Be ye separate, saith the Lord

[Phil D.]

There’s no great mystery as to why the church takes this position. Their explanation is literally in the same section you’re quoting from.

In which case it comes across to me as essentially wanting to be a church of the spiritually elite, or especially holy Christians. However piously that is intended or expressed, it too is more an Anabaptistic understanding of how a church is Scripturally constituted, as opposed to the Reformed or Reformed Baptist view that the true church consists of weak and strong, mature and immature believers alike.

There’s a difference between not understanding and disagreeing, or not wanting to understand.

Brother, several times now you have said things like this that seem to question my sincerity or integrity. You will think what you must, but I can only assure you I have been entirely forthright and honorable in my interactions here.

I hope and pray that the Lord will direct you in the way He would have you go, for your good and His eternal purposes and glory. And thus, having spoken my heart, I will bow out of this thread. Pax.

 

[Polanus1561]

@Challer , would you be open if your church set forth new vows against worldliness/for separation, further than abstinence? Whatever that may look like.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

@Challer , would you be open if your church set forth new vows against worldliness/for separation, further than abstinence? Whatever that may look like.

I believe they already do in the sections on Personal/Ecclesiastical Separation, but yes. I imagine all (or nearly all) of the churches or denominations we are members of subscribe to confessions. It’s really the same concept when you think about it. Words of men that we believe are derived from and accurately describe truths or principles contained in the Word of God. Those documents are ratified and churches are constituted around them. So I, with respect to you, Phil, and others, am having a great deal of trouble wrapping my head around some of the concerns expressed.

 

[Polanus1561]

I believe they already do in the sections on Personal/Ecclesiastical Separation, but yes. I imagine all (or nearly all) of the churches or denominations we are members of subscribe to confessions. It’s really the same concept when you think about it. Words of men that we believe are derived from and accurately describe truths or principles contained in the Word of God. Those documents are ratified and churches are constituted around them. So I, with respect to you, Phil, and others, am having a great deal of trouble wrapping my head around some of the concerns expressed.

I don't see myself as part of the lively discussion so far that I have missed (busy day yesterday!). Mine is not so much of a concern but a curiosity regarding application. Alcholism is something to be separated from and I get that. But from your POV, I can see that there are a growing list of things to be separated from—to accord with the separation principle. Would these growing list of things be codified sooner or later, just like alcholism was? To throw an example, technology if abused is simply one way that worldliness can infect us.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I don't see myself as part of the lively discussion so far that I have missed (busy day yesterday!). Mine is not so much of a concern but a curiosity regarding application. Alcholism is something to be separated from and I get that. But from your POV, I can see that there are a growing list of things to be separated from—to accord with the separation principle. Would these growing list of things be codified sooner or later, just like alcholism was? To throw an example, technology if abused is simply one way that worldliness can infect us.

Interestingly, they also address this in the same quote. It’s in the section “Personal Standards of Members” where they essentially say that they have no intention of keeping a list of up to date do’s and don’t’s. Pleasure crazes of the world is intentionally broad. Elders keep watch over such things. It’s really far less regimented than you’d think, at least from what I’ve observed in my three months visiting with the church.

Truth be told, I cherish this denomination’s distinctives. They were founded in Ulster where I’m told if you’re found in a pub it’s assumed you can’t possibly be a Christian. So perhaps there’s a cultural aspect to their ideas about abstinence. Regardless, I see the merit in it. Although I don’t agree with everything I’ve learned, I don’t consider the points of disagreement to be separating issues. Admittedly, there aren’t many places for a reformed fundamentalist to go, either. So I’m glad we’ve found a physical (and spiritual) “home” here in Greenville.

There are some who would dance near the fire, saying it is only a sin if you’re burned. Others would stay as far away from the fire as possible. I think my family is in that second group.

 

[Northern Crofter]

in Ulster where I’m told if you’re found in a pub it’s assumed you can’t possibly be a Christian. So perhaps there’s a cultural aspect to their ideas about abstinence.

Not sure who told you that. I can testify that is not true. Maybe in some circles (like Paisley and his Free Presbyterians). And the last wedding I attended in Ulster (a Baptist marrying a Presbyterian) was not a teetotal affair.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Teetotalism would have been a widely held position among evangelicals from many denominations in Ulster - even if it was not the official view of their respective denominations. My family background is a mixture of Presbyterians (PCI), Methodists, Congregationalists, Brethren, Pentecostalists, and Free Presbyterians - nearly all of whom were/are teetotalers. Most people in my former RP congregation were teetotal, as were many others in the denomination. In some circles, it is still a big thing; in other circles, there is a triumphalist mindset that goes too far in the other direction and is not wary enough of alcohol.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

How often are statements like this used to justify worldliness, unequal yokes and all manner of imprudence!

Yet there is not even one example of the Lord continuing to eat with or have fellowship with those who reject Him or His Gospel.

No one (that I know of) uses that as a justification to live worldly, unequal yoke and all manner of imprudence. Not one.

Jesus came to save sinners from their sin, and that often involves the messy task of getting into their lives...and staying there un

For one (in the same passage, Mark 2:13-17), we see Jesus eating with these types of people in the home of one of his disciples Levi (AKA Matthew), and right after being called as a disciple! And prior to it he taught them (Verse 13), which triggered their interest in him, so much that his disciples knew to invite them over for further conversation, to which they heartily agreed. This was something the religious Karen's could hardly bear and accused him of partaking in their current fallen deeds. He points out the illness of sin that ails them by using the analogy of a doctor to a sick patient.

There is one example of the Lord forbearing the rejection of him and his gospel, it was his rejection by the Samaritans, but it was not final:

51And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, 52And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. 53And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. 54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

-Luke 9:51-55

But many of the Samaritans did believe in him later (John 4:41, 42).

We are in the world but not of it, but that doesn't mean we are to be reformed monks.

 

[Polanus1561]

Just for general consideration: Acts 13:47 - For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

The church functions as the Isaianic servant of the LORD. Union with Christ as a missional sense also.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

Joke's on them. I don't even have friends.

(This wasn't an entirely facetious post)

Not picking on you here Jacob, but some of you guys don't have friends (or very few) because, you're frankly not friendly and just as miserable as the people you claim to be separated from. Might as well join them at that point (but don't do it! I have some hope for you!). Remember the second greatest commandment is like the first "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" and biblical self-love is what some of you lack, because you don't even love your neighbor which reflects on the lack of love you have for yourself. Not trying to be mean here, but when we follow Christ we bear the fruits of the spirit which love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance (Gal 5:22, 23). Its fruit we ourselves also partake of!

If the axe was laid at the root, I would say it's on the roots of most conservative reformed churches. Odd to me how sound doctrine produces barren trees.

 

[Northern Crofter]

In an attempt to bring this thread back to the OP, I will submit the following for critique before turning in for the night:

Separation should be limited to avoiding the sinful activities of the world while maintaining relationships with the lost for the sake of evangelization; not seeking the closest fellowship possible with those professing basic Christian beliefs (I'll use the Apostles Creed) - starting with those you have the most in common with - is schismatic.

Examples:
For the former - attending an unbelieving coworker/cousin's wedding ceremony but not the debaucherous reception; for the latter - a small presbyterian denomination with multiple/unique distinctives joining NAPARC.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If the axe was laid at the root, I would say it's on the roots of most conservative reformed churches. Odd to me how sound doctrine produces barren trees.

It isn’t sound doctrine which produces this. In my estimation it is a marked lack of evangelism.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

It isn’t sound doctrine which produces this. In my estimation it is a marked lack of evangelism.

I don't think people have the peace and joy needed to evangelize, because I think they know it's all rotten export that should be seized by customs.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I don't think people have the peace and joy needed to evangelize, because I think they know it's all rotten export that should be seized by customs.

Peace and joy are what’s needed to call sinners to repentance? Did Jonah have these things? Yet look what God had wrought in Nineveh.

The Lord is able to use even the least qualified (whether in your estimation, or the estimation of others) as He sees fit.

 

[John The Baptist]

Folks will do battle with brothers over beer. That’s what I’ve learned! I imagine cigars are on the short list for hills to die on as well. But the Lord knows all things and does all things well. He will decide between us. Let Him do what seems good to Him.

For those of us on the other side, it ain’t about beer. It’s about the gospel. Personally, as someone under the yoke of legalism for 18+ years, the reformed understanding of Christian liberty and freedom in Christ have been tremendously helpful.

And I know it ain’t about beer because I don’t drink beer

 

[Deleted member 13126]

For those of us on the other side, it ain’t about beer. It’s about the gospel. Personally, as someone under the yoke of legalism for 18+ years, the reformed understanding of Christian liberty and freedom in Christ have been tremendously helpful.

And I know it ain’t about beer because I don’t drink beer

You know your situation best, but for the record, a charge of legalism can often be made by those who prefer antinomianism. I’ve heard many definitions of the term legalism over the years and it is often far more broad than it ought to be.

Some fundamentalists deal with this charge head on better than I will be able to at the moment:

You Legalist

Article by David Cloud - Way of Life Literature

www.wayoflife.org

Dr. Alan Cairns also offers a helpful definition:

LEGALISM

A term used with various meanings.

1. The dogma of salvation by works, the heresy* that man must earn a place in heaven by his personal righteousness.

2. Neonomianism*—the theory that works of obedience are a constituent part of saving faith, rather than its natural fruit. In earlier times neonomianism produced the sterile moralism of moderatism.* Nowadays it has found a place in much evangelical preaching where faith is looked upon as “man’s part” in the plan of salvation. As it is often popularly expressed, “God has done His part, now it is up to you to do your part.” In the neonomian scheme, this doing is the condition of salvation; it is not the fruit of the free gift of saving faith, sovereignly imparted by God to His elect.

3. The Galatian error of preaching faith plus something else to make one acceptable to God. At its worst, this form of legalism degenerates into salvation by works. At best it removes the solid basis of Christian assurance, for it drives a sincere believer more and more into himself to examine the quality of his work or his faith rather than to the all-sufficient merits of Christ.

4. Sometimes it is used erroneously to describe those who advocate that Christians should be careful to observe the moral law on the ground that whereas the law as a covenant of life is abrogated by the gospel, it still stands as a standard of Christian obedience.

 

[RamistThomist]

Not picking on you here Jacob, but some of you guys don't have friends (or very few) because, you're frankly not friendly and just as miserable as the people you claim to be separated from. Might as well join them at that point (but don't do it! I have some hope for you!). Remember the second greatest commandment is like the first "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" and biblical self-love is what some of you lack, because you don't even love your neighbor which reflects on the lack of love you have for yourself. Not trying to be mean here, but when we follow Christ we bear the fruits of the spirit which love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, and temperance (Gal 5:22, 23). Its fruit we ourselves also partake of!

If the axe was laid at the root, I would say it's on the roots of most conservative reformed churches. Odd to me how sound doctrine produces barren trees.

I know you're not picking on me, but the reason I don't have many friends:
a) full time job, plus extra hours during the week.
b) family
c) elder in church.

I just don't have time to hang with my brothers. I look at it as part of life.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thread closed for review. Admins have two member reports to review. So, do not contact us to ask "why is it closed" or "when or if it will reopen".
Admin review: the thread shall remained closed.