Influence or Separate?

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
When should you attempt to INFLUENCE or SEPARATE?

Fundamentalists have practiced separation as one of their key ingredients. Some fundamentalists were chased out of groups that they were unable to influence. While, others just shook the dust off their feet. Separatists have been critical of the Influencers and vice versa.

So... the point of this thread is to discuss the factors involved, timing, issues and methods for trying to influence vs. separate.

Since this thread is not about Ruckman-Complete-Dispensationalism-"watch my YouTube," I expect that this thread will stay on course.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
When should you attempt to INFLUENCE or SEPARATE?

Fundamentalists have practiced separation as one of their key ingredients. Some fundamentalists were chased out of groups that they were unable to influence. While, others just shook the dust off their feet. Separatists have been critical of the Influencers and vice versa.

So... the point of this thread is to discuss the factors involved, timing, issues and methods for trying to influence vs. separate.

Since this thread is not about Ruckman-Complete-Dispensationalism-"watch my YouTube," I expect that this thread will stay on course.
Just my humble opinion would be it depends on the situation. For instance a church could be part of some sort of annual conference where they agreed only on the basics without issue. They probably would have an issue holding a monthly combined service if they only agreed on the basics.

I think trying to influence an existing IFB church would be a lost cause. The pastor has complete control. His staff and many of his members come from the college he supports. If he changed too much all that goes away.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,679
Reaction score
88
Points
48
Just my humble opinion would be it depends on the situation.
That's right. The OP question reminds me of a cartoon in a Chick booklet where two men shake hands and agree to preach the Book (KJV, of course) as they see it, and agree to not compromise by getting together.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Since this thread is not about Ruckman-Complete-Dispensationalism-"watch my YouTube," I expect that this thread will stay on course.
Since you did call us out, it's only fair we respond, thoughtfully so.
When should you attempt to INFLUENCE or SEPARATE?

Fundamentalists have practiced separation as one of their key ingredients. Some fundamentalists were chased out of groups that they were unable to influence. While, others just shook the dust off their feet. Separatists have been critical of the Influencers and vice versa.
I believe God wants us to influence first, then separate only if necessary. This post of yours attempts to separate Fundamentalists from everyone else in Christendom, so you're currently the one doing the separating (keep in mind this forum is called "Fundamental Forums"). In every denomination there are separations. In the Bible, that's how the original church functioned: they were scattered due to persecution, where then started another church and people in that area got saved, then persecution and/or heresy started to seep in and overtake some of the members, by which they then separated and scattered again, and rinse repeat. This was the early church.

I'm not sure what the goal of the ecumenical Christian is. World peace? To never separate at all costs (even though that's what your post is doing: it's attempting to isolate Fundamentalists and separate them from everyone else in Christendom when everyone else in Christendom across all denominations separate all the time as well, churches split all the time, Paul and Barnabas split at the 2-person level and Paul went with Timothy, and Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, these things not only happen, they happen frequently throughout the church's history).

cont...
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
cont...

As Christians in this life we were not told to settle down forever in one spot with the highest goal of getting along with everyone whereby we allow any heresy and all multitude of differences to enter the church because "anyone causing separation is being mean": as Christians we have the devil coming against us constantly and relentlessly, he is the most intelligent and persistent foe to church.

The devil does infiltrate churches. He does bring in false doctrines to deceive. The Bible tells us so, not a conspiracy theorist: the Bible. Do you honestly think all denominations are acceptable and that all of their disagreements are just minor and that Satan hasn't made any kind of attempt to influence any of them with false doctrine, false teachers, or selectively writing world history (he is the god of this world.) and giving famous preachers power and influence over the masses (the Bible tells us he has his ministers, and Satan was able to offer Jesus himself all the kingdoms of this world)?

We are just strangers passing through this world, and this earth is currently under the temporary reign of Satan, the god of this world. We were not told to make our home here and make our goal "peace and unity" in the church. That is the anti-Christ's method by which he is already setting up the "one love" "one world" "one tolerance" religion. Division and "separation" are the enemy of the one-world Satanic religion, not the Church.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
There are plenty of churches that have become little more than social clubs. One of the interesting examples is the United Methodist. It used to be conservative God honoring denom. In recent years the extremes of the church seem to be getting further and further apart. However, anytime the conservative side of the church starts to reach majority levels they split off as they are about to again I believe. An interesting note with the UMC is that it's the African churches spear heading the current conservative shift. Those churches are growing giving them more delegates while the American churches are shrinking.

The balance comes down to truth vs. unity. We are called to be united and we are called to stand for truth-so how do you do both? I think the fundamentals as originally understood is a good starting point for minimal requirements on truth. There are some lesser doctrines that not everyone has to be in 100% agreement for me to worship next to them.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
not about Ruckman-Complete-Dispensationalism-"watch my YouTube,"
Also we should point out as a side note: You were the one who reached out to UGC and offered to put our banner up at the top of your forums.

Prior to that, all we did was post an initial "hello" like we did across numerous forums for basic awareness. We didn't ask to be represented at the top of your forums in a huge banner while being relentlessly smear campaigned against in the threads right below it.

Defamation or libel conducted by means of false or misleading advertising, especially attempting to run your operation under the names of multiple Baptist/Dispensational colleges in light of these deceptive defamatory and libelous tactics, some of which carry substantial weight: I'll let you figure that out with your lawyer friends. I hope they're rich.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,679
Reaction score
88
Points
48
There are plenty of churches that have become little more than social clubs. One of the interesting examples is the United Methodist. It used to be conservative God honoring denom. In recent years the extremes of the church seem to be getting further and further apart. However, anytime the conservative side of the church starts to reach majority levels they split off as they are about to again I believe. An interesting note with the UMC is that it's the African churches spear heading the current conservative shift. Those churches are growing giving them more delegates while the American churches are shrinking.

The balance comes down to truth vs. unity. We are called to be united and we are called to stand for truth-so how do you do both? I think the fundamentals as originally understood is a good starting point for minimal requirements on truth. There are some lesser doctrines that not everyone has to be in 100% agreement for me to worship next to them.
Well said.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Also we should point out as a side note: You were the one who reached out to UGC and offered to put our banner up at the top of your forums.
You are welcome!
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
I thought you were a different organization by the same name.

But, since this form represents all kinds of views, I’m glad you were able to see some benefit
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Defamation or libel conducted by means of false or misleading advertising, especially attempting to run your operation under the names of multiple Baptist/Dispensational colleges in light of these deceptive defamatory and libelous tactics, some of which carry substantial weight: I'll let you figure that out with your lawyer friends. I hope they're rich.
LOL!
 

sword

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,374
Reaction score
22
Points
38
I think W. A. Criswell
Pastor of First Baptist Dallas (1944 -1990)
President of SBC(1909 – 2000)

is a great example of an influencer. He spent his lifetime pulling the SBC back toward it conservative and fundamental baptist roots.
Perhaps Tarheel or others could add more detail.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Thank you for bringing this back to the OP, sword.

Our church was supporting our states Association. The Association began in the 1960s with the expressed "purpose statement." That statement, not verbatim, was to establish independent fundamental baptist churches through out the state. THAT was the goal. It saw some success throughout the years... unfortunately, by the mid 1990s, the purpose was lost.

The Association met on an annual basis and part of the meeting was dedicated to "Position Statements" to be accepted and adopted as official agreement by the Association. Without fail, every year, the King James Only radicals wanted us to use only the King James Version in our pulpits. Other statements condemning "hyperCalvinism" (a bogus term to fight Calvinism, in general).

The Association lost its purpose. One year, they introduced two church planters (with families) to start churches in a metro area for $50,000 a year. Over $100,000 was set aside to reroof a conference center that no one used.

So... should our church try to influence or separate from the now defunct, purposeless Association.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
I think W. A. Criswell
Pastor of First Baptist Dallas (1944 -1990)
President of SBC(1909 – 2000)

is a great example of an influencer. He spent his lifetime pulling the SBC back toward it conservative and fundamental baptist roots.
Perhaps Tarheel or others could add more detail.
Yes. A good example of a President & Pastor who was not a Calvinist, though he at times professed the title as a political gesture.


Criswell held to a more Biblically accurate view on Sovereignty and Free Will:

"
with us down here in this world, there's no violation of our moral integrity, or our free choice, or the sovereignty of our own lives. The two go together. The great decree of Almighty God leaves me absolutely and perfectly free. I am not bound; I am at liberty. The decree of God has in it my own free choice, and the two are not antagonistic. They go together in the will of God.”
-W. A. Criswell, Predestination, Acts 27:22-31; 5-23-1954

“God made us morally free. I can curse God to His face. Now isn't that an unusual thing? And a lot of men do it! I can rebel against every edict, every decree, every commandment, every law of God. I can do it! And a lot of men do… When a man turns down the proper grace of Jesus, I don't understand it. I don't see it. But he has the liberty to do it, the freedom to choose…”
-W. A. Criswell, The Knowledge of the Truth, 1 Timothy 2:1-7; 6-29-1958


On these statements, UGC agrees entirely with this Pastor of First Baptist Dallas and President of the SBC.


Criswell rejected the Calvinist belief that God created and predestined the majority of the world for the sole purpose of filling hell against their will:

Criswell rejected Limited Atonement:

I’ve never been able to understand how the Calvinists, some of them, believe in a "limited atonement." That is, the sacrifice of Christ applied only to those who are the elect, but there is no sacrifice of Christ for the whole world—when John expressly says He is the sacrifice, the atoning, dedicated gift of God in our lives for the whole world [1 John 2:2]. And it is just according to whether we accept it or not as to whether the life of our Lord is efficacious for us in His atoning death.”
-W. A. Criswell, If Anyone Sin, 1 John 2:1-2; 4-8-1973

Criswell was against the Hitler-like attributes of the god of Calvinism:
“As Ezekiel 33:11 describes, "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked would turn from his evil way and live: oh, turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" That is God; the longsuffering, merciful kindness of our heavenly Father, rejoicing not in condemnation and damnation and the agony of those who are lost, but praying, pleading, waiting, hoping that the lost man will turn and be saved. Oh the longsuffering of God!”
-W. A. Criswell, Lest Any Perish, 2 Peter 3:9; 7-14-1974.



Indeed, without using the exaggerated term "hypercalvinist", Criswell was no Calvinist, and I actually agree with FSSL that "hyper" is an inaccurate term used to make a person or denomination appear more extreme than they are,

much like how "KJV radical" is a silly term as almost all Protestants across all denominations used that version for 300 years, therefore using said term implies one believes almost all of Christendom was radical before Westcott and Hort who stated they did not believe Jesus was God in agreement with the JW's (why the NASB says Jesus was a "begotten God"), and stated that their Bible was "mere compromise", and that they thought evangelicals were "perverted", and did not believe the scriptures were inspired. Just a few claims of many that accurately makes them self-professed radicals who gave us the versions that barely 1 century later we can see the fruits of in the first world: apostasy and riots.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
much like how "KJV radical" is a silly term
They were radical. Notice that I said "King James Only radicals." They attempted to deny the autonomy of the local church in making the exclusive use of a version an issue. An issue that never was part of the original purpose.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
much like how "KJV radical" is a silly term as almost all Protestants across all denominations used that version for 300 years, therefore using said term implies one believes almost all of Christendom was radical before...
I don't think it's meant to be derogatory as much as it is to separate those who believed the KJV Bible to be what the translators believed it to be and those who believe it to be something beyond what the King James translators believed it to be. Being the latter position is fairly new "radical" is not unfair although I typically use King James Onlyist as it's more descriptive of their beliefs.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
An issue that never was part of the original purpose.
You might have missed this, as it addresses the original use of the term "radical" in it's proper context in Christendom:

"KJV radical" is a silly term as almost all Protestants across all denominations used that version for 300 years, therefore using said term implies one believes almost all of Christendom was radical before Westcott and Hort who stated they did not believe Jesus was God in agreement with the JW's (which is why the NASB says Jesus was a "begotten God"), and stated that their "faith" and their Bible was "mere compromise" (quoted word for word), and that they thought evangelicals were "perverted", and did not believe the scriptures were inspired.

Just a few of their self-professed claims of many that accurately makes them self-professed radicals on numerous pillars and fundamentals of the faith who gave us the versions that barely 1 century later we can see the fruits of in the first world: apostasy and riots.

Why someone will defend versions that are barely 1 century old when Christendom has thousands of years behind it is beyond me. Especially considering the result of their ecumenical, 300+ variant-version fruit everyone can see now.


Regardless of what anyone thinks, I think it's more orthodox and traditional to argue in defense of 1 version: whether that be KJV or NASB or whaever,
than it is to argue in favor of 300+ versions against 1 version. That is a weak position that leans more toward ecumenicalism by nature.
 
Top