Have you listened to Dave’s presentation? I don’t think you are understanding him at all. I think Bauder has another category in between indifferentist and everythingist as well. But I’d have to go back and listen to Bauder’s thing again… that would require a bit of an effort! It was long.

Anyway, the bare minimum which calls for separation is Dave’s ‘essentials’, my ‘fundamentals’ and your ‘foundationals’. There are other reasons for separation as well, but these are the minimums. (See his post today for a start at other reasons.)

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

My understanding, since this was being written about separation, is that they believe that we are to separate over the essentials and not to separate over the non-essentials. If he were to agree with Bauder, those who don’t separate over the essentials are indifferentists, and those who separate on more than the essentials are everythingists.

Well, to defend Dave (!!!), he is saying this is the bare minimum over which separation occurs. His phrase is something like this: “This is the floor, not the ceiling.” Separation starts here, but there are other reasons to separate as well. And there are reasons why one might not separate as such but would limit or refuse fellowship.

Dave seems uncomfortable with the term “essential” but hasn’t come up with a better term. The problem with the term is that its opposite can be understood to be “non-essential”, but he doesn’t accept that term to describe other aspects of biblical truth (or the ‘appendages’ according to my analogy). The point of the term is that if you deny an essential, you aren’t a Christian. If you deny believer’s baptism by immersion, you might still be a Christian, but in error. There might be a limitation of fellowship or even a refusal of fellowship for such a person. But we wouldn’t consider such a person a non-Christian … unless he denied an essential, like the deity of Christ, or the vicarious atonement, or some such essential point.

The point that I am trying to make with the analogy is that there is such a thing as essential doctrines. I think I prefer the term ‘fundamentals’ myself, although I guess someone could still ask if all other doctrines are ‘non-fundamental’. The way the argument is being framed, and I think both Dave and I are in agreement on this (risky assumption??), is that ALL doctrine is important for the whole Christian man, while acknowledging it is possible for Christians to go through life halting because they don’t accept important doctrines. It is impossible for someone to live as a Christian if they don’t accept the fundamental/essential doctrines.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi Kent, you are missing the point, I think. You do acknowledge that there are people who are real Christians who would not be in your circle of fellowship, right? But you would differentiate them from professing Christians who are not Christians at all, right? The point is not that the other doctrines are not important. But you can be a Christian and not believe in believer’s baptism. You would be a crippled Christian, but you would be a Christian, as long as you believed certain core doctrines of salvation.

If you can’t agree with that, wouldn’t you be forced to say that ALL those from whom you separate are not Christians?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Simple. Show me a verse that says we separate over only what’s essential, even according to Dave’s definition. I can show you several that say we separate over much more than the essentials.

I understand Dave’s definition of essential. Good dictionary look up on his part. However, I need a little more than protos means “first importance” to develop this huge doctrine and practice. It seems to me that it is just encouraging disobedience to Scripture.

I know that last sentence sounds bad, but I mean it in the best spirit possible, which is why even I wrote “seems.”