Secondary Separation

I meant "every" in the Calvinistic sense- all does not always mean all

You said it- Secondary separation is a misnomer. Then do away with the term. Because secondary separation practiced by most is not what you have defined it as. I came up in a IFB environment (though not in the IFB myself, we had them in, my college shared their standards and perspectives and I attended the Sword Conference, etc... I did this for 15 years- how much exposure do I need to be as well versed in their ways as you are??)

What you are defining is biblical separation from disobedient brothers. I hold in my hand a copy of Jack Hyles' book, Jack Hyles Speaks on Separation and I can tell you that, even though his view is far more reasonable than most who share it, it is not as sweet as yours. And I don't mean to be a smart tail here, but I figure he is a more recognized spokesman on the matter than yourself.

 

Fellowship means participation or sharing and has to do with the realm of gospel ministry.

Not sure what you mean by "social interaction." Typically it involves gospel ministry. It would apply to having a dinner fellowship as a church function; it would not apply to neighbors having dinner in the backyard together in most cases.

Not typically applied here.

 

Fair enough.

I didn't use it (and don't use it). Someone else did and I was explaining it.

How do you know what "most" do? Because this is what "most" do in my experience. There are certainly some who do it differently.

I am an IFB, and have been one my whole life. I have all my education except for my doctoral work from IFB-type institutions. So I won't pretend to speak for all of them if you won't pretend to speak for all of them I am no expert, but I have been around a fair bit.

Hmmm ... that sounds familiar. Where did I hear it? Oh yes, in my first post in this thread ... ... Of course I jest. Yes, that is my point. Secondary separation is separation from disobedient brothers. It is called secondary because it is connected with apostasy, I imagine.

More recognized? Sure. Spokesman? I doubt very few IFBs would attribute any type of spokesman status to Hyles today. (I think the voice probably doesn't carry well through the heat ... but I digress.)

Hyles was a spokesman for a rather fringe type of fundamentalism particularly in his later years (post mid-80s). By the end, he was a laughingstock even to IFBX-ers in many cases. I think an awful lot of fundamentalists would have had nothing to do with Hyles (and in fact did have nothing to do with him). I think there is a large group of fundamentalists who believe exactly what I have described here that you are overlooking perhaps because you aren't familiar with them. We look an awful like non-fundamentalists in many ways. But we believe in biblical separation, and on occasion use the term "secondary separation," though I would prefer not to use the term.

 

So long as you recognize that MANY IFB's use the term far differently than the way you use it, I'm satisfied.

 

Of course, and I think they use it wrongly ... Hence, the explanation and defense of it.

Someone can refer to T. D. Jakes as a Trinitarian, but he's not. You can't just change the meaning of words.