As far as separation from those unequally yoked brethren that you refer to, I refer back to Rom. 16:17. Since God has laid down “doctrine,” i.e. teaching concerning our not yoking ourselves with unbelievers, then those brethren who are in violation of that Scriptural teaching are then creating divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine and should be marked and avoided. Yes, admonished as brethren in the effort to see their practice in line with the teaching of Scripture.

You’re right. This is my last comment on this post.

Hi Kent,

I think you are leaving the topic with this one…

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I get it. You can’t find the term textus receptus in Scripture. The Bible doesn’t teach that we can’t smoke crack pipes either. It doesn’t teach that there will be 39 OT books and 27 NT books, but certain principles have been applied. We wouldn’t say that the decision of a 66 book canon is extra-scriptural. For instance, it doesn’t say what “all scripture” is in 2 Tim 3:16-17. It does say the Bible is perfect, is pure, that every Word would be preserved, that every Word would be available, and that we would have a settled text that someone could add to or take away from. This happens to be the same position that believers have taken historically, that the apographa were a duplicate of the autographa. When there is a settled, orthodox position and then at some point men turn from that to something else, who is doing the dividing?

To Tracy

With respect to both your comments to me and to Brian, I think one of the major problems we have in this discussion is using the term ‘separation’ for all our decisions in these areas. I have discussed this before, but let me give a summary again:

1. Separation means non-involvement in any way in any kind of ministry relationship. Any openness to any kind of ministry cooperation is not really separation. Separation is mandated for unbelief. Some unbelievers will claim to be Christians and may seem to be Christians in some ways, making discernment difficult.

2. Differences between Christians may (and often should) lead to some kind of limitation in ministry cooperation. In some cases, there is really no way two Christians (or churches, or institutions, or what have you) can work together in any practical way because the doctrinal, practical, or philosophical differences are too incompatible. This is the category we are discussing when it comes to CEs.

3. For myself, I can’t really imagine a way that I could work with CE men in the current climate. The differences are too great and would cause confusion among my people that could well lead them to make serious errors in their spiritual lives.

I think you are assuming a little too much, both in your view of the Joneses and me as well.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

To Larry:

I don’t find a lot to disagree with here, except I don’t think the “academic context” argument really holds. Dr Bob got heat for having John Ankerberg in some years ago, and I think some of it came from circles who are now claiming “academic context” is just fine now… I also think DTBS’ close connection to Inter-city makes the line between church/academy somewhat indistinct.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I agree. We would surely end up on the same side of most issues but for entirely different reasons. When I talk about fellowshipping with CEs, I’m talking about ministering and worshipping with them in appropriate contexts (whatever they may be) whenever wisdom and prudence dictate.

Since I don’t find where Scripture calls CEs unrighteous, benighted, demonic, unfruitful, infidelish, idolatrous, schismatic, filthy, and unclean–which would certainly be the case if lineal contamination were true–I’m not inclined to obsess over various kinds of fellowship. If I deem a situation more to the glory of God to minister with CEs, I will. And I will do it with a conscience void of offense.

Since my view isn’t airtight, and doesn’t prejudge every situation by a peculiar canon of interpretive certitude, it sometimes leaves me wondering about the choices I’ve made over the years. Nevertheless, I’ve come to understand that, while consistency is a great virtue, it’s not the only virtue. Being Scriptural is the chief thing. And, from my perspective, being Scriptural means separating from unbelievers and every thing else the Bible commands. After that, all issues regarding separation are a matter of wisdom and prudence. And therein lies room for growth and error.

Without meaning to be rude, Don, your mandatory separatism necessarily leaves many brothers in the shadows of spiritual adultery. To turn man like Rice and Jones into spiritual adulterers because they fellowshipped with Southern Baptists (who remained in a convention that had liberals in it) is at best uncharitable. As I see it, they were simply exercising Biblical discernment in an imperfect world and recognizing that not all God’s people see everything similarly, especially when it comes to gradations of separation.

While your view of separation may keep your choices tight, I would find it difficult to operate in such a wiggle-free zone. Operating on the principles I do, I may minister with CEs on one issue but not another. Or I may embrace them in one context but not another. Since I see separation in more fluid terms than you do, I may support one CE missionary in one instance but not in another. This may open me up the charges of inconsistency, but I’m not sure inconsistency is always bad. In short, my view of separation doesn’t immediately place CEs beyond the pale of mutual fellowship and ministry.

Have a good one!

tjp

First, about Doran/DBTS/Vlach, I don’t know enough about Vlach to know. I don’t know of any area of disobedience in his life, but I may simply not know about it. Onetime lectures on an academic subject by someone who has the gospel right is not a violation of Scripture, as least so far as I can tell. I would entertain that argument, if someone wants to make it, but I think, based on my understanding of previous arguments, that it will involve little Scripture at this level because it would essentially be made by at least tertiary standards (IOW, not even secondary): We can’t have Vlach because he teaches at a school where John MacArthur is the president, and JM hasn’t separated from people he should have, and therefore anyone who teaches there is somehow implicated. But again, I know next to nothing about Vlach, so I am hesitant to make any firm declaration on that. I am not saying I would do it; I am saying I don’t have enough information to know.

Again, my issue (stated in a very specific way intentionally) is ministry participation in a tangible way. I am not sure that having a speaker in to lecture to students and pastors on a topic of importance for a one time event is ministry participation (at least as I understand biblical fellowship). I think it is pretty obvious to most people that academic contexts are different in some ways than gathered church contexts for obvious reasons. The issue for me is ministry participation. So I will be accused of being inconsistent, but I think that is going to be a difficult case to make biblically.

Second, to Kent, only for the sake of clarification and then I will drop it as Don has requested, my understanding of your question was that you were asking me to identify what KJVOs teach that the Bible does not teach, that therefore would lead me to separation. That was my point in #1-5. The Bible does not teach that the KJV alone is the Word of God, that the TR or Majority Text alone is the word of God, that either are perfect in the sense of “photocopy perfect,” etc. So when someone says, “The KJV alone is the Word of God,” they are teaching something about the Bible that the Bible does not teach about itself, and therefore, out of obedience to God’s command, we must separate from them for adding to the doctrine of Scripture.

With respect to your position, I don’t know what you teach so I can’t really comment. You bring up #3. If you teach that one particular edition of the TR is the Word of God exactly as the original authors penned it, you are teaching something the Bible does not teach about itself. The Bible says nothing that would lead us to identify one particular edition of the TR as “the only Word of God.” Those arguments are obviously outside the Bible, which is not necessarily a problem, but they need to be held below biblical teaching, not equal to it. So aside from the argumentative/historical/evidentiary issues involved in making that case, you are substituting a conclusion drawn from the Bible’s teaching + your interpretation of the evidence for what the Bible teaches about itself. I reject that.

If your position is, “I believe this, but I realize that there are good reasons to believe otherwise, and those who believe otherwise still equally believe the Bible (given other things)” I have no problem with that .So again, not knowing what you believe, I don’t know. My points above were to give examples of places where some KJVOs have contradicted or at the very least added to the Scripture’s teaching on itself.

And with that, I will drop it here to respect Don’s wishes.

Thanks Don and Kent

Needless to say, I share your concern about mandatory separation. I believe we must separate from everything Scripture says we must. But where does it say we must separate from brothers involved in unequal yokes or only tangentially related to unequal yokes? I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a clear, unequivocal text on this matter since so much is at stake.

The Scriptures you cite are good ones. And I practice them. But where do they say I must separate from those who are improperly yoked? Perhaps there are times we should separate from them, and perhaps there are times we shouldn’t. Since Scripture doesn’t say one way or the other, shouldn’t wisdom and prudence dictate? Must we insist upon an a mandatory obedience where Scripture doesn’t?

I agree that secondary separation isn’t taught in 2 Cor. 6:14-18. But, as I pointed out in a previous post, if Paul wanted to teach such a theory, 2 Cor. 6 would have been the ideal place to do it. Since he was already commanding separation from unbelief, it would have been logically fitting to command separation from those who failed to separate from unbelievers. But he didn’t.

Again, the Scriptures you reference are certainly instructive. We should “mark” and “avoid” those who “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine” which Paul taught. But where did he teach we must “mark” those brothers (and of course all who embrace them) who are improperly yoked and “avoid them”? That idea is neither found nor suggested in Ro. 16:17. It is simply read into the text or made a “logical” extension of it.

Now there may be good reasons for marking and avoiding certain improperly yoked brothers. I happen to believe there are. But I would be leery about making such an act of separation a matter of divine fiat, especially when no fiat exists. I know this makes some folks uncomfortable. Yet applying Biblical wisdom where the Bible is silent is often awkward. But that’s exactly what the separation issue requires, since there is limited revelation about what constitutes an improperly yoked brother.

Again, you cite the passages in Second Thessalonians as Scriptural evidence for mandatory separation. I agree. They require mandatory separation in the matter involved. But, once again, where do they require separation from those brothers who are improperly yoked? Perhaps I’m wrong here, but it seems to me that extreme separatists have a nasty penchant for making the application of certain texts their interpretation. And what solid exegesis won’t do for them, application will.

In the end, recruiting passages like 2 Thess. 3:6,7,14,15 to prove secondary or tertiary separation only opens the door to proving too much. Sadly, if these texts are made to prove the Jones-Woodbridge theory, then they can be made to prove anything. Extreme separatists must divine pretty hard to find in these verses mandatory separation from improperly yoked brothers.

Brian, your comments about feelings are good. And I heartily agree. It’s not about feelings; it’s about Scriptural truth. And when I find a clear statement that I MUST separate from improperly yoked brothers, I will. Until then, I think we must leave the issue of secondary separation where the Bible leaves it–in the realm of wisdom, prudence, and discernment. This will go a long way in relieving extreme separatists of evil surmisings and unfair judgments and will, perhaps, put an end to lineal contamination.

Have a good one!

tjp

As I am writing this I pulled down a little brochure put out by the Bible faculty of BJU dated 1980 (I think this puts it squarely in the time frame that many see BJU in a bad light) titled, Biblical Separation. I would encourage you to get a copy if it is still available.

I realize that often the need for separation will be filled with emotion because of the human ties that are involved, yet we must divorce our “feelings” from the fray and examine the facts and then allow the Word to direct our actions. Based on the six verses listed above my “fellowship” with any in the CE crowd is clear, I cannot fellowship. Yes, it is just as clear when it comes to those within Fundamentalism with deviant doctrinal views on the KJV issue as well, I cannot fellowship. This “fellowship” is being used as it is defined in the Biblical sense as Don pointed out in his last post.