Separational Issues

Most of the time when I see a non-believer come to Christ they are thankful at how their life is different that they don't give a thought to any kind of separation but to tell their friends about Christ. But then they get some time in church and are told how to "be a Christian" that they begin to look like other "Christians." The fact is that the majority of people in churches have never led one person to Christ.

Look at Jesus and how he ate with sinners and never wavered in his purpose, conduct and doctrine.

 

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.

 

The Bible tells us that He was primarily militant in His separation from legalists.

Legalism is an attitude to be avoided every bit as much as leniency on sin.

 

You're right. I should not have used the term Leagalist in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ.

But the comment was made as to how some people might percieve Him.

 

Some do but not in a stridently legalistic way- at least not in my experience.

The one area where I think they come the closest is on music.

Other than these two exceptions... a very good response you gave.

 

I just recently separated from a church over the KJVO issue.

A preacher got up in the pulpit and called all other versions "perverted" along with other comments. The pastor affirmed him with "amens". I talked with the pastor a few times over several weeks in an effort to resolve the difference. I told him that I considered the man's words blasphemy. He was not open to a meaningful discussion of which position was true and actually admitted that in an "intellectual" debate I would probably win (implication- his belief was by faith, mine by intellect). He did not want to resolve the issue. His desire was to retain my family in the church and silent on the issue- without really dealing with it.

His final decision, which I think was more pragmatic than anything else, was to take a decidedly KJVO position which was different from what he told me when we joined the church... so we left.

Am I on the lunatic fringe?

 

I guess I'm part of the lunatic fringe as it was so called.

 

BJU = balanced fundamentalism
This whole thread reminds me why so many no longer want to be affiliated with the label fundamentalist!

So is life in IFB world

 

BJ is definitely balanced. Clothing is required for students and faculty, but not for "art." Can't get much more balanced than that.

 

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.

I have know people who graduated from schools as right-wing as Hyles-Anderson college. Some where very balanced and some where not. I worked in a church school for a principal who graduated from Bob Jones. He was as fine a Christian boss as I have ever worked for.

As I get older I find myself being more tolerant toward people on both ends of the spectrum without espousing everything they might believe.

I think that it is important to be as inclusive as we can be, yet not compromise our personal convictions in the process.

Rom 12:18
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
(KJV)

 

"Balanced" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. What are non-essentials to some are essentials to others. BJU definitely seperates from those who embrace the fundamentals. Eg., Billy Graham holds to the fundamentals. Yet they would seperate from Billy. Again secondary separation is a strange realm where balance and consistency are hard to come by (in my balanced opinion of course ).

 

I will separate with no second thoughts from any who teaches heresy, even if he is a fellow Primitive Baptist.

However, I will not separate from one who is simply in error with regards to doctrine even if he is not Primitive Baptist.

 

But we should remember that "holding to the fundamentals" does not make one a fundamentalist. A new evangelical holds to the fundamentals. The students of history here will remember that the dividing line between the fundamentalists (evangelicals of the first half of the century) and the new evangelicals was not doctrine but separation. The New Evangelicals (the name they gave themselves to distinguish them from teh old evangelicals, i.e., the fundamentalists) rejected the old evangelicals separatism while holding to the same doctrine. They wanted to be a "new kind of evangelical."

Thus, we see from history that fundamentalism/evangelicalism believed in separation, not simply holding to the fundamentals. The New Evangelicals wanted to hold to the fundamentals while rejecting fundamentalism because of the separation issue.

Remember, a little history is always helpful

 

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):

Acts 4:12(ESV)
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

 

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!
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB

 

Thanks Larry. I am very aware of the history.

The point is that BJU has been labeled balanced b/c they do not separate over the "non-essentials" but in reality they do separate over the non-essentials. This is not an issue of who qualifies as a "fundamentlist". The question is whether one holds to the fundamentals. And BJU separates from those who hold to the fundamentals. So subsequently they do separate over non-essentials.

 

What "non-essential" has BJU separated over?

My point in the history was that the issue of separation was not "essential" vs. "non-essential" but rather separation vs. non-separation. Essentials had little to do with it.

To separate from one who holds the fundamentals is not necessarily wrong. If someone who holds to the fundamentals is disobedient to Scripture, then separation is an act of lovign obedience to God. That is not separation over non-essentials. The question is not only "Does one hold to the fundamentals?" The question is also, "Is one obedient to the commands of God?"

Scripture says to separate from both. Obedience is essential; it is not a "non-essential."