Preserving Some Truth
On Friday and Saturday (January 7-8), more than three hundred registered attendees (and about that many more walk-ins for the evening service) gathered for a “symposium on biblical separation.” I’m pleased to have had the opportunity to be among them.
Though the event could be improved in some substantial ways, it was an important step toward developing a biblical separation model that (a) improves on what separatists have practiced in the recent past and (b) functions better in the current evangelical landscape in America.
A significant plus is that this more theologically grounded and thoughtful approach to separatism stands a chance of winning the acceptance of theologically serious young people within fundamentalism (but on their way out) or outside fundamentalism but still listening to its better representatives.
Host pastor Mike Harding described the goal as a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” separatism as well as “cultural conservatism.”
What follows is a survey of conference highlights followed by some analysis.
Conference highlights
The event began with two workshop periods of about an hour each. Due to a snow storm I hadn’t anticipated, I missed the first hour and walked in just as the second was about to begin. Since I was late, I just headed straight for the nearest workshop.
It turned out to be one in which Dr. Bruce Compton provided an analysis of Wayne Grudem’s view of the NT gift of prophecy (a non-authoritative and potentially erroneous cousin of the OT gift). Grudem’s view has been foundational for much of current non-cessationist thought about the gifts of the Spirit. Compton’s analysis was interesting and helpful and highlighted some of the unresolved problems with Grudem’s view. The session concluded with brief consideration of whether non-cessationism is a separation issue. 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.
An evening double-header
The evening service began at 7 PM. I was encouraged by the quantity of teens and young adults attending. This was not one of those “old guys bemoaning how things aren’t like they used to be” events. The gray hair ratio was probably well below 50%.
To me, things had a noticeable “Bob Jones” feel as well. Maybe it was the giant piano on the unusually high platform or the duet Mr. & Mrs. Scott Aniol sang in the characteristic BJU vocal style (thankfully, not with the full operatic-amplitude vibrato I recall hearing so often in my BJU days). Maybe it was the relative scarcity of women in pants (there were a few here and there, I think, though I didn’t exactly make a study of it). Men involved on the platform were in coats and ties but I saw few elsewhere.
The BJU déjà vu passed when we sang two songs I’d never heard before by Chris Anderson and Greg Habegger (words projected on the big screen and sheet music in the conference binder). These were traditional hymn-structured songs but still clearly (to me, anyway) not set to music of the 19th or 20th centuries. I’d characterize them as thoughtful, doctrinally meaty and not short on pathos and warmth. We’ll definitely sing these at our church.
Chris Anderson was the first of the evening’s two speakers. His message on “Gospel-Driven Separation” (from Jude) set an excellent tone for the meeting. The high insight-per-paragraph ratio will reward taking the time to hear the mp3. Some points:
- Jude 3: Jude was a reluctant warrior. His delight was in the gospel and he wanted to write a letter focused on “our common salvation.” The situation required that he write about contending for the faith instead.
- Our own contention for the faith must begin with a delight in the gospel. “If we don’t defend the gospel, we lose the gospel.” But we must make sure the fight has not become our delight.
- Jude urges the defense of the faith on every believer. It is not a fundamentalist thing. It’s a Christian thing.
- Contending does not begin with separation. This comes late in the process.
- Jude is not about separation from disobedient brethren (taught elsewhere). Our dealings with brethren in error do not fall under the Jude umbrella.
- If we allow the fight to distract us from the faith, we experience a slow death.
- We must delight in the gospel, defend the gospel, and advance the gospel (v.20-22).
After a song or two, Dr. Mark Minnick took the pulpit and preached on the topic of what the gospel is. Again, the audio is well worth hearing. This was the first message I’d heard by Dr. Minnick in person since the late 1980’s. I was encouraged to see that his love for people, love for the gospel, love for the Scriptures and love for teaching are undiminished.
Day two
Saturday’s first session belonged to a newly-bearded Dr. Kevin Bauder who noted that he was lecturing, not preaching. The topic was officially to be “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving, Part 1,” but rather than rehash the points of his 2005 address by that title (given to the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries), he focused on what else (beyond defending the gospel and practicing separation) a future fundamentalism should do.
The rest of the lecture articulated a vision for a relentlessly—and comprehensively—thoughtful fundamentalism, one that concerns itself with all of life, especially the questions weighing most heavily on the society in which we live. 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 can’t begin to say how encouraging I found that lecture. Where can I sign up? It’s true that the vision is far from the reality, but everything important begins with a vision. If we can get the audio transcribed, the lecture may appear here at SharperIron in written form down the road.
Later in the morning, Dr. Dave Doran provided a thoughtful exegesis and application of Romans 16:17. A twenty-something young man told me later that this was the most persuasive case for separation he’d ever heard and that he was now far more open to the whole idea.
The discussion session
The highlight of the event for many was probably the afternoon “discussion session.” All the platform and workshop speakers were invited to the platform to discuss a series of selected questions.
Though the audio will probably be available shortly, you’d really have to see video to fully appreciate this session. The body language was at least as interesting as the verbal responses (and several moments in the audio will make no sense at all without seeing the interaction).
Several thoughts stood out in my mind when the session ended.
- These men possess serious and thoughtful convictions. The discussion format was making some of them squirm but their willingness to be involved speaks well of their courage as well as their desire to be persuasive.
- The old separation-by-category (or maybe separation-by-acronym, as Chris Anderson observed in his Friday PM message) paradigm doesn’t work anymore. There are too many leaders and ministries promoting and defending the gospel these days that just do not fit into the boxes we used in the 70s and 80s (it’s debatable whether the boxes worked well back then either, but that’s another subject). There seemed to be general agreement on this point, though Doran was most emphatic and Minnick most hesitant.
- We need more of this. When the hour ended, there was a silence I took to mean something like “What? We’re done already?” It’s difficult to impossible to alter the schedule of an event of this sort on the fly. But I wished we could have taken a break and resumed the discussion for another hour.
- We separatists have work to do. As a thoughtful conversation about separation—with no fear of anyone labeling anyone else a “neo” or “pseudo” for differing on one point or another, the discussion was important and encouraging. 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. Many questions remained unasked and unanswered.
Next time?
I came away with the feeling that more work toward a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” doctrine and practice of separation is too urgent to wait for 2013 when the next PTC is tentatively planned. I also believe that what we need now is not so much a conference as a work group of some kind that produces a document or two—not another “resolution” by a fellowship or association, but a document aimed at answering the questions most are actually asking about separation, developed through a process that is sure to attend to those questions. Ideally, the document(s) would have the support of leaders from multiple associations and fellowships.
Mike Harding suggested that the next PTC may be devoted to “cultural conservatism.” Either way, I look forward to how this event develops in the future.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 53 views
[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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Hi Bob,
Been following the thread, enjoying it very much. I have a request for one point of clarity. You mention…
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?
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?
Thread got away from me, but I appreciate all the contributions. It’s doing fine without me :)
…. which doesn’t mean I’ll shut up, though.
It seems to me that it is not possible to define “biblical separation” as “absence of fellowship” and retain an emphasis on it being driven by independent local churches. If it’s something reserved for cases of apostasy—and is therefore openly censorious (even that word seems too weak)—then something larger than the response of individual local churches seems to be very desirable, maybe even necessary.
So “local” vs. “at large” remains a major loose end, seems to me.
CPHurst.. On John 17, would it be fair to say that our unity with one another should be as “visible” as Jesus’ unity with the Father in the context? It seems to refer to a unity of essence not necessarily/primarily a unity of place or label or simultaneous activity. I think the point is worth pondering because today, people seem to feel that “unity” does not exist unless there is some kind of event where folks are physically together or officially acting under some shared label… “Together for …” or “…. Coalition” come to mind, but are probably not the best examples of what I’m talking about.
If the unity in Christ and the faith exists, it exists before people congregate somewhere… and exists even if they don’t congregate. So “gettin’ together” doesn’t really create or even necessarily display unity, though it can be a manifestation of it.
On the other hand, the “body” unity of Eph.4 is clearly local church and there it’s clearly a matter of “members” all working together.
…. which doesn’t mean I’ll shut up, though.
[Bob] (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.)This is why I wanted to talk about IFB and “separated by default” at the conference. It’s clear to me that one area where we have work to do is figuring out how separation works/what it looks like in a local church and then also what it looks like in inter-church and para-church ministries. Several of Dave Doran’s observations emphasized local church, but left me hanging as to how that would work when we’re talking about groups like denominations, associations, schools, parachurch ministries, etc.
It seems to me that it is not possible to define “biblical separation” as “absence of fellowship” and retain an emphasis on it being driven by independent local churches. If it’s something reserved for cases of apostasy—and is therefore openly censorious (even that word seems too weak)—then something larger than the response of individual local churches seems to be very desirable, maybe even necessary.
So “local” vs. “at large” remains a major loose end, seems to me.
CPHurst.. On John 17, would it be fair to say that our unity with one another should be as “visible” as Jesus’ unity with the Father in the context? It seems to refer to a unity of essence not necessarily/primarily a unity of place or label or simultaneous activity. I think the point is worth pondering because today, people seem to feel that “unity” does not exist unless there is some kind of event where folks are physically together or officially acting under some shared label… “Together for …” or “…. Coalition” come to mind, but are probably not the best examples of what I’m talking about.
If the unity in Christ and the faith exists, it exists before people congregate somewhere… and exists even if they don’t congregate. So “gettin’ together” doesn’t really create or even necessarily display unity, though it can be a manifestation of it.
On the other hand, the “body” unity of Eph.4 is clearly local church and there it’s clearly a matter of “members” all working together.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[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.Joe:
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?
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.I’m glad to see that I wasn’t the only one with an raised eyebrow when I saw the title of that workshop.
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.
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.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
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.
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.”
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 …
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).
I too am profiting from the exchange and hope it is sharpening for all.
If might quickly add something before we continue …
Two undeniable foundational commands:I think this is one command, or the same basic command.
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).
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 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.
[SteveD] 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.I thought it was pretty obvious that proclaim and contend is what is meant by “preserve.” We all know the the truth does not automatically continue to be believed. So the goal is to preserve it in hearts in minds.
CPHurst… on John 17 and Jesus’ unity with the Father. I thought you might say that (His unity w/Father is visible in His works) and I agree. What this means, though, if our unity with one another is parallel, is that unity exists in essence first, and then comes out in actions. Which actions, is the question, but it seems like we needn’t worry about that. 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. Many saw Jesus’ works and somehow failed to see the point. So how well people recognize unity when they see it is another problem… I don’t think we need to go out of our way to make a show of something that is already there in essence just so it can be visible and people can go wow, know what I mean? (Not that I’m saying this is your view. I’m just illustrating a common thought process by taking it to a slightly absurd length).
On preserving tradition: It’s interesting to me how often folk’s observations about tradition are predicated on the idea that tradition and truth must be antithetical. That is, something cannot be both right and traditional. This is an interesting idea, but a case needs to be made for it. It’s not self evident.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
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?
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?
Discussion