Often I labor to reply to important questions in the comments on my blog, only to have my thoughts buried and hidden in the weeds, so to speak. So I thought I would craft today’s reply into a post.
I’ve been debating with Pastor Kent Brandenburg on the appropriateness of ranking doctrines as fundamental/essential and secondary/tertiary. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives a positive treatment of this: he terms it “Theological Triage“. Brandenburg contradicts this view, believing it belittles the importance of all doctrine, and our obligations to hold to sound doctrine and separate from those who don’t. I side with Mohler, as well as John Piper and D.A. Carson (and others), and recently posted my belief that excessive separation actually belittles the Gospel.
In the debate, which has included “Grace” defending my view, and “Truth Unites…and Divides” who recently joined the fray, three basic points have been raised against my view. This “ranking” of doctrines is a new-fangled doctrine, it finds no support in Scripture, and it ignores the Biblical call for separation from false doctrine. I will respond briefly to all these points, yet major on the first one.
A couple qualifications are in order. First, I unequivocally affirm that we are obligated to obey all of God’s commands and accept all of Scripture as authoritative. Whatever God teaches in His Word, we must believe and obey. However, Scripture teaches that we are fallible and fallen creatures. And God-given common sense affirms that good people disagree and fail to understand one another on any number of subjects. People vary in terms of their backgrounds, intellectual prowess, and even how they reason and learn. So it is no wonder that good Christians often disagree on various points of doctrines. Is it a sin to be wrong? My answer is “not necessarily”. I believe on some issues like Baptism, for instance, good Christians out of a desire to follow Christ, and with Scriptural reasoning and proofs, hold to an incorrect view of Baptism (only 1 view can be the truth) and yet are not guilty of conscious sin.
A second qualification relates to the importance of doctrine. In affirming the primacy of fundamental doctrines, I am not negating the importance of secondary and even tertiary ones. As my own church’s elder affirmation of faith (one of our elders is John Piper) affirms, it is right and good to hold firmly to secondary doctrines and yet still pass beyond those boundaries and extend Christian fellowship at appropriate times. There are different purposes for various organizations and there are different levels of fellowship [1]. When I am warning against “excessive separation”, I am specifically aiming at an extreme sectarianism which allows little to no fellowship at all with any but those who agree on virtually every point of doctrine and practice.
A New Doctrine?
Does the concept of “the fundamentals” stem from the fundamentalist controversy of the late 1800s, early 1900s? Is it a new doctrine that carefully cloaks a reductionist view of Christianity? Is it all about cutting the Bible down to size so we can comfortably hold to the essentials while living how we please?
Frankly, no. The idea of fundamental non-negotiables can be seen as far back as the Apostle’s Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed and so on. Perhaps it can be traced back even more. With the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church and her treatment of church dogma and papal bulls as equal in authority with Scripture, it is no surprise that a complete unanimity of doctrinal belief was levied on one and all. But with the Reformation, the concept of fundamentals of the faith which are necessary for salvation, was once again advanced.
Many Protestant writers grappled with this concept in the 16 and 1700s, as they sought to explain how Protestantism can enjoy real unity across denominational lines yet without Roman Catholicism’s unanimity. I came across an article in an online Catholic encyclopedia which details the key figures in the ongoing debate on this subject between the RCC and Protestantism. Of course the article is written from a Catholic perspective, but it makes clear that both the concept and the phrasing “fundamentals” were used almost from the very onset of the Reformation.
Further historical proof is this article on John Wesley, which shows he also held to a fundamental approach. He emphasized a “catholic (i.e. universal) spirit” and sought to have unity with other Christians despite differences on what he termed “opinions” (see especially section 3). Additionally, John MacArthur draws heavily from Herman Witsius’ Sacred Dissertations on the Apostle’s Creed (from the mid 1600s) as he discusses this very issue in his book Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994; see pg. 108-117). I recently linked to a 3-part blog series by MacArthur on how to determine if a doctrine is essential, which is a summary from the above book.
Is It Scriptural?
My critics claim this doctrine has no basis in Scripture. I grant that it is largely inferred from Scripture. Yet such inference doesn’t necessarily render it moot. More on that later.
I recently cited a list of commentaries proving that the phrase in 1 Cor. 15:3 “first of all” (KJV) or “of first importance” (ESV) [same Greek words here: en protois] can refer to importance rather than time-order. In fact the conservative Greek scholar A.T. Robertson asserted this. My list also showed that this is no new interpretation of that verse, as several older commentators like Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry understood this verse as teaching that the Gospel is “of first importance”.
Scripture goes on to explain the Gospel as being chiefly important. Paul wanted to preach nothing but Christ crucified, and vowed to boast only in the cross. This certainly implies that the Gospel is the main and most important thing.
Jesus similarly held that on the greatest and second-greatest commandment (to love God, and to love one’s neighbor) all the law and the prophets hinged (Matt. 22:34-40). He further taught that God desires mercy more than sacrifice (Matt. 12:7; see also in a similar vein, David’s assertion in Ps. 51:16).
Matt. 23:23 speaks of the “weightier provisions of the law” as the ESV phrases it. The Pharisees were scrupulously tithing of their herbs, yet were neglecting “justice and mercy and faithfulness”. The word “weightier” can signify either “burdensome/difficult” or “weighty/important”. Calvin interpreted the passage with the latter idea–justice, mercy, and faithfulness were “principal points of the Law” and tithing was “inferior” in comparison. And indeed, the smallness of the herbs in question seems to point to the triviality of their scruples in comparison with these more important matters. Such is a common interpretation of the passage today (see D.A. Carson’s commentary in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary set, as but one example).
These specific proof texts are coupled with arguments that MacArthur explains at length. Scripture explicitly ties certain doctrines with eternal life, and more strongly condemns deviation from others. D.A. Carson, in a lecture on doctrinal causes for divisions in churches (obtainable here for 99 cents), illustrates how in 1 Corinthians, Paul responds in varying degrees to different doctrinal problems. He most strongly reacts to the resurrection question, and the communion problem, as well as the expulsion of the wayward brother. But his reactions to other problems are tempered and more moderate. Obviously this plays in with how important Paul sees the various doctrines in view. Again, I encourage you to read Carson’s entire lecture (transcript) on this point.
Suffice it to say that Scripture generally conveys the idea of a varying level of importance of doctrines. And while this is generally inferred, it remains valid. The Gospel is chiefly important. And doesn’t common sense confirm this? Who would disagree that the Gospel is not most important? Can we not find cause for fellowship/participation in the gospel with our fellow believers? Are not the commands to have unity and avoid schisms in the church important?
What about Separation?
This article has run on too much to discuss this point in depth. I need to treat this at length in the future. For now suffice it to say that every time “doctrine” is mentioned as important, are we to conclude every single particular point that Paul taught? Or the chief body of truths over which we are to contend: the faith once delivered? Many times the separation passages explicitly attach themselves either to a denial of the Gospel, or sinful practice. And while we talk of separation we must talk of unity too. Even in Rom. 16, Paul tells us to separate from the contentious and divisive among us! So unity is so important we should separate over it. Paradoxical thinking, I dare say.
I know that one’s view of the church comes into play here as well. Some Baptists hold that only a local church is revealed in Scripture. No universal church idea exists. Such a view is a minority and I believe a stretch, even for Baptists. Most do not hold to this view. And those who do, often act as if each local church is totally independent and doesn’t need anyone else for anything. I submit a faithful reading of the book of Acts, or any of the Epistles, does not permit such thinking.
Hopefully this will end the debate around here for a while, until I open up the subject at a later time.
Footnote:
[1] See also “Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?”, by Wayne Grudem, published in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (ed. by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth [Wheaton: Crossway, 2003]), pg. 365. Chapter is available online in PDF, and DOC.
Bob,
I was writing this comment on your previous post while you were posting this article. I just copied and pasted it here. Hope you don’t mind. 🙂
I wish I had some great thought to add or some new verse to share that would shed light, but I don’t. My response will be mostly personal experience and that wouldn’t satisfy me if the shoe was on the other foot.
The older I get and the more I learn about the Bible and doctrine the more committed I become to my doctrinal positions. I still change my position at times, but when I do I am even more entrenched than before. I believe what I believe strongly. Yet, at the same time, I have grown more open to fellowship and interaction with people who disagree with me on many non-essential (in my opinion) or less important doctrines (though all doctrine is important). It used to be just the opposite.
I didn’t use to be that entrenched or biblically convinced on a number of doctrinal questions, but I would not have any fellowship with those who would differ. How strange is that? If I held that position today I wouldn’t be blogging. I wouldn’t be reading this blog or any of the other blogs I read regularly. I have yet to find anyone who agrees with me on EVERY point of doctrine and if they are all of equal importance I would have to separate from EVERYONE.
When I became a Calvinist I would have been forced to leave my church, my fellowship, and break fellowship with my parents and one of my brothers. I would have had to disassociate myself from my alma mater and all over one doctrinal point – limited atonement. A doctrine that I believe is VERY important, but yet not essential for salvation or for fellowship.
Fundamentalists used to be known for their holding to the five or six (depending on the list) Fundamentals. This group would include ANYONE from ANY theological position that would hold to those positions. That kind of Fundamentalism is dead and a large segment in Fundamentalism today would never have joined those original Fundamentalists because of their lack of “separation.†The new list of fundamentals grows and the circle of fellowship gets smaller and smaller. As soon as separation became a fundamental doctrine the cause was lost. Separation was practiced by not fellowshipping with those who didn’t hold to the Fundamental doctrines, but it wasn’t a fundamental doctrine. That has changed.
I agree with 99% of what Piper, Carson, MacArthur, Dever, Mahaney and Mohler say on this topic. But again I don’t COMPLETELY agree with anyone. 🙂
Stream of consciousness post to ensue. I.e., asking for grace in advance! 😉
The Adversary can attack both flanks with ease. I finished scanning Phil Johnson’s article “Dead Right” yesterday. I understand what his concerns are and what Bob’s concerns are: Excessive sectarianism. That’s one flank. I understand what Kent’s concerns are: Compromised, diluted Gospel in favor of a false, papered-over ecumenical unity that’s unholy and displeasing to God. Heterodoxy and heteropraxy infecting the body of Christ as heretical, apostate leaven because “Unity” was pursued and emphasized over and above biblical holiness and purity.
We have verses to support the doctrine of separation. And we also have Jesus commands to sacrificially love one another and to bear each other’s burdens.
What the Biblical Separatists are saying is that after a long season of loving correction, then the next loving thing to do is to separate. But to other Christians, they see separation as sinful schism, as divisive legalism, etc….
But what strikes me as funny is that there really isn’t a whole lot of difference between Piper, MacArthur, Carson, Phil Johnson, Bob H., and Kent Brandenburg! There’s a significant amount of doctrinal agreement among all of them! Far more than the differences!
Take me for example. I support Biblical Inerrancy as expressed in CSBI, I’m a complementarian, I’m against macro-evolution, I believe Scripture is clear that same-sex behavior is sin, and in short, I’m a historical conservative Protestant. And I think that all those guys above would share the same doctrinal positions.
I don’t want to separate unnecessarily, nor do I want to compromise God’s Word through either doctrinal disobedience or behavioral disobedience. I think we can have diversity in unity. For example, on the “Together for the Gospel” team, we have paedo-baptists and credo-baptists serving together. There’s separation, but it’s not unduly antagonistic. Everybody respects each other as fellow Christians even though there’s staunch doctrinal differences on baptism.
My personal opinion is to lean towards Kent’s biblical position that ALL of God’s commandments and statutes are important. Which Bob H. also affirms. What I think happens is that there’s an abuse of the doctrine of separation. And what Bob H. et al are critical of is the abuse of the doctrine of separation, and not the doctrine itself. This is an important distinction. And I think they’ve been conflated.
Repeating. The Doctrine of Separation is fine. But the abuse of this doctrine is not.
Other miscellaneous observations:
(1) John Piper recently had a youtube video done where he disagree with the Christians who signed “A Common Word” letter apologizing to Muslims.
Now is a letter that apologizes to Muslims an “Essential” doctrine or a “Secondary” doctrine? If it’s not “Essential”, then why is Piper addressing the Christians who attempting to build some unitive bridge with Muslims?
Isn’t Piper being arguably separatist for taking his fellow Christians to task for signing that letter? Why doesn’t he remain silent for the sake of unity in the Body of Christ? There are obviously Christians who don’t believe that the Gospel is compromised in any manner whatsoever by signing their names to a letter of corporate apology. But Piper staunchly and passionately disagrees.
Is Piper being divisive and separatist in voicing his disagreement? If not, and he gets a pass, then why not extend grace to Pastor Kent when he voices disagreement on an issue that he thinks compromises the Gospel in a blatant way?
There needs to be consistency here.
I found your article interesting.
Thanks, Don (and Rick). Sorry, “Truth unites… and Divides”, some of your posts keep ending up in the moderation queue. I sleep during the days, so I just now found and restored it. [I also deleted your duplicate comment Don, I agree its better on this thread.]
I should affirm what “Truth unites…” is saying in post #2. I think much of the problem that Don talks about stems from differences in how people practice separation. In the first half of the 1900s, many true fundamentalists still remained in denominations which were slowly turning liberal. Some of them never did leave the Northern Baptist Convention. They still stood for separation in their own way by standing up for truth and fighting for purity from within their groups.
This is akin to what the Puritans did. They didn’t follow the separatists and pilgrims and scramble for American or Dutch shores. Instead they stayed in their respective churches, and fought within the Anglican church for a closer adherence to Biblical doctrine and practice.
So guys like Dever and Piper and Mohler are obeying the commands to separate in their own way. They are “marking and avoiding” in one sense. They are standing for truth and not just getting along with serious doctrinal errors. And they consciously do not separate over what they classify as secondary matters. At present they remain in churches and organizations which would prevent the inclusion of Presbyterian brothers, for instance. But they don’t treat those Presbyterians as if they are seriously in error and in danger of compromising the Gospel.
I am glad for Kent’s stands in my own way. He does argue against a widespread liberalism in the church. And rampant ecumenism is a problem. But as a former member of his church, and a former extreme separatist in my own right, I now look on this ultra separationism as potentially damaging to the Gospel. In practice, virtually all other groups are effectively marginalized in favor of their own local church and small group of fellowshipping churches. This fosters a spirit of pride and is conducive to a lack of love for the brethren and the spirit of unity is lost. This is not to say everyone in those groups are proud, etc. but it is to say the potential is there big time.
Again, what we separate over defines and distinguishes us. When we separate over women wearing pants, conservative music styles, and other issues which are not explicitly and directly addressed in Scripture, we are defining ourselves by what Carson calls “the margins”. They become more important to us than the gospel. Even if we don’t believe that, the followers are catching that message as “the margins” are defended and emphasized while the Gospel is often assumed.
These are the great dangers I see with extreme separatism. This is not to say that Brandenburg personally has embraced these dangers or anything. I don’t want to make any such claims. Instead the position is fraught with pitfalls and I believe is damaging to the cause of Christ.
Piper with the common word thing, is standing for truth. He has not necessarily separated over anything yet. Standing for truth and expressing your reservations do not impinge on unity, necessarily.
On one hand, we’ve got God—pleasing Him, loving Him, then standing before Him—that says obey everything that He says. On the other hand, we’ve got being important on earth and succeeding and having more people like you and selling more books—that says we can’t make everything that He says important enough to keep because we would have to separate if we didn’t.
I think Bob has carefully used the word “fundamental,” and not the typical “essential” and “primary.” Sometimes the word “core” is used and that was what Piper was picturing with his claw in the video. The emergents love the word “core” as well. I see it spreading, however. Core doctrines. Core values. And then fancy words like triage, which puts people in such a daze that they refuse to keep thinking about it. Taxonomy is another one. None of these are taught in Scripture. “Fundamental” is very much like “foundational.” I have no doubt that certain doctrines are “foundational.” For instance, who cares if you practice complementarianism when you are not saved. Being saved is foundational. It could also be fundamental in that sense, which is why I believe Bob used it.
But let’s be clear. We know why “core” and all these exciting new theological terms are being used. Men want to be able to water down belief and practice and not be punished for it. The world loves minimizing and reducing, so these same churches will be more popular with the world. And then all the churches that love being popular will also be popular with each other. It’s like a big peace treaty that we could hand out a Christian version of the Nobel Peace prize. We can all smile at each other and get along while we disobey what God said. Then you’ve got a guy that says everything is important, and that’s, you know, an attack on unity. It’s a fake unity like what people have at a family reunion. Real unity is based on what God said.
Paul didn’t write protos so that men would disregard other things that God said. He didn’t write it for the sake of forming a new triage. He wrote it to talk about how important the gospel was. It is foundational. This is clear.
I believe in unity. You get it through comprehensive doctrine, the Lord’s Supper, and church discipline. It’s found in the church. It pleases God.
It is also no wonder that the names Bob mentions happen to be non-separatists. You say that Piper stands for truth. He gives the lightest possible disclaimer to those men and then continues fellowshiping with them. The new-evangelicals react to disobedience by writing a book or a journal article. If you really love these men, then you mark and avoid.
I read John Piper’s latest message that he gave in which he laid out points about his dad’s life. In it he talks about the separation of his dad from BJU which was so painful and it was over the Billy Graham issue. BJ separated from Billy Graham over his ecumenical “evangelism.” So Billy Graham gets the friendship of those who won’t practice separation with him, like John Piper’s dad. So Billy Graham can comfortably keep going down the path that leads to what? Denial of a literal hell. Expressions of universalism in which he says Buddhists and Moslems could be saved still in their religion. Catholic nuns doing personal work at the altar.
John Piper has an opportunity to correct that error of his father, but, no, he praises his dad for that, makes it a pivotal part of his dad’s life, the part about being more compassionate and loving. So I wonder about all those people who received a watered down gospel from a Billy Graham, who also has taken the tack of having in the “Christian” rap group to help bring in the crowds, when they’re in hell because of his doctrinal distortions. How compassionate are we to them? And how much do we love God when we won’t separate?
We triage away and God’s Word gets widdled away and who get’s pleased? Men.
I used “fundamental” because that is the historic term, although essential is very similar. The way they used the concept shows they thought they were more than just foundational doctrines, they were essential, and enough to unite over.
I know I’m not going to convince you, but perhaps you can stand corrected on the idea that this is a novel and new idea.
You continue to hold to a one-size-fits-all view of separation. Just because some don’t conclude like you on how, when, and to what extent separation should be practiced, does not mean they are non-separatists. Piper, Mohler, Dever, and MacArthur would be similar in vein to the Puritans as opposed to the Separatists. Do I, agree with each of them in all points? Like Don, I would say no.
I can embrace them as brothers in the faith, however.
Truth,
Be sure to read that article by Grudem linked in the footnote. I just scanned through your comments on MacArthur’s blog, and that might help you think through those issues you mentioned.
Thanks for interacting over here. Let me know if I can help further.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
So you can show me a place before the 19th century that used the term “fundamental” to indicate this essential/non-essential doctrine? Can you show me this doctrine itself taught before the 19th century? I would even like to see it before the 20th century.
I don’t get at all what you are talking about on “one-size-fits-all” separation. We have a disobedient brother, he’s unrepentant, and we separate from him (2 Thess. 3:6-15; Romans 16:17, 18; 1 Corinthians 5; Matthew 18:15-17; Titus 3:10,11). We do it out of love for God, His Word, the church, and the person.
Your view is closer to a one-size-fits-all—‘we separate over one thing, the gospel.’ But even that isn’t true, because we have Billy Graham and we have the Islam/Christian pact people, the Evangelical/Catholic pact people, and those are not separated from. They get a sermon, a book, or a journal article. They don’t get the thing the Bible calls for—separation.
Did you read the article I linked to about John Wesley? This was Wesley’s view and practice. He is just one historical example.
As for one-size-fits-all, there is more than one approach to dealing with Billy Graham types. MacArthur and Mohler each in their own way disapprove and do not unreservedly hold Graham’s ministry in high regard. They don’t practice the kind of separation that fundamentalists do however with regard to Graham. Graham is not a member of their local church or anything either.
We can appreciate much about Graham’s ministry even as we disagree with some of his positions and tactics. We can even warn about some of the potential dangers. Do we have to go beyond that and publicly distance ourselves from him? Probably not in every case. Is someone sinning because they haven’t drawn the line tight enough over Graham’s unwise actions? Not necessarily.
Let’s not let this thread devolve into a Graham discussion. This post is not really on the separation question so much anyway, as I explained. As for this debate, we aren’t convincing one another. And I’m somewhat surprised that you refuse to let up in acknowledging that I’ve proven a historical basis for this doctrinal triage position.
From your linked article—John Wesley—Sermons, II, “On The Trinity,” p. 376: “. . . there are some truths more important than others. Its seems there are some truths which are of deep importance. I do not term them fundamental truths, because that is an ambiguous word, and hence there have been so many warm disputes about the number of ‘fundamentals.’ But surely there are some which it really concerns us to know, as having a close connection with vital religion.”
I don’t trust the article as it applies to Wesley. At the top they advertise Brian McClaren, a lecture by him, which should open your eyes to the whole “core doctrine” idea that they want you to believe.
No one is questioning that there aren’t fundamental doctrines, foundational ones. We’re talking about whether we narrow it down to just a few doctrines or one that are a basis of fellowship. That is the point here.
You haven’t proven this as a doctrine—unify around only essentials. I know people have practiced this way, but it hasn’t been historically exegeted from Scripture. I would be waiting to show an exegesis of the doctrine historically, and again, I’m not talking about whether someone thinks certain doctrines are more important than others, more foundational, but the actual subject that we’re talking about.
And you haven’t proven my exegesis wrong. You’ve offered a quite ambiguous stretch from 1 Cor. 15:3. That’s the best you have.
The Graham issue is a good case-study. This isn’t off-topic. This is what their practice of essentials-non-essentials looks like.
Yes, I’m done talking about it with you.
I’m really benefitting tremendously from this discussion. I really want to express deep thanks and appreciation to Bob H. and Kent B. for bringing their “A” game theological gifts to this debate. Not only their “A” game, but also the mutual respect that’s evident in these posts.
My highest commendations.
Bob, much thanks for the link to Grudem’s chapter!! I’ve printed it out and I will read it later tonite and this weekend. I’ve scanned the subheadings and I’m very excited to read it! (fwiw, I’m halfway through Grudem’s Systematic Theology textbook!)
If I may ask, what are the objective, measurable aspects and behavior of biblical separation?
I.e., I’d like to know if one can separate without either party pronouncing an anathema on the other.
Eg, Paedo-baptism vs. Credo-baptism. I’m a credo-baptist myself, but I will work alongside with a paedo-baptist brother on a missions trip or ministry project. I will worship on occasion at a paedo-baptist Church. I don’t anathematize my paedo-baptist brother. Does that count as excessive separation? Or does that count as sufficient unity in diversity?
Or how about a Christian who is an evolutionist? They call themselves theistic evolutionists. Honestly, I think neo-darwinian macro-evolution is deeply false. But I will work alongside my theistic evolutionist brother on ministry projects. I can’t really anathematize my theistic evolutionist brother. Does that count as excessive separation? Or does that count as sufficient unity in diversity?
Or how about an egalitarian Christian? I’m a warm and soft complementarian. But I will minister alongside an egalitarian. I will attend worship in an egalitarian church. I grit my teeth in unhappiness, but I’m not going to pronounce anathema on my egalitarian brother/sister. Does that count as excessive separation? Or does that count as sufficient unity in diversity?
P.S. I fully agreed with Piper in his Common Word video. I just brought up that example as a possible slippery path where he might have to separate because he is firmly standing on a (“secondary”) doctrine, namely ecumenicity with Islam.
Pax.
Some other interesting links:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1098
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/15/would-the-real-emerger-please-stand-up/
Doesn’t theistic evolution obliterate the gospel, Truth? Evolution says that death led to man. Scripture says that man led to death (Rom. 5:12). It undermines the gospel at a, yes, fundamental level.
Kent, I abhor theistic evolution. I think it’s a deeply false teaching. It fills me with theological horror that there are many Christian leaders, professors, pastors, scholars, authors, theologians, students, and pew-sitters who espouse theistic evolution.
A frowny-face “bleecch” on theistic evolution from me.
But here’s a hypothetical question back to you Kent: Aren’t there gonna be a few/some/many theistic evolutionists in heaven?
Obviously, I don’t know for sure, but my best guess is that there will be some.
And abstracting that thought to the general case, I’m thinking that there will be some heretics in heaven too!
For example, I don’t know if Billy Graham was a universalist or not. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Whatever. But suppose he was. Now universalism has historically been considered a heresy. Well, what if you see Billy Graham up in Heaven? Then you’ll know that there are some heretics who still end up in heaven.
Now if there are heretics (of a “minor” doctrinal issue) in heaven, would that bother you Kent?
My answer if asked of me: No.
P.S. Here’s another angle on this discussion. I do lean towards Kent’s argument that the Bible overwhelmingly claims that we are to obey all of God’s commands and statutes.
But on the flip side, I would advance that there is a hierarchy of sin that’s taught in the Bible. Would you agree?
So whether we have a hierarchy of doctrines or not, can we at least agree that there is a rough hierarchy of sins in the Bible?
Truth,
My position hasn’t been answered on this blog. It can’t be, because it is Scripture. Again, what we get is so-and-so did this and these three people take the same view as me. And then protos in 1 Cor. 15:3.
Regarding the theistic evolutionist, how will we end this false view that undermines the gospel if we don’t separate over it. How can we cooperate and associate if we desire to preserve true doctrine. Separation is an important means God gave us to preserve true doctrine. It’s true that I can’t judge his heart condition, but I can judge his doctrine, and that’s all I can judge, so I act on what I can see and know. Are some people disciplined from churches actually saved? Maybe, but I still treat them as publicans and sinners. Is that bad? No. Jesus loved sinners, but it does say that I don’t fellowship with them.
Certain sins will be punished more than others. Jesus mentioned this many times in the gospels. Certain doctrines are more foundational. Certain practices are worse, and you can see that by their punishment. You would be stoned for physical adultery in the OT, but not for commiting it in your heart, even though God says that the intellectual kind is enough to condemn any of us.
Kent,
You said “My position hasn’t been answered on this blog. It can’t be, because it is Scripture.”
I find it very presumptuous that you actually believe you have it all figured out. The old BJU adage I heard very often when I went there…. “if God said it, I believe it, and that settles it”…..end of discussion. It seemed to me (when I went there anyway) that BJU always had the market cornered on the correct interpretation of Scripture, never willing to admit they may be wrong.
I can tell you that I don’t have it figured out. I know my theology or doctrine must be wrong somewhere and when it is shown to me by God’s grace I change.
I also find it sad that you would not fellowship with someone like Billy Graham because her interprets Scripture differently than you. I know several of mine and your brother’s and sister’s that were added to our family because of his ministry and I rejoice for that. Rejoice, Kent, that “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,”
Zog
Zog,
First, interesting name.
Second, the content of your comment is what I see as the major attack on the truth today and perhaps the chief enemy of discernment. We can’t validate just any “interpretation” of Scripture only because someone takes it. The Bible loses its authority when we have to accept all viewpoints just because they exist. We have truth and we have error.
This is the modern liberal view of the world. You are “sad” about my separation. That doesn’t speak well of you—both your approach to God, to Scripture, and your own emotional state.
You quote some version of Paul in Philippians 1 as if Paul was endorsing the men preaching with wrong motives. He wasn’t justifying their wrong motives, but do you see the major difference here—they were still preaching the gospel. That didn’t mean Paul was in fellowshpi with those guys, but what I’m telling you about Billy Graham is that what he teaches changes the gospel. It makes men twice the children of Hell they once were. If anything is going to be sad, that should be.
I think it is interesting how that the new evangelicals rip into Jack Hyles for his false gospel and his outlandish methodology and then they give Billy Graham a free pass even though he does far, far more damage than Hyles. I think it is also tell-tale. This is part of the culture war. They don’t like Hyles culture. They do like Billy Graham’s. He allows them the “freedom” they so covet.
A huge attack on Scripture today that is a major part of the emerging movement is an attack on the perspecuity of Scripture. We can’t know what it means. We can’t be sure. This undermines the authority of Scripture as much as if we changed the words.
Perspicuity does not mean that all things are equally clear, nor that all doctrines are equally understandable by all people. The bottom line is that the question of “triage” is a question of clarity.
Where Scripture is plain, there can be no argument, but where Scripture is less clear, we need to be less dogmatic / allow for divergence. Here is a historical example:
“Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] ‘it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.'”
Dear Bob H.,
Much, much thanks and appreciation for the Grudem chapter! That was one of the best and most insightful theological articles that I have read in the last 2-3 years!
VERY, VERY helpful.
Thank you so much.
Pax in Christ Alone,
Truth Unites… and Divides
Neofundy,
I appreciate your contribution. I hadn’t checked back here for few days. Could you give me one even unclear passage (if there is such a thing) that teaches that God has been anywhere unclear, not plain, in Scripture? I noticed that your quote above says that some parts lack clarity. What passage might the author of your quote be referring to get this doctrine? Or is this just his opinion? I’ve argued against the history of any Scriptural teaching on this doctrine. I have no doubt that people have believed it for a long time. It especially makes sense in light of his catholicity.
Thank you.
Truth,
I’m glad that chapter helped. It helped me too, particularly with regard to seeing the propriety of different bounds for different organizations
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
NeoFundy,
When I read your quote, I was thinking I had read it before. I thought it was maybe Calvin. But I just Googled it and its the Preface to the KJV.
Great quote, and it does provide historical support.
Thanks for interacting here.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
Thanks everyone for the contributions. I don’t know what more I can say on the subject. I believe the historical support I’ve given also supports the doctrine of a unity around essentials.
I believe it is apparent in scripture that doctrines vary in weight and importance. Some of the questions lie in how we interpret the separation passages. And I hope to open up that topic at a later time.
Thanks for the discussion.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
No passage has been shown historically to teach unity around essentials by Bob or anyone else. My Scriptural arguments haven’t even been touched. I have answered the protos argument, which does not infer an elaborate triage of doctrine. Men did unity around the essentials, reducing God’s commandments to ones “they” could keep, so it is historic, but not something we should historically emulate.
Bob and Kent,
I appreciate you both. You are iron-sharpening-iron in the most positive biblical sense from Proverbs.
Please do not refrain from engaging with one another’s Scriptural arguments. I am learning from them. And if I can, I will engage.
Currently, I lean towards Kent’s argument. However, I have some tangential, but important questions for Kent:
Has the Doctrine of Separation ever been wrongfully and sinfully abused?
Can the Doctrine of Separation ever be wrongfully and sinfully abused?
How can the Doctrine of Separation be wrongfully and sinfully abused?
If it has been wrongfully and sinfully abused, what lessons did you learn?
If it has been wrongfully and sinfully abused, what Scriptural and behavioral safeguards must be followed to prevent this abuse?
Is it possible to practice too much separation? If so, what does that look like?
What is your theological and ecclesiastic assessment of the Amish? They practice separation. Is that too extreme? Or is that the proper model to emulate? What about the practice of monasticism and retreating permanently from the world?
I know these are a lot of difficult questions. I agree with you, but I’m cautious to learn if there is such a thing as sinful separation (aka over-separation).
Has the Doctrine of Separation ever been wrongfully and sinfully abused?
For sure—Diotrephes. Nicolaitinism. The Spanish Inquisition. Separation is abused all the time in fundamentalism today, but it still is a Scriptural doctrine.
Can the Doctrine of Separation ever be wrongfully and sinfully abused?
Yes.
How can the Doctrine of Separation be wrongfully and sinfully abused?
The proper steps must be taken, due process that is outlined through the NT. One-on-one, two-or-three, bring it before the church. It can’t be practiced Scripturally outside of a local church; it truly is ecclesiastical separation. Churches then fellowship with those of like faith and practice.
As it applies to a church, I believe the reason for separation should be presented (as we do every single time we separate), and if the other side won’t hear, there’s nothing that can be done. Reconciliation should be attempted, even as separation is loving.
If it has been wrongfully and sinfully abused, what lessons did you learn?
Most of the time, what I have seen done wrong are political cold shoulder type tactics and slanderous accusations made without due process. This occurs repeatedly in fundamentalism. I expect it, because many don’t follow Scripture as a model for separation.
Some professing Christians are actually living in sin themselves and they leave a group and lob grenades from a distance to do damage. This is not right. I see this all over evangelicalism. These same people talk about unity.
If it has been wrongfully and sinfully abused, what Scriptural and behavioral safeguards must be followed to prevent this abuse?
We do the best we can—as much as possible—to be sure that we do it the right way. We tell others when they don’t. We should handle people who disobey in the area of separation like we do any other disobedience. Deal with them like they might be ignorant with a spirit of helpfulness.
Is it possible to practice too much separation? If so, what does that look like?
I think there is too much separation. That is when it is separating over a non-Scriptural issue, like Romans 14 talks about. We shouldn’t separate over non-scriptural issues. For the most part; however, the problem today is not with too much separation, but the lack of it.
What is your theological and ecclesiastic assessment of the Amish?
I don’t see them as NT Christianity. I see them as an already apostate group which adds works to grace.
They practice separation. Is that too extreme?
With their soteriology it is easy to disagree with all of their personal standards.
Or is that the proper model to emulate?
The Bible is sufficient, so we can know how it is to be done. I like how our church practices it.
What about the practice of monasticism and retreating permanently from the world?
Monasticism was a Roman Catholic response to impurity. We are to be in the world without being of the world. Pulling out of the world to rack up merit points with God fits in with Roman Catholicism with its works salvation.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jude 3
Jude did not tell us to earnestly contend for the triage.
He started to write about the essential-the common salvation. He was commpelled to go further than that and exhort us to earnestly contend for the faith.
The faith was ONCE delivered. This does not mean that around A.D. 60 God gave certain essentials that should be contended for and then he would never deliver them again, if that was the case he would have to preserve some sort of oral tradition to let us know in 2008 what those essentials are. No way. He delivered the words of God unto the saints ONCE, and he preserved them unto this day and we contend for them.
He clearly commissions us:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt 28:20
Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. Ps 119:6
Dear Kent,
Much thanks and appreciation for answering my questions so thoughfully and graciously.
Honestly, I think you hit a homerun!
For example, you wrote this:
“I think there is too much separation. That is when it is separating over a non-Scriptural issue, like Romans 14 talks about. We shouldn’t separate over non-scriptural issues. For the most part; however, the problem today is not with too much separation, but the lack of it.”
If I understand you correctly, you are making two important points. One, there is acknowledgement of too much sinful and unnecessary separation. And two, the larger problem is that there is a lack of separation from stubbornly unrepentant heretical and apostate sin which is spiritually cancerous to the local body as well as the larger Body of Christ.
I can agree with that. More follow-on observations. There are different procedures depending on whether its the laity or the undershepherds. If it is laity, then biblical courage is required by the church leadership to biblically discipline the wayward sheep.
But if it is church leadership that is doing false teaching, then that’s a different procedure altogether. That also requires biblical courage. When undershepherds preach or model false doctrine and teaching, the effects are magnified. James 3:1.
The unfortunate by-product of gently disciplining wayward sheep or rebuking false doctrine that may be intentionally or unintentionally taught by another pastor/elder/teacher is that unknowledgeable people outside the church and inside the church think that all Christians do is fight, judge, and scold each other.
They do not possess the wherewithal to see loving, biblical, corrective discipline occurring. Their filter, for better or worse, is to see Christians as judgmental, harsh, unloving, mean hypocrites.
Damage to the corporate witness of the Gospel of Christ is the heavy and high price when discipline and/or separation is contemplated.
And on the other side of Charybdis and Scylla, there is damage to the corporate witness of the Gospel of Christ when biblical discipline and biblical separation is NOT done in a timely and effective way when confronted by unrepentant apostasy and heresy.
Prayer. Because this issue is very difficult. The old saying, “Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” come to mind.
Pax.
Obedience, Sin — Doctrine, Understanding and Motives
The Bible certainly calls us to obey all of Christ’s commands and all of God’s laws. Sin happens when we disobey even the least command. Yet… certain kinds of sin and certain offenses are worse than others. There is a varying scale of what to bring with regards to offerings and etc. Adultery was punishable by death but not so other sins. The New Testament teaches that some in Hell receive lesser stripes and for some it will be easier for them in the day of judgment. And motive is important, too. Certainly motives don’t overrule the fact of sin, but nevertheless ignorant sins and willful rebellion are treated differently.
Doctrine is teaching and we are to accept and follow what God teaches in Scripture. Yet our capacity to understand varies just as our capacity to not sin is affected by the fall (we can’t just “not sin”). Motives with regard to doctrine are important. False teachers are doing it out of a false motive. But motives can’t be detected, necessarily by others. And sincere people are led astray. Nevertheless, it remains that motives are important.
Today, there are many doctrinal positions which conflict. Only one position is correct but is being wrong equivalent to sinning consciously and deliberately?
Here are some examples:
1. Modified-Calvinism vs. Calvinism vs. Arminianism
2. Baptist baptism vs. Reformed/Presbyterian baptism
3. Pre-mill Pre-trip rapture vs. pre-mill post-trip rapture or vs. a-mill and other evangelical positions
4. Single-pastor rule (or even elder-rule) congregational-style government vs. elder-rule, synod-style government
I’ll stop with these examples. On each of these points and on both sides of these issues, there are legitimate honest, straightforward Scriptural arguments which lead toward the embracing of that position. Honest Christians on the weight of various Scriptural arguments, end up on various sides of these issues.
Now any of these believers might be wrong on any of these positions. But they are sincerely attempting to be right and to follow Scripture’s leading. No one on these issues is trying to disobey Scripture.
Now assume that a given church adopts the first position of all four of our example scenarios. Should that church consciously separate from other churches who disagree on any of these points? Should they separate in a Matt. 18 style which condemns the one separated from as if they are a pagan? Is a difference on church government a sin issue?
These issues are important. And they may hinder a close unity among churches and believers. And I’m not arguing that we set these aside as unimportant and just sing koombya together. Rather I’m arguing that we disagree on these issues but PRIZE OUR UNITY IN THE GOSPEL AS MORE IMPORTANT, ULTIMATELY THAN OUR DIFFERENCES ON THESE ISSUES.
Since we are fellow believers in the Body of Christ, we are called to have a love for fellow-believers that will cause the world to know we are Christ’s followers. We are not to be schismatic but to foster unity which is precious. We are to realize that just as there is “one Lord” and “one faith” so there is a “unity of the faith” that the “one Spirit” is aiming to work in and through us.
Doctrine is vital, obedience is essential, but he Gospel is core to what Christianity is all about. If we reject the Gospel we reject it all. If we get the Gospel right, and we get church government wrong, that’s sad and not good. But it doesn’t allow other Christians to assume the worst and treat those people as if they aren’t even saved. That kind of extreme separation is what I’m against.
I’ve seen churches actively avoid fellowship with other churches and cultivate a mentality where other Christians are doubted and distrusted if they aren’t exactly like us. I’ve seen people voted out of the church because they had a different position on Calvinism than the church did. I’ve seen people threatened with expulsion from various church/college institutions if they didn’t toe the line on quite minor things. I’ve seen MacArthur denounced as a heretic because of his teaching on the blood (which is synonymous with Spurgeon’s handling of the same issue). I’ve seen a general ill-treatment of any other conservative Christians mainly because they aren’t like us, or they aren’t in our camp.
These kinds of things reflect negatively on Christ and don’t reflect his ideal of unity among the brethren, and Paul’s fellowship in the gospel (Phil. 1:5).
Unifying around essentials does not mean we belittle other doctrine. It means we recognize that agreement on the big truths of the Gospel is a big thing and important enough to unify around to one extent or another. Billy Graham is not the issue here. I can understand separating in some respects from him, but fundamentalists by and large have nothing to do with anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist in name. They separate from John MacArthur and Southern Baptists and everyone else even close to them. And some of them are using this every doctrine is equally important idea to justify this.
Anyways these are my thoughts on the issue. I hope that makes it a little more clear to some, where I’m coming from.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
Your first paragraph—I don’t see how that relates to what we’re talking about—nobody has said that certain sins aren’t worse than others. We’ve crossed that bridge now about three times. Are you hearing me? For instance, I’d rather have mental murder committed against me than physical murder and the penalty is worse for the latter.
Second paragraph—IMO, meaningless to this conversation. Let’s assume we all like good motives, that we’re not talking about Christians who like to keep what you call secondary practices but with the wrong motives so they can be showy.
Beginning in the third paragraph and then all the way down to your CAPITAL LETTERS about prizing the gospel—This all sounds good to the choir, who has already bought into it, but is it Scriptural? I’m guessing that the number of doctrines that people disagree about will only grow larger and even faster. We haven’t proven anything Scripturally that isolates the gospel and makes it the only doctrine of separation. There are answers to your questions in this section. I hope you don’t think they’re rhetorical. Answer: Each church decides, since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. My church makes the decision as to what we will get along about and what we will separate about. I love the unity in our church. It is the unity I see in Scripture—perfect, one-minded unity, based upon doctrine, all of the doctrine, at the same time separating over it as well. Isn’t separation great? God loves it! When your church doesn’t separate over Billy Graham, you are a partaker of his deeds. You don’t love Billy Graham because his doctrine hurts him and you are unwilling to stand against him in it like God has shown us.
Your next paragraph—that’s a church in Ephesians 4. The unity is a real unity in a church. If you make it something bigger than a church, all believers, you definitely don’t have “one faith.”
Next paragraph about the gospel being core—you make it go one way. You say that everything is tied into the gospel, but also the gospel is tied into everything. When we receive Jesus, we receive everything that He said—we stand in the valley and say yes to all the things that He said. As far as treating people as if they are not saved—that’s what Jesus told us to do, so are you saying that the behavior Jesus told us to take is unloving? I grow weary of the term “extreme separation.” I’m sure that extreme separation is anything that separates from us. As long as someone separates Scripturally, it should be normal separation.
Next paragraph about ill treatment—I see ill treatment that is equal in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. I will grant you that fundamentalists don’t deal with people properly, but evangelicals are just as guilty in my opinion and even more so. Our church has never cut off another church without attempting reconciliation. What I have found is that the other church could care less about attempting reconciliation. I don’t encourage our people to prove these other churches with Scriptural criteria and make their decisions about them from Scripture. When I visit the people from other churches, going to door to door, and we discuss doctrine and practice and open our Bibles, I almost universally find that they don’t want to be judged by the Bible at all. That’s their problem. You wrote this: ” I’ve seen people voted out of the church because they had a different position on Calvinism than the church did.” I’m going to guess that you’re talking about us because we’re probably one of the few churches who practice church discipline. I like how revisionist history works. This particular man wasn’t attending our church because (A) he didn’t like how we evangelized (which you know isn’t easy believism), and (B) we had an invitation (a very low key one usually just on Sun. AM). When he joined the church, we told him his Calvinism wouldn’t be a problem as long as it wouldn’t cause division (heresy). It was causing division. After attempted reconciliation and refused repentance, we discipline him out of the church, which meant he was getting exactly what he was currently practicing anyway—no fellowship. We are not inattentive to body parts or to missing sheep, whichever metaphor you happen to want. About two years ago, the man had a very serious health problem and we visited him in the hospital. He presently does not have and hasn’t had his family in a church for the past five years because there isn’t anyone who believes it right like he does. So there is Bob’s Calvinist example.
Didn’t Paul say “your fellowship in the gospel” in Philip 1:5, not “our,” so he was speaking of the fellowship of the church at Philippi?
I’m regularly mistreated by new-evangelicals. Watch the give and take on Pyro with me. I’m sure you’ve seen it. They treat me that way—why? Because they know what I believe. I treat them respectfully all the time. Watch how the less conservative Sharper Iron treated me. Why? Because of how I believed. They don’t give due process by the way. They just treat you badly.
I don’t know of anyone who separates Scripturally who chooses not to fellowship because they aren’t a fundamentalist only. They seems funny to me, actually. I’m actually going everywhere every week trying to get in fellowship with people. Normally I find that they don’t want the fellowship. And this has been the case for twenty years.
Doctrine and sin are important parallels. Simply using verses which prove the importance of obeying every command does not contradict the claim that some doctrine is more important than other doctrine. Plus varying degrees of sin, would seem to suggest that there are varying degrees of the importance and significance of doctrine.
Now, would you / do you have meaningful fellowship with people who disagree with you on my 4 examples? Or do you decide that they are sinful by holding to different positions and so you thereby separate from them?
Ephesians 4 is talking about the universal church. One Lord and One Baptism, One Spirit we all subscribe to these, and the One Church we are all members of. Rom. 12:5, Paul says he is a member together with the Romans of the one body.
Granted the universal vs. local only church position will impact how we view separation. But I argue that Christ’s calls for unity in the Gospels and also the epistles, should move even local church only people to seek a meaningful fellowship in the gospel with others. Phil. 1:5 does say “your” (my mistake), still it refers to their partnering with Paul in the one gospel work.
Jesus said to treat those who are unrepentant about offenses caused to brothers, to treat them as unbelievers. 2 Thess. 3:14-15 calls for separation yet not in such a way as to view the shunned person as an enemy, but rather as a brother. So separation varies according to the issues at hand, and we don’t universally view those we separate from as non-Christians.
And while separation is required, divisiveness is not allowed. Rom. 16 and Titus 3 (the meaning of “heretic”) teach that divisiveness or being a schismatic, is sin. In Rom. 16 its clear more than one church is in view in the context, so why should we conclude that divisiveness in one church only is in view. Same with Titus, he was involved in many churches.
As Truth Unites.. And Divides has reminded us, this issue isn’t simple. We are called to both separate and defend truth and also to unite and not be divisive.
As for trying to come into fellowship with people, are we requiring they agree with us on each of the 4 points I listed above before we let them fellowship? Are we requiring them to separate from the SBC (as an example) before we can have meaningful fellowship?
Regarding your explaining my point on Calvinism, I did ask you for clarification about if you would separate from someone based on Calvinism alone, and I’m pretty sure you had said yes. I was there for the voting out, meeting, but I may not have been aware of all the details.
Still, would you fellowship with, or would your church fellowship with people who disagree with you on:
1. The Calvinism issue
2. The Baptism issue (i.e. Presbyterian vs. Baptist)
3. Church Government (i.e. Presbyterian style vs. Congregational)
4. Eschatology — particularly pre vs. post tribulation rapture
This is where the rubber hits the road. And this is where I come up with “excessive”. Because you’ve told me you separate from churches based on music style, and the Bible Version issue, and that you have slightly more leniency with regard to pants-on-women. At least this is what I thought you said at the time.
I’d love to get into the unversal/local argument, but I won’t, to stay on thread, and especially to deal with Romans 12. But I was dealing with Eph. 4, and there is no reason to read into that text something other than local and visible. The point of using the word “body” is to reference something local and visible. It is a body because it is gathered in one place at one time.
The man you said was disciplined out for Calvinism was disciplined out for being divisive and for not attending. You can’t stay a card-carrying member of the church; you must actually gather.
We will break fellowship over any differing doctrine, including those four, because Scripture is clear. We have one faith and one body. Unity is based on doctrine so we unify and divide over doctrine. We give people an opportunity to grow, so we don’t cut them off, that is, we’re patient. We give people due process, but doctrine and practice are our basis of fellowship, not the desire for fake unity.
We separate over false worship.
We separate over Scriptural errancy.
We separate over abomination to God.
We separate over a denial of imminence.
We separate over more than this.
One clarification: I agree that not attending is not good, and should not be overlooked. Also, I agree that divisiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Thanks for your honesty and forthrightness. I agree we should save the universal/local argument for another time.
So separation varies according to the issues at hand, and we don’t universally view those we separate from as non-Christians.
I think this is an important point. For example, paedo-baptists and credo-baptists are separated, but they don’t regard the other as non-Christians.
Although I would and do see some extreme neo-liberal mainliners as non-Christians… like Bishop Spong.
Thanks Truth, that jogs my mind here. I guess I would go one step further and ask an additional question of Pastor Brandenburg:
Do you also view those who conclude differently than you on music styles, Bible versions, the baptism question, the rapture question, etc, as non-saved (if they don’t ultimately come to your side of the aisle)?
When we treat someone as a saved person, we fellowship with him. We don’t fellowship with unsaved people—there is no fellowship (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). We don’t conclude that someone is unsaved, but we treat him as though he were, which is a publican and sinner.
We must first and foremost honor God and then also preserve the teaching. We would rather honor God and what He taught and we do that by separating over what God said.
I notice Bob that you keep using the terminology “musical styles.” There is the Maplethorpe art style. Do you think that particular art style is worth separating over? There is the John Updike style of literature (the Pulitzer prize winning author). Is that style of literature worth separating over? The Academy Awards sported certain fashion styles among the attendees. Do you think that any of those styles of dress are worth separating over? In other words, Bob, can we judge style?
We don’t fellowship with unsaved people—there is no fellowship (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). We don’t conclude that someone is unsaved, but we treat him as though he were, which is a publican and sinner.
Dear Kent, I think these statements are where the theological liberals and the postmodern Emergers really go to town on. They’d hammer you really hard on a couple things.
(1) They’d repeatedly emphasize that Jesus fellowshipped with sinners.
(2) They’d bash you for committing one of their cardinal sins, namely “judgmentalism”. Because you are, in effect, judging who is saved and who is unsaved based on a personal judgement of whether another person is saved or not. They’d say that only God can judge.
(3) Furthermore, they’d say that you have a log in your eye and how can you be fit to judge the speck in another person’s eye? This will earn you the epitaph of “Pharisee” and “hypocrite.”
(4) You’ve fulfilled their stereotype of what a “fundamentalist” is. They’d snarl and spit out that word “fundamentalist” with dripping disdain and disgust.
(5) In the end these theo-neo liberals and POMO emergers would congratulate themselves heartily for not being a judgmental, hypocritical Pharisee like the “fundamentalists” are, and as they love to point out, Jesus had his harshest condemnations for the Pharisees.
———–
Of course, we shouldn’t let the wrong “judgments” by theo-neo liberals and POMO emergers affect your behavior and decisions, but it is something to be aware of.
Again, much thanks to Kent and Bob for this blog discussion.
What I’m leery about with regard to Pastor Brandenburg’s answer is his jump from disagreeing with someone on a relatively minor point of doctrine on a disputed and not abundantly clear topic (church government, rapture timing, etc.) to assuming they aren’t saved and treating them as such. This think the worst approach (granted I know there is “due process” but it still results in this, given time and an unwillingness to budge on the given issue) is what I deem excessive and potentially harmful.
Jesus’ words about treating people like publicans and sinners, has reference to an unwillingness to repent of specific sins against someone else. In 2 Thess 3, where unruly behavior and failure to follow the instruction of the apostles is in view, the Thessalonians are charged to separate yet to specifically view the other party as brothers whom they are admonishing.
In Kent’s view, anything but pre-trib rapture is a patent denial of immanence. Yet the post-tribbers and amillennialists would not say they are denying immanence, many of them expressly affirm immanence.
Similarly, Kent views many (if not most) music styles used today as false worship, because they cross what he sees as a clear Scriptural boundary and thereby are sinful worldly sounds and styles in and of themselves. Yet there are many Christians (a good number) who purposefully use such styles out of a desire to worship God purely, and who feel that such styles facilitate emotive expressiveness appropriate to worship and similar to that we view in Psalms (lifting hands, dancing, etc.). They are not consciously and willfully using what they know to be impure in worship. There is no set prescription for how much rhythm and harmony to mix to get proper music (as there was such a prescription for how to carry the ark, and how to burn incense before the Lord). Musical style (by itself) often cannot gain the degree of specificity required to be directly immoral, and instead depends upon the mix of lyrics and associations to convey the mood and support the aura it does.
Again, Presbyterian and Reformed alike expressly deny that their view of baptism comes anywhere near a baptismal regenerative view (like that of Rome). They also expressly affirm salvation by grace through faith alone without any works, including baptism. Of course who cares what they say if some zealous Baptists want to conclude that Presbyterians should be separated from and also assumed to be lost because they don’t come over and embrace Baptist baptism and church polity.
I can respect firm lines of separation. Mark Dever, for instance, is clear on the importance of safeguarding the church. They vote out members who do not attend (after pursuing restoration and active discipline first). They likewise would not accept a Presbyterian baptism into membership. Yet he is very clear to affirm that non Baptists are often brothers in Christ, and so he goes and preaches to conservative Anglican conventions, is good friends with and preaches / is involved in parachurch concerns with Ligon Duncan (a Presbyterian). The paper by Grudem comes into view here, again. We can build walls according to doctrine since all doctrine is important. But we can reach over those walls and fellowship in gospel-centered activities based on our mutual fellowship and agreement in the pure gospel of Jesus.
It’s not just the pomos and emergents who are concerned with this view of Kent’s. Many good and sincere followers of Jesus, who differ with fundamentalist Baptists on some of these relatively minor points of doctrine, are concerned that they are written off and presumed lost, because they don’t give in on one or more of these issues. And on virtually all of these issues, there is a host of Scriptural reasons and arguments that these same non-fundamentalists have for their particular view (this is not to say all fundamentalists are dispensational, Baptist and non-Calvinist, by the way).
I don’t know what else there is to say on this issue, we’ve beaten the horse long enough. Both sides still think its dead.
Glad the discussion has been helpful to you, Truth, and I’m sure anyone else reading can be helped one way or another by this.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
You admonish him as a brother. In Matthew 18, they are to “be” to you “as” a heathen man and a publican. You failed to mention that this same person you don’t even eat with. And when you do talk to him, you admonish him. As a brother, yes, so like there is hope for him, an optimistic admonishment. It doesn’t say you treat him like a brother.
Our church doesn’t believe that the doctrines you mention are unclear. I would love to know that some other church loved the Bible and its teachings enough to separate Scripturally from me over it. I’ve never, ever had it done, however. What I’ve found sadly is that churches don’t care. I have found that evangelicals and fundamentalists will separate, but not Scripturally. They use the cold-shoulder, political methodology that isn’t found anywhere in Scripture. They lob grenades from a distance. They say things like—these are harsh separatists, or they are a joke in the way that they separate—and many times you can’t be sure who they’re talking about.
So what do we get? We get the non-essentials doctrine and we get basically NO practice of separation. And we still don’t get unity. Only a separatist could care about unity.
I’m going to be writing soon on my blog about the relations of all doctrine to the gospel. That is what we see the Bible teach on the relations of the gospel to everything else the Bible teaches.
Truth,
I’m going to comment on each of the five:
(1) Jesus didn’t fellowship with sinners. He ate with sinners, but He was always confronting them with truth until they received it. If they didn’t, He said, “Dust your feet.”
(2) Of course we judge. The Bible commands us to do that. We use Scripture to do it. We don’t condemn anybody. In the end, God will do that.
(3) That’s a faulty view of Mt. 7:1-5, because it says that once we do have the beam out, we can then help the brother get the mote out of the other’s eye. Of course, once someone proves they don’t care to have help with either their beam or their mote, then we’ll stop sowing our pearls before swine. They may be pomo swine.
(4) I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist because I’m not interdenominational, which is what the fundamentalist movement was. I’m sure I’m fundamentalist in spirit and by dictionary definition, that is, I adhere strictly to a standard, the Bible.
(5) The Pharisees were mainly reductionists, lowering the number of commands to a level they could keep. There is right wing and left wing legalism—both are flesh. I would also say that they have turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, denying the Lord that bought them, and also used their grace as an occasion to the flesh. Their friendship with the world is enmity with God.
Hi Kent,
Please remember that it’s not me saying those things. It’s what the prototypical theo-liberal or postmodern Emerger thinks and says about “Fundamentalists”.