Why I Struggle with “Subjective Separation”

My two cents:

• From Larry Oats’ class on fundamentalism - if it’s an explicit or implicit teaching of Scripture, separate from those who violate it.
• From MacLachlan: if there is no “thus saith the Lord,” you shouldn’t separate.

This sounds like good advice. It avoids the morass of subjectivism.

What he says is good enough, as far as it goes. But this article doesn’t offer any specifics on what he considers “subjective”, “marginal”, “doubtful disputations”, etc. I suspect that a big part of the debate here is that believers disagree about what is “marginal” and “implicit” teaching of Scripture. So this article has a good point, but doesn’t add anything new to the discussion.

Or, alternatively, what Wally wrote. Who among us considers his own positions to be subjective? Or are we better to see if we can find flaws in evidence and reasoning and see if we can persuade?

I regularly fellowship with a Presbyterian Pastor (PCA). We disagree on many doctrines. I believe he loves the Lord. By the way, he’s a BJU grad. I have visited his church and am comfortable there but could not join. I work with a man who belongs to a mild charismatic church. I also fellowship with him. I have visited his church as well and was very uncomfortable there. Am I separated from them?

[TylerR] My two cents:

• From Larry Oats’ class on fundamentalism - if it’s an explicit or implicit teaching of Scripture, separate from those who violate it.
• From MacLachlan: if there is no “thus saith the Lord,” you shouldn’t separate.

This sounds like good advice. It avoids the morass of subjectivism.

Tyler, I don’t think this solves it. What if I don’t think it’s implicit and you do?

What if you think it’s a violation of an implicit teaching, but it’s not?

The Trinity is an implicit teaching of Scripture. There is no single verse or passage that teaches it, in its fullness, in a didactic way (sorry, KJVO guys - I love you). It’s an implicit teaching drawn from all the evidence. It’s the only position on God which can account for all the evidence. It’s the only position which makes sense. But, I can’t point to one verse and say, “See! There it is!”

See “Good and Necessary Consequences” (Part 13a)

I am still working on part 13b…

I agree with what you’re saying. If I remember right, Oats had a category to the right of “Explict” and “Implicit” in a chart, marked “Principles.” He cautioned we should be very careful before we begin condemning people for violating what we believe is a principle, because there might not be a clear-cut Scriptural position on the issue.