defile us or bring shame to the name of Christ, which we bear. We are called to live a life characterized by holiness and purity, as examples to a watching world of what a believer is to be. Ecclesiastically, we are called upon to refrain from cooperation or alliances with groups that do not stand unashamedly for the truths revealed in the Word of God. Thus, we cannot accept the position reflected in the Ecumenical Movement, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, or the various branches of the Charismatic Movement. We believe cooperation should be limited to those of like precious faith. (See Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 1 Thessalonians 5:22; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; 1 John 2:15, 17; 2 John 9, 10.)