Friday, June 20, 2008

The Elephant in the Room of the Separation Discussion Between Conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists

I think the conservative evangelicals and the fundamentalists are wrong on separation. I can understand a Southern Baptist like Mark Dever's frustration with fundamentalists. I would feel the same way about it if I were him. They're not consistent. They can't even explain their inconsistency and yet they want him to be a separatist like them. At the same time, I sympathize more with a Mark Minnick because he's right, Scripture teaches separation. They both have trouble because they both are wrong on the nature of the church. You can't be consistent on either unity or separation when you don't have the right view of the church. By the way, the correct view of any doctrine can be practiced consistently if it is correct. God by His nature is consistent. Something that is inconsistent does not reflect Him, so it can't be what He is teaching in His Word. That should be a big deal to these guys, but ultimately their traditions supplant Scriptural doctrine. They should humble themselves to consider a Scriptural ecclesiology, but they don't. God resists the proud; gives grace to the humble.

Confusing Conversation

Alright, with that diagnosis out of the way, the big elephant in the room in the discussion is that the Bible is a book about separation---light from darkness, day from night, land from water, the godly from the ungodly, the living and true God from idols, righteousness from wickedness, truth from error, the sacred from the profane or common, the clean from the unclean, Godly wisdom from the wisdom of this earth, men of God from false teachers, the church from the world, God from Satan, the wise from the foolish, the tares from the wheat, the sheep from the goats, the kingdom of God from the kingdom of this world, the narrow road from the broad road, children of light from children of darkness, and more. I hope everyone reading gets the picture. Yet evangelicals seem to miss these. They might get upset when others say they do, but that's how it seems.

Recently Mark Dever posted over the separation issue. He seemed to be a little perturbed about being accused of not practicing separation. Fundamentalists and others came out of the woodwork to comment---fundamentalist leaders from Michigan (Dave Doran) and Minnesota (Jeff Straub), a few highly opinionated novices (think Bob Hayton, among others), a couple of armchair quarterbacks who mainly still play with truth in a test tube, and the ox-goad himself [I noticed the Straub reference to Shamgar), Don Johnson, entered the fray, albeit later wishing he hadn't. We had the mysterious CD Host, but I think anonymity can tend toward false bravado (he's now debating Frank Turk on behalf of ladies heading up churches). Of all the commentators, I did relate most and best to Don Johnson. Most of you readers would have already guessed that.

If I was reading the comments there attempting to understand separation, I would have had a difficult time. Most of it reads like seat-of-the-pants theology, a tremendous amount of speculation. Very little looks cut and dry. I guess that the fundamentalists are saying that Dever should separate, but it's hard to tell. Jeff Straub is not clear at all. If I were trying to find out if it would be OK to join or pastor a Southern Baptist Church, Straub would have me thinking that would be fine. And I guess that fundamentalists are fine with Straub giving that impression with his lack of clarity. I thought these things mattered to fundamentalists. Either I've been wrong about this or fundamentalists are changing. I do think the latter is true. The way it all reads is like a political discussion or fight in a political party, to get included what every group wants in their party platform. There doesn't seem to be an overriding document that can give clarity. Of course, there is. The Bible. That isn't being referenced much in the discussion.

To be fair or sensitive, maybe they aren't using Scripture because they think everyone knows it already, so just skip the verses and go straight to the application. We can't skip the Bible. To glorify God, we speak as the oracles of God. Mark Minnick told Dever in the interview to look up the passages on separation and study them out. That was good counsel. Everything in the commentary about separation should go back to the Bible. We do spiritual warfare with Scripture, pulling down strongholds, not with carnal weaponry but with the sword of the Spirit.

So the elephant in the room of the discussion are the passages on separation. I'm going to just list a lot of them, and this won't even get into all the Old Testament examples, Scripture replete with them. Ultimately we are to honor God and He is honored by the right response to His Word, one of faith.

Passages on Separation

Exodus 33:16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

Leviticus 20:24-26 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. 25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

2 Kings 17:15 And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.

Ezra 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

Ezra 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

Nehemiah 9:2 And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.

Nehemiah 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Psalm 6:8 Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping.

Psalm 28:3 Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts.

Psalm 101:4-8 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. 5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. 6 Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. 7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. 8 I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the LORD.

Proverbs 4:14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

Proverbs 24:1 Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them.

Ezekiel 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Matthew 10:34-37 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Romans 16:17-18 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy 2:20-21 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Hebrews 13:12-13 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

2 John 1:9-10 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Closing Observations

If evangelicals are so scholarly, then why is separation missing in their doctrine books or their presentations? Why aren't they developing a doctrine and practice of separation? I think that all of the lack of separation is for the same reason that Israel stopped separating like God told them to. I'm not going to get into the reasons, but someone who says they care about God's Word and is such a "help" to the cause of Christ by the opinion of others should be a separatist. You're not smarter when you don't separate, even if people say that you are.

Should we discuss how these texts should be followed? Definitely. When I read them, I don't think, "I need to separate less." I see, "Separate more than I do." We know, however, that we won't be popular when we do. None of the separation passages say anything about essentials and non-essentials, primary or tertiary. That's all made up by people who aren't planning on being consistent with what God said.

There are more passages than these and there are those that would guide us in how to do separation, how to separate properly. I don't believe we just cut people off. We should have a discussion with people. Separation is loving consistent with the nature of God, but love is also a separating love, or it isn't love. I find the typical tactic of evangelicalism and fundamentalism is not to talk, help, and then separate. They separate and you don't find out until you feel their cold shoulder. They ridicule and mock, tons of ad hominem, and it's OK with them, because they have a crowd on their side, a relative small one compared to the world, but enough to make them feel "right." It's interesting on this. People will say that you're mean if you say something, but if you say nothing and then just rip on people behind their back, you're loving. How is this Scriptural? To love, you've got to say something. I don't think it's good to keep saying something ad nauseum, filibustering people with talk. After awhile, you just let it go. That's where I can get in trouble, I know. I won't go further, but this is all under "how to separate."

Now go study. Now go separate.

28 comments:

Charles E. Whisnant said...

Father, again as we have looked into Your Word we have been lifted above the mundane and the trivial, we have been transported into the supernatural, the divine. We have grasped profound realities that escape completely the thinking of the wisest of the world. Lord, we are so grateful of the richness of truth which Your Word contains. And, Lord, we would follow the instruction, the injunction, the mandate, the command for indeed it's an imperative not to be bound together with unbelievers in any enterprise that names Your name, any spiritual enterprise. We don't want Satan having the door throne wide open for him.

And, Lord, help us to be faithful and to do what verse 1 of chapter 7 says, "Cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." Lord, make us holy, separate. Keep Your church separated so that our testimony and our proclamation is pure and clear. And may You be glorified in Your Son's name. Amen.

J. Smith said...

Separation doesn't strike me as a distinct biblical doctrine, per se, but just as what occurs when one of God's own is effectually called and regenerated, by the Word and the Spirit. One then becomes separated out, often despite oneself, or without knowing fully what is happening or why it is happening. But God's own learn.

In other words, you don't go drink and do empty things in bars because you *aren't supposed to* rather you don't do it because *you no longer desire to.*

It's a regeneration issue, and a sanctification issue (two rather weak points of mainstream, establishment Christianity including their systematic theology writers (at least the more recent ones).

Of course evangelizing can take one into a bar...

Kent Brandenburg said...

J. Smith,

I don't doubt that separation is the supernatural outgrowth of the gospel; however, I don't see it as quietistic in Scripture as you represent it in your comment. For everything that God is doing in us, we need to work ourselves. In other words, we have to separate, not wait for God to do it for us.

J. Smith said...

Nothing in my comment implied no doing on the part of God's own. In the bar example you're acting on your desire either way.

Probably an active effort that is needed once a person is regenerated and no longer desires vain things is the effort to fill the void that is created. This means engaging new influences. Obviously the Word of God and doctrine and so on. But other higher influences as well. You use to spend time going to bars, now you no longer desire that, so you have a void to fill with new activity and effort and interests.

But you don't have to make an effort to not go to the bar. You no longer desire to do that.

In the steps of the order of salvation I think our own effort comes into play in two areas: conversion and active, progressive sanctification. We need to make efforts to learn what we are to have faith in and what we are to repent of. And we need to make efforts in doing the two great commandments (to sum things up quickly).

The difference between the law of works and the law of Christ though is: with the law of Christ God gives freely that which He demands. Regeneration by the Word and the Spirit itself gives us new desires. Acting on those new desires is not difficult any more than doing what you wanted to do prior to regeneration was difficult.

Kent Brandenburg said...

It is God working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure and conforming us to the image of His Son. No doubt. But it will occur, and if it doesn't, then we can doubt someone's salvation.

Regarding the bar, I think that is too simplistic representation of separation, especially looking at the passages. That is not an appropriate place for a believer, more of a stumbling block issue, but I'm talking about what I have in those verses listed.

diligentsearch said...

Doctrine (didache) is teaching. Is there teaching on separation in the Bible? Kent just demonstrated that beyond any shadow of a doubt. How can that not be seen? Most times it is because one simply does not want to see it.

Charles E. Whisnant said...

When we are speaking of individuals that are disorderly and does not obey the words of Christ, and after the proper steps of discipline (Matthew 18) takes place we are to try to motivate them to repent, and one way is to separate and have no fellowship with him. But the idea is to use separation to get him to think about his behavior. There is a proper guide for us to know how we are to separate and do it properly as you have said.

Don Johnson said...

Hi Kent

Thank you for the kind words. I don't have all the answers, but i know something is rotten in fundamentalism and something must be done about it.

To those commenting here:

Please, please, please do not mix church discipline and ecclesiastical separation. They are not the same thing at all.

In church discipline, we put a professed brother out of the assembly (ekklesia) and treat him as a sinner and a publican.

In ecclesiastical separation, first, we don't have the authority for that kind of judgement (unless it involves an individual who happens to be a member of our local church), and second, we are not pronouncing an anathema on them. We are simply refusing cooperation or partnership in gospel ministry. We are breaking fellowship (fellowship=partnership). There is a wide difference between the two.

In some cases, the confusion exists because people think separation means I am breaking with some liberal unbeliever professing Christian. But the fact is, unless the liberal unbeliever is a member of my church, I am not exercising discipline on him. I am simply refusing to work with him and avoiding him in my ministry. I may well see the liberal unbeliever as a candidate for evangelism, but my ecclesiastical separation from him is primarily a refusal of cooperation.

I hope that helps clarify things some. (I keep saying this but it often kind of echoes like no one is listening.)

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Charles E. Whisnant said...

Don

You are totally correct.

How ofen do fundamentalist churches break fellowship with those who do not hold to their traditional views that are not biblical.

Charles

Don Johnson said...

Charles

It really doesn't matter whether one refuses to participate with another church/pastor/ministry over views that are explicitly taught in the Bible or views that are implicit and perhaps not necessarily shared by all other churches.

Everyone is accountable to the Lord, not to other Christians outside my local church or other churches - so if someone isn't conducting themselves in a way that I am comfortable with, I just am not going to work with them. Their choices may not be wrong, but if they go against my conscience I am not going to compromise my convictions for the sake of a show of unity. Let the Lord judge between him and me, I will do my best to carry out my ministry without the taint of what I perceive to be someone else's errors. (I am sure I will make plenty errors enough of my own to be thoroughly chastised when I make it to my accounting session.)

So... short answer: it doesn't matter how often fundamentalist churches break with those who do not hold their traditional views. They don't answer to them, they answer to the Lord.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

DT said...

I've been trying to follow this discussion from different perspectives for a little bit now, and still remain uncertain as to what is actually being discussed.

I'm a fundamentalist and I believe in separation.

Mark Dever gave examples in which he also practices separation.

So why are we trying to convince him and other evangelicals about a doctrine they already practice?

Maybe things just aren't clear, but it seems, at the end of the day, the issue isn't over separation being true or false, but how much separation needs to be employed. Isn't that the real issue?

So sure, we can disagree with some evangelicals because perhaps they aren't separate enough, but is it fair to treat them like they don't believe it at all?

Charles E. Whisnant said...

Dt
Yes I am in total agreement, if we are teaching the Word from the Word and not our opinions as much of preaching seems to be, the Word brings about conviction of living a life holy unto to the Lord. Then sometimes we fail. But for the Grace of God.

Do we need a policy in place to say we are separated? Don't think so.


Also I listen to Don Johnsons sermon. You preach on Separation? We teach the truth about what the Word says, but really?

I would say I am more fundamental than reformed or emerging.
Charles

Kent Brandenburg said...

Charles, DT, and others,

Dever is in the SBC, which harbors liberals. That doesn't even fit Minnick's understanding of separation.

My understanding of separation has to do with those passages and none of them say that the gospel alone is a separating issue. Dever doesn't separate over the baptism issue, when Jesus said it was part of all righteousness. Some say it is just interpretation. We are giving a lot of credit to something the Bible says nothing about---sprinkling infants---replacing what it clearly does, baptizing believers. Isn't that bad? Shouldn't that be grounds of separation? No one could join our church based on that belief.

Charles E. Whisnant said...

IT SEEMS THE VERSES QUOTED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT WERE DESIGNED TO SAY THAT CHRISTIANS WERE NOT TO HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH UNBELIEVERS.

In the New Testament:
1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

This verse speaks of WHOM? Are there many Baptist churches that would fall in this “withdraw yourself from?” We would have to know the pathology of false teachers in order to understand this verse.

First Timothy 6:3-5 describes the internal deviations from spiritual normalcy that characterize false teachers. The pathological characteristics Paul laid out are not unknown to us, but we need to be reminded of them.

One of the duties every pastor, Bible teacher, or spiritual leader has is warning others of error. It isn't enough to be positive and help people see the good side of everything. Warnings run throughout the Old and New Testaments because God knows His people can be led astray by false teaching if they aren't properly prepared for it. Also false teaching victimizes those who have never embraced the truth because they come under the illusion that they have found it. We are thus reminded of the danger of false teaching.

Herein I believe is the real issue of separation.

Are the verses that speak of “withdraw oneself from” speaking to the Nation, or Individuals or both? When 2 John says “receive him not into your house,” doesn’t that speak of individuals responsibility?” .
The Nation Israel was not to have dealings with any other nations; God was to be there God. And yet Israel wanted to be like other nations.

DT said...

Kent,

Good points to ponder.

I have always been astounded at how lightly we treat baptism now, when Baptists have historically called it "the badge of the Whore". Strong language, but very true - infant baptism has been the reason for unregenrate churches, and unregenerate churches are oxymorons.

On the other hand, I'm just wondering how far we should take this. Isn't that still a matter of opinion? As an independent Baptist, should I leave the movement because it "harbors" Ruckamanites, ultradispensationalists, and various forms of false teaching? Not trying to start an agrument..just wondering what you think. I know we're "independent" but we're just as much a part of a movement as SBC guys..and they're fairly independent, too.

One thing about Dever - at least he's not assocaiting with ppl who believe in baptismal regeneration. That's not a justification of his position, but I don't want to say that infant baptism by tradition is the same as infant baptism for salvation - that would touch on the gospel. (I still strongly believe both are wrong, of course)

Kent Brandenburg said...

Charles,

When you look at even all the OT passages combined, you don't get "only unbelievers." Look at David in Psalm 101. Perhaps those were unbelievers, but the NT looks at any person with unrepentant sin as being treated like a publican and sinner. But then we get to the NT and we do have the NT, and it is much more specific and abounding in material. We have less stuff in Scripture on inspiration.

DT,

I'm a historic Baptist, not in a group. Independent and Baptist are adjectives of sorts, but our church is very clear that not all Baptists are Baptist historically. We fellowship only with churches of like faith and practice and I fellowship with men the same way. That is not the same as "talking." Talking about doctrinal or practical issues is not fellowship, especially as I see how the term "fellowship" is used in the NT.

I could not understand Minnick's explanation of separation and this is because fundamentalism separates but doesn't practice it consistently for one big reason that I've talked about numbers of times here.

Minnick says at least separate over the gospel and he probably does that consistently, although he was being too chummy with Dever, IMO, for someone who wouldn't fellowship with him. He wouldn't fellowship with Southern Baptists because of liberalism in the convention. It is majority conservative, true gospel, etc., but it still has liberals in the convention.

For me, the gospel isn't all there is, so I would break fellowship over numbers of issues. BJ guys break fellowship over numbers of issues too, but they are usually their pet issues that they have deemed important, like KJVO, music, etc. Especially KJVO. They act like they hate that worse than anything. Why? It's hard to really understand. As I explain my position, it is completely historical and Scriptural. They should be applauding that. What do they not like? Here's what I think it is---they don't like how it feels to be confronted in the inerrancy of Scripture issue. They are pretty conservative guys and they are ticked off about it. As a result, they say lots of outlandish, untrue things about that issue. But I digress.

The separation issue is easier than they make it. And there's a reason why. I have written on it often here.

DT said...

Kent,

Thank you for taking time to respond. Also, thanks for doing it in a Christian spirit. Asking questions doesn't always warrant such appropriate reaction, as I'm sure you're aware, and your attitude really distances you from some of the vitriol that comes through the Internet from a fundamentalist perspective. We need more people like you.

Anywho, I'll be looking around your site more to understand your position. What you said about KJVO being historical and biblical is interesting, but to open up that can of worms now would not be appropriate.

God bless

Kent Brandenburg said...

DT,

I'm glad you think I talk nice. Sometimes people read not nice, but when they talk to me in person, they're surprised I'm nice. When I'm not as good at it as I'd like, I think "testy" would be the word. I become testy at times. But I do like some passion. For instance, in a few recent threads, a guy named Jason has come one and it has been somewhat heated, and I like some heat. Thanks for coming on. You were nice too.

CD-Host said...

For the record:

1) I am not Mike Rucker
2) To the best of my knowledge I have never conversed with Mike Rucker, prior to seeing this post and notifying him.
3) Glancing at his blog we don't seem to share interests.

You apparently are repeating something you heard elsewhere. I'm not sure if you have any interest in truth at all, but I would have hoped you would have at least asked Mike or myself that before posting it.

-- CD-Host

spud tooley said...

i second cd-host's previous comment; i am not him, he is not me, we are not us, and ian anderson is not jethro tull.

but i cannot begin to tell you how flattered i am to have a reference like this posted outside my sphere of (waning) influence.

feel free to read my blog (url below) and see who i am. then, please tell me, because i'm dying to find out.

what you'll find is that i've moved on from these pointless "well, my verse says THIS" and "oh yeah? well MY verse says THAT" scripture drills that seem to be the raison d'etre of this post, if not this blog.

here's a secret: one side will never convince the other. period.

here's the reason: neither side, on its own, is right.

but, feel free to continue wasting the internet's precious bandwidth. if you REALLY think you're going to make the other side say, "you know what? you're exactly right! how come i didn't see this before?", then you're obviously ignorant of 2,000 years of church history.

or perhaps you just think you're Jesus.

in that case, go over to the Pyros site, where the three wise as-, uh, wise men daily waste bandwidth, too.

find a joseph, play 'cross-eyed mary,' and start 'a passion play' all over again.

me? i'll be waiting for you in the wilderness... already have the 40 days marked out on my calendar.

see you then.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

spud tooley said...

well, blogger choked the first time i tried to comment ... let's see how good my memory is.

first, i am not CD-host. i am not him, he is not me, we are not a happy family, and ian anderson is not jethro tull.

however, i am quite flattered to have people thinking that i'm hiding under every rock (along with you-know-who...).

feel free to read my blog (url below) to see who i really am. and, when you find out, please let me know: i've found that i can no longer trust some of the voices in my head...

in reading my blog you will see that i've moved on from the pointless "my verse says THIS," "oh yeah? well MY verse says THAT" scripture drills that seem to be the raison d'etre for a number of blog sites - perhaps this one, too, though i haven't read much here yet.

here's a secret: neither side will ever convince the other of the error in their position. sorry - won't happen.

here's the reason: neither side, on its own, is right.

so if you're looking for absolute truth, try the preceding two sentences.

however, if you still believe that, after 2,000 years of church history, someone has finally come along (that would be you) with all the answers, you must be a poor student of history.

or you must be Jesus.

if the latter, head on over to the Pyros website and collect your birthday presents from the three wise as-, uh, sorry, wise men over there.

find a joseph, invite cross-eyed mary, and put on 'a passion play' for today.

me? i'll be waiting for you in the wilderness - already got those 40 days booked on my calendar.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

spud tooley said...

kent - you're 'about me' reminded me of cheech & chong's 'evelyn woodhead' commercial...

'ever ... since ... i ... took the ev-...ev-...evelyn woodhead sped riddin' course ... my riddin' has ... im ... prahved ... one ... hunnert ... percent."

thanks for the early morning laugh.

mike r.

CD-Host said...

in reading my blog you will see that i've moved on from the pointless "my verse says THIS," "oh yeah? well MY verse says THAT" scripture drills that seem to be the raison d'etre for a number of blog sites - perhaps this one, too, though i haven't read much here yet.

Well now that is starting to explain why people might think we are the same guy. I attack the verse methodology as well as being little more than a theological mirror.

And since you were mentioning the Pyros, I was making the argument in a debate with Frank Turk on his debate blog (indexed here).

Still you have a better sense of humor than I, and the only place I've been to in Georgia is Atlanta.

spud tooley said...

Me am indipendint Babtist.

'independent Baptist' ... ain't that kinda redundant?

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

spud tooley said...

Me am indipendint Babtist.

'independent Baptist' ... ain't that kinda redundant?

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

CD-Host said...

Spud / Mike --

I know this was directed at Kent and he can answer for himself but.... What he means is IFB. Those are the guys to the right of the SBC. The big difference is an aggressive application of separation both for core doctrine and secondary issues like use of contemporary music in worship. Which is the reason they seem themselves as being unable to be in the SBC, because the SBC has lots of ministers they disagree with.

A good example is I ran into Kent on Mark Dever's board (who is pretty much on the rightmost edge of the SBC) during a discussion on separation. Dever was discussing with Mark Minnick what where the remaining issues between a guy like himself and Minnick that in Minnick's opinion justified separation from Dever.

The only point of agreement in the discussion was that Minnick gave a babbling non answer. Kent gave a clear cut well defined answer, and we debated here. I happened to think was absolutely clear and contrary to scripture based on a doctrine I've been calling "tertiary separation" and (IMHO) overly aggressive application of secondary separation.

As an aside, I also know Kent somewhat because I read his debate with Frank Turk on KJVonlyism and I guess I'm leading the charge against the new ESVonlyism. I'm starting to think doing a historical retrospective on "what if the KJVonlyist had won" a what if history of the 1980 on without the NIV getting broad acceptance (i.e. if it had been received the same way the RSV was) and where we would be today.

Kent Brandenburg said...

CD Host,

I removed the offensive MR mention in the post that were upset about, if you didn't notice, but speaking of inaccuracies:

#1, I'm not IFB. I'm not "F." I'm not. Case Closed.

#2, I don't separate with SBC over music, but over support of liberalism in the cooperative program.

#3, You didn't meet me on the comments section at Dever's board, because I didn't comment there. I didn't leave one comment there.

Thanks.

CD-Host said...

Sorry about the F. Now question who started the rumor?