Biblical Separation
- Thread starter Tyrese
- Start date
- Status
Tyrese
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ok...What is their agenda? Odviously there's more involved than just "Seperation." My goal is to get a better understanding of what it is that unites them. They seem to have their own definition of "worldliness", and yet they never seem to apply the same standard to their own practices. So, if someone has any experience with the movement itself, I would appreciate their input. Stating the odvious is rather unhelpful when dealing with a particular belief system that seems to condemn anything that's out of step with their preferences.
Tyrese
Puritan Board Sophomore
For an example, at one time in history classical instruments was considered wrong, and those who practice EP maintain that position today. Though I disagree, I totally understand why Christians practice EP, but I don't understand how anyone can say anything that's not in a accepted hymnal accompanied by either a piano or an organ is in sin. Now I prefer claisscal instruments, but I can't seem to get my mind around anything else being sin.
The Bible seems to support the notion that a Husband and Wife can seperate for a reason, for a specifi purpose, and that the end goal is to be the reconciling of them to each other...
Not to just get time to plan and execute a divorce, or to stay in an affair as many do today, but for purpose to come back togetehr as a healthy marriage again!
Not to just get time to plan and execute a divorce, or to stay in an affair as many do today, but for purpose to come back togetehr as a healthy marriage again!
Tyrese
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Daniel,
Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have been more clear. I'm talking about ecclesiastical Seperation. In other words, the question is in regard to Churches that seperates from other Churches based on what they perceive to be compromises. Sorry about that.
Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have been more clear. I'm talking about ecclesiastical Seperation. In other words, the question is in regard to Churches that seperates from other Churches based on what they perceive to be compromises. Sorry about that.
The key text appears to be 2Cor.6:17, quoting Is.52.11. "Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate,' says the Lord...."
With certain 20th century Fundamentalists, this stance seems to have become an in-group identifier. I cannot say which came first, with regard to "ecumenism;" but the question: with whom can we associate/cooperate? loomed large. Did recoiling from former "friends" who were less squeamish about big-tent-endeavors initiate Separationism? Or did those previously espousing the notion make up a new boundary marker--one that famously put BillyGraham on the outs?
I think Separationism ends up being a idiosyncratic, precisely because most of them who claim the idea do not believe in "denominations" and in "creeds." So, naturally they subscribe to the thought: All good Christians agree with me. "In house statements" become effective creedal commitments; but that logic is lost with subscribers, generally. Other groups who take all the same stances end up making up a de facto association of churches, i.e. a denomination of sorts; but really just a weak affiliation.
With certain 20th century Fundamentalists, this stance seems to have become an in-group identifier. I cannot say which came first, with regard to "ecumenism;" but the question: with whom can we associate/cooperate? loomed large. Did recoiling from former "friends" who were less squeamish about big-tent-endeavors initiate Separationism? Or did those previously espousing the notion make up a new boundary marker--one that famously put BillyGraham on the outs?
I think Separationism ends up being a idiosyncratic, precisely because most of them who claim the idea do not believe in "denominations" and in "creeds." So, naturally they subscribe to the thought: All good Christians agree with me. "In house statements" become effective creedal commitments; but that logic is lost with subscribers, generally. Other groups who take all the same stances end up making up a de facto association of churches, i.e. a denomination of sorts; but really just a weak affiliation.
Tyrese
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Rev Bruce, thanks for the input. What's interesting though is there's a few fundamentalist Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist who promote Biblical Seperation. The Free Presbyterian Church of North America is one example. Similarly, Reformed Baptist like Peter Masters (and those in his RB circles) also promote the doctrine of Seperation. Now I haven't done enough research to know the limits of such groups, but I do know that those who subcribe to "in house statements" refuse to deal with the dangers of dispensationalism. I seems the "dotrine" that unites them is Fundamentalism, which ignores major errors becuase they view New Calvinism as the greatest threat upon Christ Church. Now I do believe there's aspects of New Calvinsim that's dangerous, but I'm not sure I can say with certainty that it's more dangerous than dispensationalism. Being that you all have more experience with these things I'll let you all answer that question.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Tyrese,
In the confused and unsettled state that the Church is in at the present time, this is an important question indeed. In my opinion, a man should ordinarily seek membership in a church near to his home where he can worship in good conscience, that is, where he is not being compelled to sin.
That being said, there are some legitimate exceptions to this rule. I used to belong to a very strong PCA church that was much nearer than me than the church I currently attend. However, I hope to go into the public ministry one day, and because of some of my views, there would not be a place for me in the PCA; so, with the agreement, sympathy, and blessing of my elders, I moved my membership to a denomination where I will be able to serve.
Another exception to the rule would be holding membership in a church that may not be the closest to you that you can belong to in good conscience, but which has a distinctively Biblical witness that you are convinced is needed in the area, and can benefit from your support. To illustrate: let's say that you are a single man who was raised a baptist, but is convinced of infant baptism. You belong to a Reformed baptist church (you were baptized as a believer, so they receive you), and they don't have a problem with you holding to infant baptism. So, you're happy with them and they are happy with you. However, a strong Presbyterian church plant is being started up in the next town over, and it is the only confessionally Presbyterian church around. You decide to transfer your membership and drive a half hour in order to support a work that you are convinced is needed in the area.
In the confused and unsettled state that the Church is in at the present time, this is an important question indeed. In my opinion, a man should ordinarily seek membership in a church near to his home where he can worship in good conscience, that is, where he is not being compelled to sin.
That being said, there are some legitimate exceptions to this rule. I used to belong to a very strong PCA church that was much nearer than me than the church I currently attend. However, I hope to go into the public ministry one day, and because of some of my views, there would not be a place for me in the PCA; so, with the agreement, sympathy, and blessing of my elders, I moved my membership to a denomination where I will be able to serve.
Another exception to the rule would be holding membership in a church that may not be the closest to you that you can belong to in good conscience, but which has a distinctively Biblical witness that you are convinced is needed in the area, and can benefit from your support. To illustrate: let's say that you are a single man who was raised a baptist, but is convinced of infant baptism. You belong to a Reformed baptist church (you were baptized as a believer, so they receive you), and they don't have a problem with you holding to infant baptism. So, you're happy with them and they are happy with you. However, a strong Presbyterian church plant is being started up in the next town over, and it is the only confessionally Presbyterian church around. You decide to transfer your membership and drive a half hour in order to support a work that you are convinced is needed in the area.
A balanced view must take into consideration the fact that the Bible sets forth "degrees of separation" depending on the circumstances, just as it sets forth a gradation of disciplinary action within an ecclesiastical body.
See the following from Samuel Rutherford as a good example:
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...l Rutherford" "degrees of separation"&f=false
Daniel M.
Puritan Board Freshman
I think the separation of Paul and Barnabas in Acts stands as a good example that can be followed by the church proper.
Two like-minded men, divided on an issue that was not so big a deal that they would refuse to call the other brother, but enough that a separation would allow a greater peace.
Take my old Charismatic (not AG; continuationalist, but professing eternal security and sola fide salvation, no tongues required) brothers in Christ, for example. Lovers of God professing Christ, almost all of them committed to discipleship and proclaiming Jesus. Because of our differences on the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace, our peace in worship and Word would be disturbed if we were forced to cohabitate in the same church. But do we not both profess Christ alone for salvation? Do we not hold the Creeds of the early church?
Therefore, so as to not demonstrate to the world disunity within the ranks of one church, we attend two separate churches, that, while apart, profess Christ alone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Two like-minded men, divided on an issue that was not so big a deal that they would refuse to call the other brother, but enough that a separation would allow a greater peace.
Take my old Charismatic (not AG; continuationalist, but professing eternal security and sola fide salvation, no tongues required) brothers in Christ, for example. Lovers of God professing Christ, almost all of them committed to discipleship and proclaiming Jesus. Because of our differences on the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace, our peace in worship and Word would be disturbed if we were forced to cohabitate in the same church. But do we not both profess Christ alone for salvation? Do we not hold the Creeds of the early church?
Therefore, so as to not demonstrate to the world disunity within the ranks of one church, we attend two separate churches, that, while apart, profess Christ alone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have background in this pretty extensively (at least compared to my background anywhere else) and can't resist adding a few thoughts.
1. Many of the existing denominations that still meaningfully hold to a Reformed confession arose from an act of ecclesiastical separation. The OPC, the PCA, and the URC, for instance, all divided from a connection in which they used to exist. The Reformation involved a lot of separating from existing connections.
2. Ecclesiastical separation is witnessed to in various parts of the New Testament. E.g., Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10, 2 John 10 are all relevant.
3. Ecclesiastical separation is simply church discipline for the ecclesiastically disenfranchised. In other words, if false teachers can't be put out of the church because they've taken control, what recourse remains to those who would be faithful? The move of disfellowship looks different when it's a faithful minority, but the principle is the same.
Denying those facts doesn't help answer what might be called divisive or pugnacious or fundamentalistic separatists. Of course separation can be practiced in imbalanced, sinful, fleshly ways. In my own opinion, there has been a lot of very fleshly pride in being perceived as godly in some of the separatist movements in the US, and that desire for reputation has both enabled and concealed many appalling abuses. But the separatist also has a conscience that has been partially informed by the word of God, and in calling them to a better way, there should be no attempt to make them give up what they have attained or the proper rule they have received. They may need to learn in addition about the sinfulness of schism, about the difficult labor of reformation, about not confusing personal impatience with God's judgment, but that doesn't mean they have to become spineless ecumenists who associate in ecclesiastical fellowship with heresy, and so forth.
Many people within the movements known for an emphasis on Biblical separation have come to see that there was sometimes an inappropriate unity within their ranks. As long as someone had a "separated" ministry (separated from the WCC, the NAE, the BGEA, and a number of other organizations depending on who had come on their radar) doctrinal weakness and personal bombast didn't matter. It is a danger with any dearly-held distinctive, that we'll embrace others who agree with us on that, even if we're worlds apart on other points. But that's an argument for maintaining the whole circle of what we know and not improperly privileging one doctrine or distinctive to the detriment of others, not for giving up on that particular point.
The idea of 'secondary separation' has been held up for a lot of ridicule. But once you grant the premises, you can see how the logic of their position suggests something like it. So, first, Biblical separation requires us to dissociate ourselves from those who are persistently and impenitently unfaithful. Second, ongoing failure to practice Biblical separation is an instance of persistent and impenitent unfaithfulness. Third, then, Biblical separation requires us to dissociate ourselves from those who fail to practice Biblical separation, Q.E.D. Now that is rather two dimensional, and tends to think far too much in terms of isolated congregations and individuals; but it's hardly incomprehensible how people could follow that line of reasoning and feel constrained to disfellowship from more and more and more.
1. Many of the existing denominations that still meaningfully hold to a Reformed confession arose from an act of ecclesiastical separation. The OPC, the PCA, and the URC, for instance, all divided from a connection in which they used to exist. The Reformation involved a lot of separating from existing connections.
2. Ecclesiastical separation is witnessed to in various parts of the New Testament. E.g., Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10, 2 John 10 are all relevant.
3. Ecclesiastical separation is simply church discipline for the ecclesiastically disenfranchised. In other words, if false teachers can't be put out of the church because they've taken control, what recourse remains to those who would be faithful? The move of disfellowship looks different when it's a faithful minority, but the principle is the same.
Denying those facts doesn't help answer what might be called divisive or pugnacious or fundamentalistic separatists. Of course separation can be practiced in imbalanced, sinful, fleshly ways. In my own opinion, there has been a lot of very fleshly pride in being perceived as godly in some of the separatist movements in the US, and that desire for reputation has both enabled and concealed many appalling abuses. But the separatist also has a conscience that has been partially informed by the word of God, and in calling them to a better way, there should be no attempt to make them give up what they have attained or the proper rule they have received. They may need to learn in addition about the sinfulness of schism, about the difficult labor of reformation, about not confusing personal impatience with God's judgment, but that doesn't mean they have to become spineless ecumenists who associate in ecclesiastical fellowship with heresy, and so forth.
Many people within the movements known for an emphasis on Biblical separation have come to see that there was sometimes an inappropriate unity within their ranks. As long as someone had a "separated" ministry (separated from the WCC, the NAE, the BGEA, and a number of other organizations depending on who had come on their radar) doctrinal weakness and personal bombast didn't matter. It is a danger with any dearly-held distinctive, that we'll embrace others who agree with us on that, even if we're worlds apart on other points. But that's an argument for maintaining the whole circle of what we know and not improperly privileging one doctrine or distinctive to the detriment of others, not for giving up on that particular point.
The idea of 'secondary separation' has been held up for a lot of ridicule. But once you grant the premises, you can see how the logic of their position suggests something like it. So, first, Biblical separation requires us to dissociate ourselves from those who are persistently and impenitently unfaithful. Second, ongoing failure to practice Biblical separation is an instance of persistent and impenitent unfaithfulness. Third, then, Biblical separation requires us to dissociate ourselves from those who fail to practice Biblical separation, Q.E.D. Now that is rather two dimensional, and tends to think far too much in terms of isolated congregations and individuals; but it's hardly incomprehensible how people could follow that line of reasoning and feel constrained to disfellowship from more and more and more.
Last edited:
Ruben, Are there any reformed or Presbyterian denominations that practice or practiced 'secondary separation'? I confess the term is one I had not heard until recently.
Tyrese
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Chris, here's a Reformed and Presbyterian denomination that practices secondary seperation: http://www.fpcna.org/fpcna_about.asp?localsection=believe
Also, there's a wonderful Church not to far from where I live called Reformation Bible Church. They recently had a Reformation Conference discussing the life John Knox. The speaker was Pastor Dan Greenfield, who is the Executive Secretary of American Council of Christian Churches which is a multi-denominational fellowship (or association, partnership, etc.)that promotes Biblical Separation. Here's Pastor Greenfields sermon titled Biblical Seperation: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=114161447462
This is a big issue among certain Baptists groups also, as they would seperate from other Christians just due to them being "worldly/not like minded", and they mean by tht Chrsitians going to movies, watching TV, cooperating with other denominations etc...
The Bible does not support seperating from other Christians just due todiffering views on those things, but does support seperate based upon other"Chjristians" supporting things that are biblical wrong, such as WOF teachings, denying resurrection/Cross of Jesus, or who see sinning as allowed under grace! Such ordaining practicing gay pastors.....
The Bible does not support seperating from other Christians just due todiffering views on those things, but does support seperate based upon other"Chjristians" supporting things that are biblical wrong, such as WOF teachings, denying resurrection/Cross of Jesus, or who see sinning as allowed under grace! Such ordaining practicing gay pastors.....
Chris, I think Tyrese's links nailed it. I'd think the Bible Presbyterians, the Free Presbyterians, and the Evangelical Methodists might be the non-independent groups most familiar with the concept.
Tyrese
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi David, here's an article by Dr. Peter Mastors, the current pastor of Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. It's really helpful, and I think it will answer your specific question: http://www.metropolitantabernacle.o...When-to-Stand-Apart/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine
Really good article! He seems to get that we are united in Christ, but only when those claiming Christianity are actually both living the right way, and holding to right doctrine!
Conservative Christians, as he stated, regardless Presbyterian/Baptist/Calvinists etc have much more in common then we act at times...
Conservative Christians, as he stated, regardless Presbyterian/Baptist/Calvinists etc have much more in common then we act at times...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
