Preserving Some Truth

“But it also revealed that though we’ve awakened to the deficiencies in the separation paradigm of the past, we do not yet have another paradigm to adopt in its place.”

Paradigms are nice. Through the help of a local OPC pastor, I am memorizing again my Greek paradigms. But William D. Mounce’s, Basics of Biblical Greek (2009), is up-to-date and more helpful for me in 2011 than going back to my early 1990s paradigms.

It is good to evaluate what and where the fundamentals are under attack in 2011, which leaders and movements attract us because of their building us up in these fundamentals, and which leaders and movements are systematically seeking to tear the fabric of the faith down in our country.

When I think of “Cultural Conservatism”, I think of two places in our country: the I-15 Corridor and the Southern Bible Belt.

In the West, I think of all the General Authorities. I think of the magnificent music being piped from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I think of the robust activity of the Boy Scouts of America.

With the increasing fervor, I think of Sarah Palin and her Alaskan show! (chuckling).

I can’t remember, how does Bauder define “Cultural Conservatism”?

I agree, Aaron.

Speaking for the younger generation, I dont think that the problem is that we dont or dont want to take separation seriously. I take Scripture seriously and therefore (so I hope) I take separation seriously. I think my generation struggles with the old paradigm because for all of the separation talk there is little talk on how we are to be united in unity in order to fulfill what Jesus prays for in John 17 - that we would be one as He and the Father are one. While I realize John H. Armstrong has jumped the conservative evangelical ship, he makes a good case for this in his book Your Church is Too Small.

Can I encourage the pastors on SI to do something? Get together locally with the pastors of churches in your area to work some of this stuff out. This sounds like it was an awesome conference but at conferences like these, you are talking about these issues with men who you don’t see unless you are at one of these national meetings. You will learn to work better with the men in your area by actually meeting with them.

Today, I particpated in a meeting in our area that was attended by Pastors that spanned the spectrums of fundamentalism. The subject of unity was a big part of what was shared. I left that meeting encouraged in the Lord.

I agree that it is widely misunderstood, although I wouldn’t state it exactly the way Aaron does.

But note that the fulfillment of Jn 17 is the responsibility of the Father. He is the one petitioned, not the disciples, and he is the only one with the power to accomplish the task, given the ongoing issues the disciples have with the flesh. When redemption is complete, the prayer will be answered.

That isn’t to say that we should give no thought to rightly relating ourselves to brethren, as you point out with respect to other passages. But even there, the unity is a state that exists more than a command to be fulfilled, as I recall.

A key component, he said, was to recover the Christian doctrine of vocation and stop viewing God’s call to business, science, medicine, the arts, etc. as inferior to God’s call to do the things we usually think of as “ministry.”

I read a quote by J.I. Packer along these lines:

Young people were conditioned to believe that only overseas missionary service and full-time pastoral ministry were fully worthwhile vocations; the value of other employments was merely that the money you made could be used to support missions and churches. Beyond this, let the world go by! Separation, understood as uninterested detachment, was the only proper Christian stance in relation to it.

The full text is http://www.chaleteagle.org/library/biblio/sec-23/bk002-for.htm here

I agree with Dr. Bauder and I hope we recover that doctrine of vocation soon.

[Aaron Blumer]

2) John 17 is widely misunderstood. My own understanding of the passage is that Jesus is praying that all whom God has given Him will believe and thus be part of the whole, the “one.” It isn’t really about unity as we usually think of the word (visibly getting together or doing a project together, or an institutional joining, etc.). But other passages do talk about the unity of the faith (Eph.4 for example).

The John 17 passage w/more of its context…

Jn 17:20–23 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

But some of the unity must be visible before the world, or it will not fulfill the vision of Christ that the world will believe because of that unity (v. 21) and know because of that unity (v. 23). I think it might be safer to say that it need not be “institutional”. I don’t have to be in your association or denomination or club, but I must acknowledge and act as though other believers (as defined in Scripture) are actually believers, rather than make them pariahs because of some cultural differences.

The title seems odd here. I can hear some saying, “Yea, they only preserve ‘some’ truth”. Some of us look at it the other way, some of what they’re preserving is in the category of inviolable truth, other positions are as they even admit: “peripheral”.

I’m interested in listening to the audio, and particularly the panel discussion. It is invaluable to listen in on such panel discussions, even if the open talk can be a bit dangerous.

It’s interesting that there is still so many questions among the separatists, if people are so upset at the young fundamentalists who are leaving. If you have unanswered questions yourself, why not allow others to find some answers, even if it leads them a bit outside your quarters?

Just a few thoughts, but I’m hopeful that most of the conference was helpful in pushing real reform and thoughtful interaction by fundamentalists on these issues.

As someone else mentioned though, I do hope one of the topics they press at some point is the unity that Paul says we are to preserve, and the mutual recognition and welcoming expressed in the following verses I have taken as a motto for my blogging activities:

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Rom. 15:5-7)

…eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. …until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…. (Eph. 4:3, 13)

Aaron, I agree that the unity Christ is praying for in Jn. 17 is something that is done by the Father. But, Jesus prayed that the church would be one as He & the Father were. Are we to say that Jesus was just a passive recipient of the Fathers action in their unified relationship? While the Father may have had the leading role I think it is correct to say (and not merely conjecture or assumption) that Christ had a role to play in unifying their relationship.

Also, yes this is a salvific context no doubt but we are to show the world the unity we have with the Father through that salvation.

3 things show that this unified relationship is to be public.

1. In vs. 15 Jesus does not ask the Father to take them out of the world. So while Christ was going back to the Father to be in His presence He was not bringing His people with Him.

2. In vs. 23 Christ gives the purpose for this unity with the Father through Christ, “so that the world may know that you sent Me and loved them even as you loved me (ESV).” At minimum, one of the ways, if not the primary way, in which the world comes to know of this unity is how God’s people love it our before the world.

3. There is no question that one of the major themes of the Gospel of John is Jesus’ proclamation that He is God, has come from the Father and therefore has a unified relationship with the Father. This relationship was displayed in everything Christ did on earth. The church is to do the same - to show to the world the unity we have with God the Father as Christ did. It is public.

I dare say that the current separationist model is not able to incorporate Jn. 17 into it the way Christ intended the church to practice it.

I dare say that the current separationist model is not able to incorporate Jn. 17 into it the way Christ intended the church to practice it.

I wonder if you might enlarge on this and give us your reasons for saying this, and how that correlates with the NT commands on separation.

Larry, the other problem my generation has with the current separationist model is that we cannot see the Biblical basis for 2nd degree separation and so on. I am all for separating from those who water down the Gospel, who cause divisions and who deny the faith but I dont see the Biblical basis for separating from John Piper because he invites Rick Warren to his conference because Warren may associate with people I think I should hold at bay. In reference to Compton’s statement that he would not have Grudem speak in his church or do ministry with him because he is a continuationist, I jut cannot agree with that and dont see how Scripture supports that period or in such a way that we all have to feel we have to do so or we are compromising the Gospel. If he or others dont want to because they cant in good conscience then that is fine. I think it would go along way if it was admitted that not everyone has to see it that way and that if you do engage in ministry in a way that they would not that we will not separate from you because of it.

The world of 2nd degree separation is where the heart of the issue lies for my generation. God wants separation from that which threatens the Gospel but He wants His people to be unified before the world. I dont see how this separationist model can accomplish this.

[Aaron Blumer] The Rom.15 and Eph 4 passages you quoted sparked my memory on that point because it’s not clear to me exactly how admonitions to local churches to be unified within relates to how they are unified with other churches. Exegetically speaking, we usually take what’s in epistles as being directed to relationships within local assemblies—but sometimes take them in a broader sense. I’m not sure off hand what the guiding principle is in deciding when it’s one and when it’s the other.

I’m not so sure our exegetically clear and convenient slicing and dicing works when we compare the church at Rome to our church of 250 normal folks. It’s clear in Romans, for instance, that more than one assembly is being addressed. The New Testament often uses the moniker “church” for all the believers in a given city. Enter denominations, church splits, and independent groups run wild for 2000 years and the picture that emerges isn’t a one-to-one correspondence, in my opinion. Ephesians was by most accounts written as a circular letter to more than one church. And Romans includes house churches (see Rom. 16).

Furthermore, the picture the NT gives me in a cumulative sense is not that one little assembly is all you need. Rather we find an inter-connectedness and mutual dependency, with some figures having more wide-reaching authority, apostles and others (like Timothy and Titus). I would say instructions on how to treat fellow Christians, should be followed inside and outside of what today we label a church.

[Aaron Blumer] The other major question I didn’t get to ask was whether we ought to see the term “separation” as referring to mere absence of fellowship (as KBauder has seemed to suggest more than once) or whether it is something more

1. intentional
2. communicated
3. punitive/censorious
   

That would have been a great question to ask! That’s been on my mind too. I think separation includes what you list above, and is centered on more major problems, like Doran mentioned in his message on Rom. 16. Being post-trib, disagreeing with congregational church rule, being open to the miraculous gifts being operative today, using contemporary musical styles, not holding to the KJB only — these and other such points of opinion are not what Rom. 16 is envisioning as worthy of such censorious separation. Now these might naturally limit how we cooperate and work with others, but is that limitation really a separation element. I would say groups like my former church, Bethlehem Baptist where John Piper is the pastor, that they have limited fellowship with other churches and groups that disagree on some of the more peripheral applicatory elements of church life. But they employ Rom. 16 separation to groups and people who are directly and seriously impacting the gospel. Problem is, fundamentalist groups tend to view the “limitation of ministry cooperation” as separation. Then when someone doesn’t limit cooperation exactly like they do, that person or church is not “practicing separation”. When in fact they are by a more serious and elevated definition. It all boils down to a difference in the ministry cooperation, and how much differences we can allow. I would contend we can allow quite a bit of differences, and still not have Rom. 16 come to play. Rather we have Rom. 14-15 to guide us.

(Incidentally, how can the Rom. 16 passage really apply to the church at large if its focused to just one church, too? I think we have to be careful in couching directives in the epistles as applicable only to the believers in a local assembly.)

Thanks for the discussion, it is helpful to think through these things and get this written down.

[CPHurst] Larry, the other problem my generation has with the current separationist model is that we cannot see the Biblical basis for 2nd degree separation and so on. I am all for separating from those who water down the Gospel, who cause divisions and who deny the faith but I dont see the Biblical basis for separating from John Piper because he invites Rick Warren to his conference because Warren may associate with people I think I should hold at bay. In reference to Compton’s statement that he would not have Grudem speak in his church or do ministry with him because he is a continuationist, I jut cannot agree with that and dont see how Scripture supports that period or in such a way that we all have to feel we have to do so or we are compromising the Gospel. If he or others dont want to because they cant in good conscience then that is fine. I think it would go along way if it was admitted that not everyone has to see it that way and that if you do engage in ministry in a way that they would not that we will not separate from you because of it.

The world of 2nd degree separation is where the heart of the issue lies for my generation. God wants separation from that which threatens the Gospel but He wants His people to be unified before the world. I dont see how this separationist model can accomplish this.

I was struck by the following statement from Compton quoted by Aaron, too.

Compton’s view was that personal fellowship with non-cessationists was not a problem, but that continuationism’s threat to our belief in a closed canon is serious enough to preclude some other forms of fellowship. He explained that this included avoiding ministry cooperation and pulpit cooperation with non-cessationists.

How does he think Grudem’s view is a serious “threat to our belief in a closed canon”. Grudem is miles from that. That seems to be a stretch to allow for having some reason not to fellowship with those people.

I would also agree with CPHurst here that in the fundamentalist structure of separation, there’s a constant fear of being written off by others because you don’t apply secondary separation like they would. Once you see enough of this bickering and intramural nitpicking, its enough to turn you off to that kind of thinking. Some catapult (or is the word now “leapfrog”) out into who knows where in evangelicalism due to this. But some of us just end up seeing the label doesn’t mean anything. We continue following Scripture and respecting our heritage, but realizing that much in fundamentalism is not praiseworthy. I’ve gone through a bit of a pendulum swing myself, and I’m not ready now to just throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. There are good things in fundamentalism too. But the partisan spirit needs to stop, and so I applaud efforts to figure out how separation should work in such a way as to be able to approve in many ways, at least, the good things God is doing with others not in one’s own little box.

Bob Hayton wrote: Furthermore, the picture the NT gives me in a cumulative sense is not that one little assembly is all you need. Rather we find an inter-connectedness and mutual dependency, with some figures having more wide-reaching authority, apostles and others (like Timothy and Titus). I would say instructions on how to treat fellow Christians, should be followed inside and outside of what today we label a church.

This would be an interesting discussion, though probably for another thread. Do you not see a transition period into this dispensation? If you are expecting the leadership functions to continue beyond Acts, are you also a non-cessationist expecting all spiritual gifts to continue as well?

Chip,

Yes I see a transition. No more apostles, I get that. But it should be instructive when we come away arguing for a complete autonomy and independence of churches. The NT doesn’t show that or model that, exactly. Mutual dependency, and inter-connectedness can happen without apostolic figureheads. But some sort of denominational structure could work too to preserve this sense that we find in the NT.

I agree it’s really another discussion, but I brought it up to try to show that just taking the unity passages and saying they’re all focused specifically on the unity within each individual assembly, doesn’t do justice to the NT as a whole or those passages specifically (in my humble opinion, of course).

Thanks, CPHurst, Let me come back at you a bit here, hopefully with grace and tact, because I think this is important, and I welcome your response.

we cannot see the Biblical basis for 2nd degree separation and so on.

Let me try to simply (not simplistically) lay it out how I see it.

1. Scripture unequivocally commands separation from apostates and false teachers (Romans 16:17-18). I think Doran is right that Romans 16:17-18 apply to truth with eternal ramifications.

2. Scripture unequivocally commands separation from believers who disobey the apostolic tradition (2 Thess 3).

Note: Neither passage is open-ended, applying to whatever personal preferences or convictions a person might have. There are clear lines in each passage. It is true that some want to apply 2 Thess 3 out three or four or five times. I reject that. But it seems to me that the principle is explicitly clear.

3. When someone fails to obey #1, then #2 comes into play.

I think “secondary separation” is a misnomer. In the above scenario, I am separating from the person in #2 because of the disobedience of person #2. That is not secondary. It is primary.

So let’s take your example (Piper/Warren/people I think I should hold at bay) though I am not comfortable with it for a number of reasons.

1. I think what you describe is not secondary, but tertiary, and I am uncomfortable with that.

2. I think it depends on the reason why you think he should be held at bay. I may not fellowship with someone over practical, theological, or philosophical reasons that are outside the bounds of Romans 16 or 2 Thessalonians 3.

3. If Warren has failed to obey the biblical commands to separate from false teachers or apostates, then Piper should separate from him. If Piper doesn’t, then Piper has clearly disobeyed the apostolic tradition in Romans 16:17-18.

4 Now the question is how do we respond to people who fail to follow clearly revealed apostolic teaching (e.g., #3)?

I would like to see your response to the scenario laid out in this way. If you think the scenario is wrong or misguided, I welcome correction on it. How you would answer #4.

In reference to Compton’s statement that he would not have Grudem speak in his church or do ministry with him because he is a continuationist, I jut cannot agree with that and dont see how Scripture supports that period or in such a way that we all have to feel we have to do so or we are compromising the Gospel. If he or others dont want to because they cant in good conscience then that is fine.

Wasn’t Doran clear that everyone doesn’t have to draw the lines in the same way though? Furthermore, did Compton say he wouldn’t have fellowship with you if you had Grudem? I didn’t hear him on that and haven’t read the notes yet.

Personally, I don’t think I would have Grudem because I think (1) he causes sufficient confusion so as not to be helpful, and (2) I think there are people who are more accurate who don’t have the baggage. I don’t think you should have Grudem for the same reasons. But what will I do if you have Grudem? The answer is nothing because you and I have no fellowship anyway. We have no meaningful unity so far as I can see. It’s not perjorative. It’s just the way it is.

I think it would go along way if it was admitted that not everyone has to see it that way and that if you do engage in ministry in a way that they would not that we will not separate from you because of it.

I think that has been made pretty clear by some, though not all agree.

God wants separation from that which threatens the Gospel but He wants His people to be unified before the world. I dont see how this separationist model can accomplish this.

John 17 is an interesting passage but I think it is being misused, or least made to bear some weight it can’t bear.

What does unity mean if it involves Wayne Grudem and me? Is the world really helped by the type of “unity” that is displayed by Wayne Grudem and me? I can’t see how. For unity to be seen, it must actually be seen. Wayne Grudem and I have no kind of way to have any unity. I am not against Grudem. I don’t know him. I think he is wrong on the prophecy thing, and I am not alone in that. I have recommended his Systematic Theology to people because I think it is a helpful volume. But that hardly seems to me to be the kind of unity John 17 is talking about.

How does he think Grudem’s view is a serious “threat to our belief in a closed canon”. Grudem is miles from that. That seems to be a stretch to allow for having some reason not to fellowship with those people.

I don’t think Grudem is “miles” from that. He affirms a closed canon, but I think there are some weaknesses that leave the door open. The question is, How important is that?

Furthermore, the picture the NT gives me in a cumulative sense is not that one little assembly is all you need. Rather we find an inter-connectedness and mutual dependency, with some figures having more wide-reaching authority, apostles and others (like Timothy and Titus). I would say instructions on how to treat fellow Christians, should be followed inside and outside of what today we label a church.

Where do you see this interconnectedness in the NT, aside from apostles? I can only think of two instances, but I will wait for your response.

Incidentally, how can the Rom. 16 passage really apply to the church at large if its focused to just one church, too?

I don’t know why it would apply to the “church at large” differently than the individual church? We are talking about relationships between churches right? So that is an individual church issue. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you though.

I agree with Bob Hayden that Grudem is not a threat and far from it. I would have him preach in my church or do chapel in my Bible college or seminary. But I think there would be an understanding of what he might not speak on:) I am sure he would be respectful to that and thus we could join together.

Grudem is probably a signer of the statement on inspiration and inerrancy the evangelicals did a few years ago (or would likely affirm it if he didn’t actually sign it).

But in order to avoid the problem of an open canon with ongoing spiritual gifts (specifically prophecy but also tongues), he has done two things:

1. He has dumbed New Testament prophecy down to mean just an impression that may or may not be true.

2. He has claimed that Agabus was mistaken in Acts when he predicted Paul’s captivity and imprisonment (even though Luke specifically says Agabus spoke by the Spirit).

You can’t have # 2 without having an error in Acts.

For corroboration, see his book The Gift of Prophecy. The reasoning in this book is really atrocious and as a result I don’t recommend anything Grudem writes. I don’t trust him.

Larry, here is my response:

1. I agree with the conclusion of #1 so we are agreed on that.

2. I do not see this passage as contextually related to the issue. The context is dealing with the return of Christ. Paul is urging Timothy to “keep away” from those who are “idle” in waiting for Christs return because this idleness “is not in accord with the tradition you received from us (2 Thess. 3:6 - ESV).” The “tradition” that Timothy had received was that of the teaching of working while waiting for Christs return. The tradition Paul speaks of here does not point to the core/central doctrines of the faith that Paul had spoken of elsewhere in the Pastorals.

NOTE: if we disagree on the meaning of this passage then we might have a hard time on the whole issue - or at least some of it.

3. Can you supply some other verses besides 2 Thess. 3 that we could both agree on being contextually speak to 2nd degree separation?

My Example:

1. If we dont agree on the interpretation of 2 Thess. 3 then my response might be meaningless.

2. The issue of how to deal with Piper on Warren (assuming Warren deals with lets say Catholics) is that how far do you take it?

3. Do you see a secondary separation in Scripture? I think I would be ok with saying there is one kind of separation that has two parts and both are equally important. However, if I dont agree with your understanding of 2 Thess. 3 then we might be at an impasse here.

4. As far as Piper and Warren (or anyone else for that matter) is concerned then I think it depends on what circle of fellowship that person has with someone whom I would not fellowship with. If they speak at a conference together then I would be fine with that but if he were to have a liberal or catholic preach in his pulpit and Piper did not break fellowship with him then I would be having a strong conversation with him and if the disagreement could not be resolved then we would have to break ties.

NOTE: if this is example is tertiary then what is secondary separation? From what you say there is no secondary separation unless i missed something.

I would be interested to hear your opinion of how to handle the Manhattan Declaration.

Grudem issue:

1. If we were local how would you relate to me if I had Grudem in?

2. I think saying that since Grudem is not near you and you dont know him therefore you are not unified is missing some of the point. Imagine you were local to each other. Ask yourself if you two are holding forth and proclaiming the same Gospel?

John 17 issue:

Can you show me where I am wrong in my understanding and application on this passage? I am open to correction. I wish I could have been at this conference and I am looking forward to listening to the audio which I am sure will bring more discussion:)

CPHurst,

I think 2 John 10-11 also applies to secondary separation in the reference to sharing of responsibility for other’s actions.

Chip, this passage is dealing with separating from someone who directly denies (first degree separation) the incarnation of Christ (an Antichrist). This does not speak to how I should treat someone else who does allow this kind of person into their house/church. I dont know of anyone who would allow this kind of person into their fellowship or church period that would warrant me from breaking fellowship with them. This would be such a small minority of people whom most of us will not come in contact with or have to exercise this injunction. If on the off chance I had a friend who did allow this kind of person into their church to speak then I would separate from them if they did not denounce their action. I think it would be safe to say that the kind of people we are talking about separating from do not fit this bill.

NOTE: I know people who use this verse to say that they will not allow Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons into their house when they come to the door even to witness to them. This is another misinterpretation of this passage. 2 John is written with the house church in mind. This would mean there was much more room for open discussion among all the attendees and thus they were to keep these antichrists out - and for good reason. I would say that this applies to our churches today - we should keep them out.

I think it would be beneficial to see a list or single examples (with support) of present day people or organizations whom SI members think they and others should separate from based on noted Scriptural references.

I would also agree with CPHurst here that in the fundamentalist structure of separation, there’s a constant fear of being written off by others because you don’t apply secondary separation like they would. Once you see enough of this bickering and intramural nitpicking, its enough to turn you off to that kind of thinking. Some catapult (or is the word now “leapfrog”) out into who knows where in evangelicalism due to this. But some of us just end up seeing the label doesn’t mean anything. We continue following Scripture and respecting our heritage, but realizing that much in fundamentalism is not praiseworthy. I’ve gone through a bit of a pendulum swing myself, and I’m not ready now to just throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. There are good things in fundamentalism too. But the partisan spirit needs to stop, and so I applaud efforts to figure out how separation should work in such a way as to be able to approve in many ways, at least, the good things God is doing with others not in one’s own little box.

So far in your discussion I’ve really appreciated Hurst and Hayton (Hayton’s quote above). I’ve said it before—a lot of these issues surface as a local church hosts a speaker or a conference. Gets even hairier when it’s a Christian educational institution whose constituents insist that the views expressed by their alma mater or the speakers brought in pass the litmus test of the individual or a small group of individuals. These folks don’t agree to disagree. They make the molehill into a mountain and “tests of faith”—as Hayton says in his quote. I’m very heartened at the attempts to overcome the mistakes of the past without discarding any and all scriptural

injunctions. God grant us wisdom, humility, and patience as we try.

I just read Scott’s paper entitled “Preserving Truth In Our Worship” and I believe he raises some important points. At the same time, I know of homosexual churches in our community that have “preserved” conservative worship but are an abomination to God.

You also have many examples of groups and churches preserving conservative worship but drifting far from God.

So, while I could never be comfortable with an “anything goes” approach to worship, I am not sure I buy Scott’s argument.

In Paul’s letters to Timothy, there is an emphasis on the preservation of truth. Are there any examples in those letters where Paul taught Timothy that worship form was essential to the preservation of truth?

[Larry] Where do you see this interconnectedness in the NT, aside from apostles? I can only think of two instances, but I will wait for your response.

I could turn the table and ask where you see total autonomy and independence in the NT, too. So the seven churches of Asia share letters and are viewed together, in a sense. The churches work together for sending money to Jerusalem. The churches of God have a tradition commonly held. Churches send representatives to go with the apostles and help them. Paul’s work involves lots of pulling people from one place to another, and Timothy doing this for him and Titus that. The churches work together in Acts 15 to decide matters.

I think we aren’t given a church government manual nor an ecclesiology book in the NT. We have to piece together what we see. Where do you see anything in the NT where there isn’t apostles involved, really? I think they leave the scene, but that during their ministry they weren’t setting up independent bishoprics, but mutually connected and sharing congregations. Congregations were normally considered to be city wide, and sometimes were almost assuredly meeting in several different groups but all considered one church, as in Jerusalem and Ephesus.

I guess another thought is when it says “Church of God at Corinth”, do we really have that mindset when it comes to Minneapolis? The “Church of God at Minneapolis”? Is there an imperative built into this that we should be viewing other believers across church lines, as part of the true church of God in our city? Shouldn’t that impact unity too?

I’m not necessarily working through all aspects of this, but I find that the local church only ideas and the Baptist autonomy, while helpful in many respects and useful in encouraging true body life happening in local assemblies, nevertheless can foster an ultra independent spirit which truly is at odds with what we see in the NT. The koinonia there is so much different than what we see today. We kind of take 850+ denominations for granted today, but can you really think that is the norm expected by the NT authors?

As for my Rom. 16 and local church bit, I am really replying to Aaron’s bringing up the fact that Rom. 15 and Eph. 4 are addressed to individual local churches and so really apply only to relations with believers inside the local church. I’m arguing that this isn’t the case, we should see these passages as directly addressing how we relate to believers that we know in our city and beyond, not necessarily just those within our own local assembly.

Hi Bob,

Been following the thread, enjoying it very much. I have a request for one point of clarity. You mention…

[Bob Hayton] Congregations were normally considered to be city wide, and sometimes were almost assuredly meeting in several different groups but all considered one church, as in Jerusalem and Ephesus.

Could you point to biblical evidence on this? Thanks. In Ephesus, it seems like there was only one congregation led by a plurality of elders, no? (Acts 20:17, 28).

Any help is appreciated.

BTW (shameless self-serving plug here): my book, The Titus Mandate (www.TheTitusMandate.org) releases later this month (based on Titus 1:5). In it, I do argue that the NT certainly does teach a comprehensive church government model called eldership. Perhaps you would consider reviewing it at some point?

[Pastor Joe Roof] I just read Scott’s paper entitled “Preserving Truth In Our Worship” and I believe he raises some important points. At the same time, I know of homosexual churches in our community that have “preserved” conservative worship but are an abomination to God.

You also have many examples of groups and churches preserving conservative worship but drifting far from God.

So, while I could never be comfortable with an “anything goes” approach to worship, I am not sure I buy Scott’s argument.

In Paul’s letters to Timothy, there is an emphasis on the preservation of truth. Are there any examples in those letters where Paul taught Timothy that worship form was essential to the preservation of truth?

Joe:

I’ve been working my way through the audio. “Conservative worship is essential to preserving the truth.” Incredible! A position looking for a place to land or a ministry needing a reason to exist. I don’t think many will buy into the arguments who are not already convinced.

Anyway if the preservation of the truth depends on us we’re in bad shape. I thought it was already preserved and we are to proclaim it and contend for it. Of course we do guard the truth etc. but this issue seems like reading back into Scripture what has already been decided. You can’t arrive at this position starting with Scripture. At best you can support this position as valid but in no way exclusive. It will connect with a segment of the Christian world but for reasons other than biblical ones.

Steve

[Steve Davis] I’ve been working my way through the audio. “Conservative worship is essential to preserving the truth.” Incredible! A position looking for a place to land or a ministry needing a reason to exist. I don’t think many will buy into the arguments who are not already convinced.

Anyway if the preservation of the truth depends on us we’re in bad shape. I thought it was already preserved and we are to proclaim it and contend for it. Of course we do guard the truth etc. but this issue seems like reading back into Scripture what has already been decided. You can’t arrive at this position starting with Scripture. At best you can support this position as valid but in no way exclusive. It will connect with a segment of the Christian world but for reasons other than biblical ones.

I’m glad to see that I wasn’t the only one with an raised eyebrow when I saw the title of that workshop.

My understanding is that Scriptural Truth drives Scriptural Worship (John 4:19-24), not the other way around. Scriptural Truth remains - no, endures forever - Conservative worship…well, that can mean any number of things depending upon culture, time, history, etc, which means that it is hardly a fixed set of principles or practices.

I’ve downloaded Aniol’s presentation, but haven’t listened to it yet. Maybe I’ll be persuaded otherwise, but somehow I don’t think that will happen.

—edit—

Are there any examples in those letters where Paul taught Timothy that worship form was essential to the preservation of truth?

Pastor Joe, I can’t think of any passages in the Pastorals where worship forms are proscribed.

Thanks, CPHurst. Here’s my somewhat brief and jumbled response (apparently not brief enough because I have to post it in two parts). I think this is a very important discussion that needs to be had, and I would love to see some others contribute to it.

About 2 Thessalonians 3 (enumerated for ease of following):

1. The basis for separation is “our teaching in this letter” (v. 14). which includes far more than simply not working. It even includes eschatology, something most people don’t want to separate over. In fact, according to 2 Thess 2:1ff., it includes the timing involved in eschatology (The DOL will not happen until …). So if we are supposed to separate over “our teaching in this letter,” what does that mean?

2. Limiting Paul’s command to “not working” creates a sort of canon within a canon, where the command to ‘work” is more important than other apostolic teaching, and I am not convinced that is legitimate. In other words, I am not sure why we should separate from people who disobey the command to work, but not from people who disobey the command to separate. Why is working more important than separating over false teaching?

3. Furthermore, if “our instruction in this letter” includes separation from the lazy, then vv. 14-15 command rebuke and separation for failure to separate (again because separation from the lazy is part of “our teaching in this letter”). That is usually what is considered secondary separation. So it seems to me that the idea of secondary separation is clear (though I hate the term). The only issue is what are the issues for which it is appropriately enacted. This, to me, is where the heart of the discussion is.

4. In sum, I know of no reason why the core/central doctrines elsewhere are less important than working is, particularly given the commands in other places.

5. I suppose a lot does hinge on 2 Thess 3 though I don’t think that is a problem.

I think I would be ok with saying there is one kind of separation that has two parts and both are equally important.

I think that’s what I would say. I don’t like the term “secondary separation,” as I said above. Though I don’t know what you mean by “two parts,” I mean separation from apostates and from disobedient brothers. I think both are clearly commanded in Scripture.

If they speak at a conference together then I would be fine with that but if he were to have a liberal or catholic preach in his pulpit and Piper did not break fellowship with him then I would be having a strong conversation with him and if the disagreement could not be resolved then we would have to break ties.

So how is that not secondary separation, and what passage of Scripture would you use to support this?

If I understand this correctly, I think what you have just said here is the classic position on “secondary separation.” If person A has have a liberal or Catholic to preach, and person B has person A, then we separate from person A because he failed to separate from person B.

Right now, I know of a group of people in Michigan having a speaker that I think causes serious concerns. Were I a part of that group, I would make it an issue. This situation would cause me to have some conversations with people in that group about how this type of thing can happen. Now would I separate from someone over being a part of the group that has this speaker? Probably not if all over things were in line. But if there were other problems, this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In any event, it is concerning.

The point is that here is a situation that causes concern that may or may not lead to “secondary separation.”

NOTE: if this is example is tertiary then what is secondary separation?

Again, while I don’t like the term “secondary separation,” (can I quit saying that yet?) if I understand you correctly, what you describe is separating from Piper because he didn’t separate from Warren who didn’t separate from someone you think you should hold at bay. That is you think you should hold at bay a particular person (primary), Warren (secondary), Piper (tertiary). Your discussion is whether to separate from Piper, not Warren or the person you should hold at bay.

I would be interested to hear your opinion of how to handle the Manhattan Declaration.

It would depend on other things. I think signing the MD was completely wrong because it gave some recognition of apostates as “Christians.” On top of that, I think it was totally useless.

However, I am not so naïve as to deny that there is a use of “Christian” as a social/cultural category rather than a theological one. One time on the train to Toronto, I talked for several hours with a young man who affirmed he was a Christian because his mother was Greek Orthodox. It wasn’t about faith; it was about a social/cultural identification. For someone from a Middle Eastern/Eastern Europe background that is far more significant than it is here, I think.

And if that was the reason one signed it—because they use “Christian” instead of Jew, Muslim, etc; i.e., as a social/cultural category—then I at least understand that. So if this were a pattern on top of other things, it would be a major issue. If it were someone who has an otherwise clear stand on the gospel, and who clearly explains their understanding of the term in the document, it might be a lesser issue.

So make no mistake: I think signing the MD was wrong. I have no relationship with anyone who signed it (that I know of), and so separation over the MD means nothing for me.

1. If we were local how would you relate to me if I had Grudem in?

I don’t really know. All other things being equal, I would probably tell you I don’t think it is wise and I think it is unnecessary. I don’t know of any purpose that Grudem serves that cannot be served by someone else with less baggage. But am I going to break fellowship with you over it? Probably not.

But it’s tough. If you are having Grudem to speak on spiritual gifts, I am not going to announce it to my church and invite them to go, and were it a public invitation, I would explain why I am not announcing or encouraging our church to go. If you are having Grudem speak on the Christian and politics, I might not say anything about it, or I might announce it. I haven’t read his book yet so I don’t know what he says.

And if it became a constant pattern, it might affect public relationships. I really don’t know. For me, I hate dealing in these hypotheticals. It is almost never as simple as this. I am willing to grant more slack to people I know well who I believe are in line with me generally speaking. I am willing to grant less slack to people I know who don’t agree with me generally speaking. I am often willing to ignore people I don’t even know who have no impact in my church.

2. I think saying that since Grudem is not near you and you dont know him therefore you are not unified is missing some of the point.

But what kind of unity do we have? If he and I have unity, then what does unity mean? It does not merely mean agree with each other about something, even if it is the gospel.

Imagine you were local to each other. Ask yourself if you two are holding forth and proclaiming the same Gospel?

But I don’t see how this is unity. This is already assumed by the fact that they believed. All believers hold to the same gospel and are supposed to be proclaiming the same gospel. So it seems it would create a tautology of sorts here: Since you believe in the same gospel, be one/have unity. But belief in the gospel is what creates the unity, and Jesus seems to be talking about something else or Jesus would, in effect, be praying for something (that they may be one) that had already taken place when they “believe on [him] through their word.”

Furthermore, the phrase “that the world may believe that you sent me” seems to establish a sort of apologetic purpose here. How will the world believe that God sent Jesus because Wayne Grudem and I — who have never met, live thousands of miles apart, have never spoken at the same place, have never been seen together, etc ,— How will the world believe that God sent Jesus because Wayne Grudem and I claim unity? (or take Grudem out of it and substitute one of thousands of other names in here).

So again I ask, if that’s unity, then what is unity? Mere agreement? To me, if it can’t be seen, then I question whether it is what Jesus is talking about in John 17. To me that falls short of anything that seems reasonable.

Aaron, the unity Christ had w/ the Father while on earth was evidenced through what He said & did. Christ visibly manifested His unity w/ the Father. I think that to demand the Father to be present in spirit form on earth as the only way to say our unity must be visible is to press the comparison too far and miss the point. Christ’s unity w/ the Father was visibly displayed through all He did (ie - miracles & I am statements).

It seems to me that the concept of “independent” church has resulted in every church thinking they are it when it comes to proclaiming the truth. Independent means they are self governing not that they therefore dont have an obligation to fellowship w/ other like-minded churches. I think it would be more healthy for us to think of ourselves as all the church of Christ (not to be confused w/ the denomination) first. So, we should seek to manifest ourselves as the one body of Christ that we are invisibly and then along the way of we need to separate from a church then we do so. I think the idea of “independent” makes us think backwards.

Further, if we are the one body of Christ then we need to ask ourselves what the implications of that are beyond our local congregation. At what point is a local congregations habit of separating from everyone hurting the one body of Christ? No doubt we are to separate from apostates, those who deny the core doctrines of the church & the Gospel but with the way our churches separate you would think each church was the only one that did not do these things.

Aaron, are you saying that God does not want His one body to work together as best they can? That we are just supposed to think of ourselves as one in essence. Groups like the Gospel Coalition & T4G are trying to get together like-minded churches for the purpose of edifying, training & proclamation of the Gospel. I think this is a great way for the church of Christ to show to the love of the Father for us and the unity it gives us since we all share Christ crucified (Jn. 17).

So on the way to church last night I was discussing all of this w/ my wife in the car. In doing so I think I might have figured out the logic of secondary separation (separating from someone who dosent separate from some they should) since I cannot find a specific verse that directly speaks to it and all the verses that have been offered thus far refer to primary separation (at least in my mind).

Here it goes:

Two undeniable foundational commands:

1. We are to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

2. We are to “avoid”…”those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” (Rom. 16:17).

The argument - We are to deny fellowship with those who do not contend for the faith and cause divisions & obstacles w/ their teachings/behavior. The command to do so is itself part of the apostolic teaching. Therefore, anyone who does not practice separation from these kinds of people is to be some who I deny fellowship w/ as well.

The assumption here is that the command to separate from those mentioned above is itself part of the teaching we are to adhere to. To me this is the crux of the issue. If we say that the teachings of the apostles that we are to separate over are the core doctrines of the faith then the command to separate over them is not part of that core teaching and to my knowledge it has not been so historically.

A few observations:

1. If this were the case then there are very few to my knowledge that fit into this category.

2. I dont know of anyone (those others might know someone themselves) who would fellowship ecclesiastically w/ a faith/core doctrine denier such that I would have to deny fellowship w/ them for doing so.

So, beyond primary separation who is the current model for separation saying we should separate from? Has too much been made of something that would be rarely practiced?

I admit that my thoughts may be sketchy but I am trying to think out loud here so bear with me - I love the interaction!

thanks Bob, A quick response … Shorter than the last one.

I could turn the table and ask where you see total autonomy and independence in the NT, too.

I would say all over. The only place in the NT where I can find authority outside a church is with the apostles. If we agree that there are no more apostles, then I think the entire weight of the NT shows independent congregations without outside authority. You don’t see the churches of Galatia dictating what the church at Ephesus did, or the church at Philippi dictating the church at Thessalonica, even though they were close.

So the seven churches of Asia share letters and are viewed together, in a sense.

This is one of the interchurch relationships I was thinking of. You have them exchanging letters (cf. Col 4:15, where they exchange a letter that is no longer extant). So there was a sharing of apostolic communication.

The churches work together for sending money to Jerusalem.

Most independent church models recognize the value of this. Those are decisions made by the church individually, not forced on them from outside. The most that can be said is that other congregations are used as an example (2 Cor 8).

The churches of God have a tradition commonly held.

Yes, but hardly what we are talking about here, is it? I would ask, as I did CPHurst, what is unity if it merely means that we have a common tradition?

Churches send representatives to go with the apostles and help them.

Yes, again, recognized by all independent churches. And the practice of sending representatives to other churches is well established (ordination councils, mission trips, etc.).

Paul’s work involves lots of pulling people from one place to another, and Timothy doing this for him and Titus that.

Lots of it? Not sure about the amount. You mention the two main ones from twenty plus years of Pauls’ ministry. So I am not sure that averaging one every ten years is “lots” but that’s a side point. The main point is that this is apostolic authority, which no longer exists. I don’t think any church today has the right to send someone to another church. You can invite my church to come and help advise (such as an ordination council). But I can’t send a man from my church to come and straighten your church out. Your church would reject that, and rightly so. But that’s exactly what Paul did with Timothy and Titus. So I don’t think we can use that as a model.

The churches work together in Acts 15 to decide matters.

This is the other example I was thinking of, and this is not practiced today. In fact most people reject the practice of this, as evidenced by the response of some to this conference. A group of men get together to make a case about how to “decide matters” of separation, and it is widely rejected by some. I am not saying that’s a problem. But it sure seems to be a problem if you put a lot of weight on Acts 15.

Where do you see anything in the NT where there isn’t apostles involved, really?

I agree. And I think this does some severe damage to your point. Since everything you are using to argue for your position is based on apostolic ministry, if you think that the apostles are gone, then your authority is gone.

In Acts 6, you have authority given to the congregation to “select men from among you.” In 1 Timothy, you have instructions given with respect to conduct in the local church, including officers, support of widows, elderly, ordination, etc. In Acts 13, you have missionaries sent out by local congregation and reporting back to the local congregations. So when you take the apostles out, everything seems to be local church oriented.

I guess another thought is when it says “Church of God at Corinth”, do we really have that mindset when it comes to Minneapolis? The “Church of God at Minneapolis”? Is there an imperative built into this that we should be viewing other believers across church lines, as part of the true church of God in our city? Shouldn’t that impact unity too?

Several things:

1. I agree with your point about “church of God at …” But how does that work today? We do not see evidence in the NT about how those various gatherings related to each other. So to say that we should have unity because they had it in the NT tells us nothing practically because we don’t know how the assembly on the east side of Corinth interacted with the one of the west side of Corinth (or wherever they might have been).

2. Furthermore, if we are going to affirm that salvation creates the body of Christ, there is no way to have unity with the “church of God at …” unless we are willing to say that doctrinal/ecclesiastical differences don’t matter. In other words, I can affirm that some Presbyterians are saved and in the “church of God at …” but I cannot establish church fellowship with them because of our differences.

3. I am not sure I see an imperative here.

The koinonia there is so much different than what we see today. We kind of take 850+ denominations for granted today, but can you really think that is the norm expected by the NT authors?

No, not at all. I think the NT authors expected the multiplication of Baptist churches around the world. If we were all following the apostles expectations, this would be a lot easier. The denominations (probably in the tens of thousands, not 850+) exist because people differ about what apostles expected.

I have it on good authority that the Apostles were Baptists and expected all Christians to be Baptist. You ask me how I know? I would say I have a word of prophecy, but then people would separate from me and accuse me of being a non-cessationist, so I will just say I have a good feeling about this one. And I bet there is no way to know the difference :D. (And if you didn’t think that was funny, then you need a sense of humor … or I do … It’s really just a bit of good-natured ribbing.)

CPHurst,

If might quickly add something before we continue …

Two undeniable foundational commands:

1. We are to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

2. We are to “avoid”…”those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” (Rom. 16:17).

I think this is one command, or the same basic command.

On 2 Thessalonians 3, the separation commanded in 2 Thess 3:14-15 is from brothers, so it is different command from the one you give above. 2 Thessalonians commands us to not associate with him so that he will be put to shame (a staggering command for a generation of “nice” people) but to admonish him as a brother. I do not think Paul would say something like that about the people in Romans 16:17-18.

Therefore, I think the two foundational commands with respect to this issue are:

1. Contend for the faith up to and including separation from false teachers and apostates (Jude 3, Romans 16:17; 2 John, 3 John, etc).

2. Separate from those whose lifestyle contradicts the teaching received from the apostles (2 Thess 3).

The assumption here is that the command to separate from those mentioned above is itself part of the teaching we are to adhere to.

Doesn’t this raise the question of picking and choosing which apostolic commands we are required to obey? I am sure you don’t intend that, but it sounds like you are saying we have to obey/beleive the core doctrines, but the others (such as separation) are not core and are therefore some sort of optional. Again, I know you would not affirm that, but I wonder how you avoid it.

I too am profiting from the exchange and hope it is sharpening for all.

Larry, are you saying that the command to separate from faith deniers is itself part of the apostolic teaching? In all three of the fundamental schools I have been I have never heard this taught or stated as what was historically defended.

I still dont see how the context of 2 Thess. 3 refers to the whole of the apostolic teaching like in Jude 3 & Rom. 16:17. 1 & 2 Thess. are discussing the teachings surrounding the return of Christ/Day of the Lord. The context of 2 Thess. defines the teaching they are to separate over as “what we say in this letter” (vs. 14). This refers to the incarnation (2 Thess. 3) & the teaching of the return of Christ (2 Thess.).

My point is that the people we would be separating from who would fall under the category of 2 Thess. 3:14 are few and far between such that I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill (thought it is a command that we need to obey).

Further, even if I did see 2 Thess. 3:14-15 referring to the whole of apostolic teaching and that the command to do so was itself a part of that teaching I dont think I would have to exercise it very often such that so much discussion is warranted.

Again, some present day examples would be helpful that would fall under your understanding of these passages both of separating from faith deniers and those who associate with faith deniers. Historically, would Billy Graham fit your understanding of exercising 2 Thess. 3:14-15?

I am willing to expand my more narrow understanding of what the meaning of “what we say in this letter” (vs. 14) is to refer to the whole of apostolic teaching but I would like to be shown how one gets there. Also, show me how the context of Jude 3, Rom. 16:17, etc. include in the apostolic teaching the separation command. If it does then we have to redefine what we mean by core doctrines of the faith and I dont know when separation (as important as it is) was ever a part of that.

I do appreciate the humor, Larry. And I’m kind of thinking out loud here as I go, so let me try to rephrase what I’ve said.

I do believe in autonomy of churches, but what we see in the NT is association of churches through guided apostolic ministry. We don’t see any examples in the NT that don’t have apostolic ministry involved. So given our state of not having apostolic ministry, there remain questions as to how different individual churches should remain connected (or not). You can argue that if you take out apostles the churches are independent, and I could argue if you take out apostles some other connection would be expected to keep them interconnected.

I do agree that elder rule of individual churches is clear from the NT. But how the churches fit together, and how elders are appointed in various contexts is not exactly clear. Is a Presbyterian conglomeration of church synods with representative elders the way to go? Maybe. Is autonomy and all churches basically on their own in a free for all Baptist way, correct? It’s possible. That is the level of church government that I find not clear in the NT.

I also agree with Aaron that unity is there, it is the essence of fellow Christ-followers. But it should be acknowledged and preserved as Eph. 4 says. “The Church of God at…” statements in the NT should help us to see that God sees all believers in a city a part of the true church. The implications of that would mean we shouldn’t think that we have to evangelize the city on our own. We should seek out ways to recognize and glory in the work God is doing through others in our city. We will have natural limitations to how we can cooperate due to the inherited system of smaller assemblies that don’t meet together in wider settings. But we can try to find ways to work together as much as we can, and change our attitude toward those not in our own assembly.

An anecdote helps with this. I was in a Independent Fundamental Baptist church in an area where there were few evangelical churches of any stripe, and even fewer likeminded Baptist churches. There was another IFB church with similar positions as far as we knew just a few towns over. Virtually no attempt was made to seek out fellowship with that church, and instead the attitude was preached and inculcated that this little assembly was completely sufficient by itself to carry out the Great Commission and do everything it needed to as a church. They were very local church only, mind you. This is how many IFB churches are, interconnectedness is avoided for fear of being polluted or being brought down or something. Yet Christ prizes unity in his prayer in John 17, and Christ views us as unified, and we are to maintain and preserve the spirit of unity for the sake of a watching world, and for the mutual growth in sound doctrine.

I’m having a hard time here. Why do I need to be defending the fact that we should be unified with other churches and believers? And people wonder why so many leave fundamental circles? The NT has numerous unity commands, and it reinforces constantly the spiritual unity which just IS when it comes to believers. And acting like we don’t need each other or anyone else, how is this Scriptural?

When it comes to separation, Paul seems to only do it with tears in his eyes. That should be important, I think. Separation is reserved for grave and sobering matters. It’s related to the big cardinal doctrines of Scripture. 2 Thess. 3 excepted, the separation passages all deal with weighty matters. 2 Thess. 3 could be what 1 Cor. 5 and Matt. 18 is referring to, and thus be more of an internal church issue. But it probably has a wider application. It refers to disobedient lifestyles, and the definition of disobedient lifestyle unfortunately is often in the eye of the beholder. So Rom. 14 helps us here too, in dealing with differing determinations of how disobedient a given person is.

Often it isn’t that someone doesn’t follow 2 Thess. 3 and so we need to apply 2 Thess. 3 to them. Instead it is that they are applying 2 Thess. 3, but they are judging the “disobedience factor” if you will, of someone to be at a different level than we’d like.

Brother A does questionable things in his lifestyle.

Brother B rates this disobedience as 1st degree level and applies 2 Thess. 3.

Brother C may know more information about brother A, or may know less information. He rates the disobedience factor as 2nd or 3rd degree and delays application of 2 Thess. 3.

Brother D assesses both Brother B and Brother C. His view of Brother A is 1st degree sin, so he thinks Brother C is disobeying 2 Thess. 3.

So Brother D then applies 2 Thess. 3 to Brother C, and we have secondary separation (or tertiary or whatever).

This gets convoluted fast. I think some of this is forgivable, but we need to be slow to enact this and should follow Scripture back to the Brother A level if we can in offering help. Our sinful tendencies let us jump to cutting someone else off far too quickly, I fear. Again Rom. 14 should help us to not judge too quickly those that take a different view of Brother A’s sin level than we do.

I’m sorry to go on so long, but this discussion is proving helpful for me, and spelling it all out like this might help others.

Aaron, yes we are first invisibly united as we are united in Christ just as Christ was w/ the Father because they shared the same essence as God. But it dosent end there. Christs works manifested His oneness w/ the Father which is visible. I dont get the aversion here to this visible unity. Is it there or not? If so then we need to display it ourselves. Why dont we need to worry about what actions we need to do in order to show our invisible unity visibly?

Quote - “ ‘I’m inclined to think that where unity is real, it cannot help but “show.” But it is not necessarily going to show in recognized ways.” If it dosent show in recognized ways then how are you defining “show” in the first sentence? The second sentence seems to cancel out the first all together. It seems like you are saying, “I know we are unified in Christ and we are to show it some way but its not all that important and dosent need to be physically manifested.” Wouldnt something that shows be recognizable as such?

Further, the end of vs. 21 states the purpose/result of the unity believers share in Christ w/ the Father, “so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” If the world is to believe this then they have to see it - it is visible.

It seems to me that there is so much talk of having to separate as commanded but not living out our unity publicly. If a local church is to live out its unity visibly to itself and to the world then why is the universal church to do no less as far as it can being that it is scattered all over the world?

CPHurst: “I dont get the aversion here to this visible unity.”

Agreed. It seems that people have a hard time even admitting that the Scripture teaches us to prize unity. That seems like this makes for a sorry state in fundamentalism, if this is the case.

Bob: “Why do I need to be defending the fact that we should be unified with other churches and believers? And people wonder why so many leave fundamental circles? The NT has numerous unity commands, and it reinforces constantly the spiritual unity which just IS when it comes to believers. And acting like we don’t need each other or anyone else, how is this Scriptural? “

Agreed as well. We are unified in Christ, we are to be unified in doctrine & we are to live out that unity. Unity is both a reality of our very existence as believers in Christ and we are commanded to live it out. So why do we have to defend this? Why does it seem like it holds 2nd place to separation? Why does it seem to get swept under the carpet?

It seems to me that we are to look towards practicing unity first and practice separation as we go along. We are unified first because it is a fact of our very existence as believers. If we cannot live out that unity w/ others because of their skewed doctrinal beliefs concerning the essentials then we need to separate from them.

I would have thought it was another KJV-only article :)

Steve, heaven help me if it had been the title of one……lol

Wow … A lot has been said. Let me quickly respond, and pardon my brevity.

To CPHurst

Larry, are you saying that the command to separate from faith deniers is itself part of the apostolic teaching?

Perhaps we are quibbling over semantics, but assuming that Paul is an apostle, and assuming that Paul wrote Romans 16:17-18, and assuming that Romans 16:17-18 does teach separation from faith deniers, do we not have to conclude that separation from faith deniers is part of the apostolic teaching?

Perhaps I am missing something in the question, but this seems self-evident. So please clarify for me if I have missed it here.

If you are asking if separation is part of the gospel, then no. It’s not. In response to your last paragraph, I don’t know anyone who has ever included in the core doctrines of the faith, but I may have simply missed it. But is it inseparable from the gospel? I think we have to say yes, because to affirm another means of salvation (i.e., to not confront a false gospel, to stand against it) is to actually deny the exclusivity of the gospel. So when we join in ecclesiastical partnership with someone who denies the gospel, we are affirming that they are an acceptable teacher, someone that we will stand alongside and help.

I still dont see how the context of 2 Thess. 3 refers to the whole of the apostolic teaching like in Jude 3 & Rom. 16:17. 1 & 2 Thess. are discussing the teachings surrounding the return of Christ/Day of the Lord. The context of 2 Thess. defines the teaching they are to separate over as “what we say in this letter” (vs. 14). This refers to the incarnation (2 Thess. 3) & the teaching of the return of Christ (2 Thess.).

Let me ask it this way and see if this helps bring some clarity: On what basis do we exclude anything from 2 Thess 3? (I am not saying we should not exclude anything, but rather asking the basis for how we determine what is included.)

Let’s assume that incarnation and return of Christ are the only things taught, and therefore they are specifically what Paul means by “our instruction in this letter.” Can we then conclude that Paul means nothing else? Would Paul have a similar intent with the letter to the Ephesians or Colossians?

In other words, would Paul say, “Yes, I mean to separate from brothers who think the DOL has already come or who are lazy, but I don’t say that about people who think that we should observe holy days (Col 2) ”? In my mind, I have hard time seeing Paul limiting this command only to what 2 Thess says. It seems to me that the principle is broader if, in fact, all apostolic revelation is revelation from God. I think we have to treat it the same.

This is where I think we actually need a new paradigm for separation, or at least a new factor—that of clarity. We separate over things that are clear. That is why we separate over the idea that the Lord has already returned (preterism?; 2 Thess 2:1), but not over the timing of his future return. It is why we separate over the deity of Christ but not over church government. A friend of mine is actually very strong on this and I think he makes a good case. I have encouraged him to write the article and let’s publish it here at SI.

My point is that the people we would be separating from who would fall under the category of 2 Thess. 3:14 are few and far between such that I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill (thought it is a command that we need to obey).

It may be few and far between, but I would argue that this is a secondary proposition. Even if they are few and far between we still need to know what it is saying. Perhaps it is “few and far between” because we are improperly applying it. If we are waiting until we find someone who has quit their job to wait for Jesus’ return and is mooching off fellow believers in the interim, we will probably never apply it. But I don’t see any reason to limit it to that.

Further, even if I did see 2 Thess. 3:14-15 referring to the whole of apostolic teaching and that the command to do so was itself a part of that teaching I dont think I would have to exercise it very often such that so much discussion is warranted.

The infrequency may mean it needs more discussion because it is so frequently not practiced. I don’t know, just throwing that out there.

Again, some present day examples would be helpful that would fall under your understanding of these passages both of separating from faith deniers and those who associate with faith deniers. Historically, would Billy Graham fit your understanding of exercising 2 Thess. 3:14-15?

Sure, Graham would. He indisputably failed to obey Romans 16:17-18, and therefore he did not obey apostolic instruction. I actually think there is legitimate concern that at times, Graham actually taught a false gospel, such as when he appeared to deny the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.

Also, show me how the context of Jude 3, Rom. 16:17, etc. include in the apostolic teaching the separation command. If it does then we have to redefine what we mean by core doctrines of the faith and I dont know when separation (as important as it is) was ever a part of that.

As I started with, I think you are exchanging “apostolic teaching” with “core doctrines of the faith.” We must not do that. The apostles taught quite a bit that was not a “core doctrine of the faith.” But if Jude and Romans were written by apostles, and if they teach separation, then we have to conclude that separation is part of the apostolic teaching.

Again, I fear I am missing something in your argument because this seems so obvious. So please forgive me. Perhaps I need more clarification about the question.