tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post3493873271389459069..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Dialogue about Separation: The 2008 Dever-Minnick 9Marks Interview part twoKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67343390623925457992008-06-18T17:42:00.000-07:002008-06-18T17:42:00.000-07:00Kent -- By the way, why do you need a trial when t...Kent --<BR/><BR/><I> By the way, why do you need a trial when the disobedience is public? Where does Scripture mention that? If a whole church agrees to disfellowship, that's enough evidence as well. </I><BR/><BR/>Because a trial evaluates evidence. The disobedience isn't public. Rather what is public is a perception of disobedience. People can perceive things incorrectly. As for the necessity of judges to determine truth in matters of disagreement:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Gen 31<BR/>Ex 18<BR/>Ex 21<BR/>Ex 22<BR/>Lev 27<BR/>Num 25<BR/>Num 35<BR/><BR/>Should I keep going?CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78005288872627966782008-06-18T17:38:00.000-07:002008-06-18T17:38:00.000-07:00Ken -- I still don't know you. I agree we have ne...Ken --<BR/><BR/><I> I still don't know you. </I><BR/><BR/>I agree we have never met. You don't know me. I think the work speaks for itself, if you don't then we can stop. Lets say my name were Jessica Bristow, what good does that do you? <BR/><BR/>As for your claim the issue is not whether they won't separate for clearly taught concepts but if they disagree on how to apply those passages. Or is it your opinion that anyone who judges any situation differently than you would is being deliberately disobedient. <BR/><BR/>Sam had a great example with Shank's read of "The Shack". Where Shank saw the book as interesting literature and not a manual on modalism. Both Sam and I agreed Shank's analysis was incorrect. But my argument that there is a distinction between poor literary analysis and deliberate sin. That I may need to separate for sin but not lack of skill. <BR/><BR/>Do you disagree? <BR/>That is<BR/>A believes X<BR/>B believes that X is sinful but also believes that A doesn't understand that and thus won't separate (i.e. it is not intentional sin)<BR/>C believes it is intentional on A's part<BR/><BR/>C needs to separate from B? And if so what is the scriptural support for that?<BR/><BR/>Where does scripture prohibit attending conventions where liberalism is practiced. Jesus and the apostles went to the temple.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21967183070133951092008-06-18T17:27:00.000-07:002008-06-18T17:27:00.000-07:00By the way, why do you need a trial when the disob...By the way, why do you need a trial when the disobedience is public? Where does Scripture mention that? If a whole church agrees to disfellowship, that's enough evidence as well.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28283028519760707932008-06-18T17:25:00.000-07:002008-06-18T17:25:00.000-07:00CD,You have a blog named Church Discipline. You t...CD,<BR/><BR/>You have a blog named Church Discipline. You thought someone got mistreated so you originated a blog dedicated to Church Discipline. I still don't know you.<BR/><BR/>Discipline is separation. Whatever we would separate out of a church, we should separate from as a church. Heresy, both in Titus 3 and factionalism in 1 Cor. 1 are in the church. Churches should have doctrinal and practical unity. They don't improve that by fellowshiping with false doctrine and practice.<BR/><BR/>Nowhere does Scripture teach essential and tertiary separation. Nowhere. I'd love to have you show me one place. We shouldn't separate over nonscriptural issues. We should separate over what God has said. A church judges that.<BR/><BR/>Regarding secondary or primary separation, those are invented concepts. Someone is either obedient to true doctrine and practice or not. If someone won't separate as taught in the NT (Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Eph. 5:11; 1 Timothy 6:5-6; 1 Cor. 5; etc.), then he is disobedient to true doctrine and practice.<BR/><BR/>Someone like Dever, who stays in a convention that willingly harbors liberalism and supports it, isn't obedient to Scripture on separation.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15617524188713977052008-06-18T06:09:00.000-07:002008-06-18T06:09:00.000-07:00Kent --Just click on my profile, this is a blogger...Kent --<BR/><BR/>Just click on my profile, this is a blogger board. You can see everything directly. Anyway since you don't seem to know how to access profile, I host the <A HREF="http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Church Discipline</A> board. So yes I'm interested in the topic, and knowledgeable. <BR/><BR/>As for my position it is simple:<BR/>Discipline is a duty of the church<BR/>Primary separation without discipline is called for when discipline is impossible. But that means that the evidence needs to be much greater than what would be required for discipline since the defendant is not being given a trial. <BR/><BR/>Secondary separation is not specifically listed in the bible and thus the same burden must be met for a secondary separation as for a primary. In actual practice this usually makes it a matter of judgement.<BR/><BR/>Because of this tertiary separation is in practice factionalism pure and simple. The bible specifically prohibits factionalism (1cor 1:11-12). Moreover, I think that many of the people arguing for tertiary separation are actually preaching an extreme form of donatism, which is outlawed both by scripture and tradition.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67145831077697507582008-06-17T22:34:00.000-07:002008-06-17T22:34:00.000-07:00CD Host,1) Give your identity if you are going to ...CD Host,<BR/>1) Give your identity if you are going to get a heavy duty discussion.<BR/>2) I'd like to know what you believe the Bible does teach about separation. You can't just take potshots. You have to reveal if you believe anything. If you don't, then you don't deserve to ask questions and get answers. I don't think you care about separation---I'd like to find out differently.<BR/>3) Your question here is ridiculous. Paul got killed by the Roman government and yet he told people to pay taxes to that same government in Rom 13 before they killed him. You don't make an application to citizenship of the US, because it isn't a Scriptural application.<BR/><BR/>What applies to church association in a church applies to association with a church. If we would cast it out of the church, we don't then fellowship with it when it is outside of the church. Whatever breaks fellowship within a church is an application of that church to outside the church. No church must be in a convention or association. If it is in association or convention, then it is choosing to do so. Leaven leavens the lump, so we disassociate with leaven. Those principles apply between churches. Governments don't come into play.<BR/><BR/>This is not a matter of denominations, but what is the belief and practice of a church or churches.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-14911670017135110752008-06-17T14:40:00.000-07:002008-06-17T14:40:00.000-07:00Kent --So you are actually asserting that every me...Kent --<BR/><BR/>So you are actually asserting that every member of a denomination is individually responsible for every act of every other member of that denomination for which they are not disciplined. So applying this to the USA you are individually responsible for all the abortions since you've maintained your citizenship?CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-66822764848751547842008-06-17T13:05:00.000-07:002008-06-17T13:05:00.000-07:00Charles,Norris would have been the same time perio...Charles,<BR/><BR/>Norris would have been the same time period as Jones, Sr, and considered fundamentalist, but probably a different branch. I still think BJU owned the ecclesiastical separation ribbon.<BR/><BR/>CD Host,<BR/><BR/>If I'm going to converse or debate on this level, I need your name and some credentials. To answer your comment; however, you are off the biblical path yourself.<BR/><BR/>If someone doesn't separate from a liberal, he is disobedient in the doctrine of separation. We are to separate from disobedient brethren. That is first degree separation based on biblical terms. Your 2nd through 6th degree is made up. If someone is Southern Baptist, he is in the pot, even as it has been described by the SBC themselves, so everything in the pot attaches. He is in a wrong association that he should leave, like Peter was in a wrong association with the Judaizers. You make this way too complex. To make it clearer for you: Let's say my neighbor kills little kids and that's not enough for me to break fellowship with him. Is your separation from me two degrees away? I didn't kill any little kids, so I guess I'm OK, right? I'm far enough away from the situation for you?Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-38381619290728144492008-06-17T06:53:00.000-07:002008-06-17T06:53:00.000-07:00I've been responding to this thread directly on De...I've been responding to this thread directly on Dever's blog. I have yet to hear how even assuming separation Dever violated it. I had to keep making the situation worse and worse to even get to the point where Dever violated secondary separation. <BR/><BR/>Now lets take your example. <BR/>1) Golden State Baptist Theological Seminary has liberals <BR/>2) The SBC cooperative programs support GSBTS<BR/>3) Dever is a member of the SBC<BR/>4) Thus Minnik needs to separate from Dever.<BR/><BR/>First off being a liberal is not grounds for separation. Being an unrepentant heretic is. So question is do these people belong to churches which don't discipline for heresy. Are they provably heretics. Lets assume that Professor A qualifies.<BR/><BR/>So President B is refusing to separate from professor A by firing him. So far not a problem. Lets assume that A was in fact disciplined. And that B still won't fire him. Now we have a violation of primary separation. <BR/><BR/>Now SBC official C is refusing to separate from B, because he thinks the university as a whole is too important. In other words under secondary separation C has a choice and can make an evaluation. <BR/><BR/>Now lets say that C works for Moeller who knows Dever. I'm now 4 steps removed from A. When Minnick chooses to separate from Dever that's 5 steps. <BR/><BR/>As I said on the blog Minnick is 6 steps removed from every heretic on the planet. That's why it should stop at 2 steps.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83276455253162593082008-06-16T19:53:00.000-07:002008-06-16T19:53:00.000-07:00"When you thought of fundamentalists and separatio..."When you thought of fundamentalists and separation, you thought of BJU almost instinctively"<BR/><BR/>I am sixty years old and a Baptist, went to Bible Baptist Seminary, J.F. Norris. Was J.F. Norris before Bob Jones Sr.? Fundamentalists? I was lead to believe J. F. Norris was fundamental. Of course BBS was liberal in view of Hyles Anderson or Pensacola Christian College.Charles e. Whisnanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08110548370691986584noreply@blogger.com