What Did He Call Me?

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vince Massi

Well-known member
Elect
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
40
Points
48
In the late 1970?s, Bob Jones Jr. started pushing "Secondary Separation," commanding God's people to separate from born-again Christians who weren't separated from compromise denominations. And Jones announced that if you would not obey this unscriptural command, you were not a fundamentalist.

He invented the word ?pseudofundamentalist" to describe fundamentalists who would not obey him. Both C.S.Lewis and Charles Spurgeon were pseudofundamentalists, along with Jack Hyles, John R. Rice,  the Apostle Paul, and Jesus. When a prominent evangelist of that time preached that this was wrong, Jones announced that the evangelist had repudiated fundamentalism.

The fourth definition of "fundamentalist": a Christian who disobeys God's commands to have fellowship with one another.
 
I was at BJU in 1971. First time I had ever heard of secondary separation. Of course I knew we were not to be unequally yoked to unbelievers. I asked what is this secondary separation? Basically if my christian friend Larry had an unsaved friend he ran around with I was told to avoid Larry until he got his heart right with God. One of the many reasons I transferred to LBC(Liberty) the next year.
 
4ever, you bring up an important point. Years ago, this came up on the FFF, and some BJU grads who were students at the time insisted that the whole thing was a lie--BJU had not taught that.

But then a few other grads posted, that Yes, they had read about it in the Sword of the Lord, and it was true that Jones said it. But BJU never taught that and stayed out of the conflict.

In other words, BJU was pseudofundamentalist. So why didn't Jones separate from BJU?

To be fair, BJU usually practiced secondary separation, but they did not make it a requirement.
 
Jones started a short-lived and unsuccessful controversy with his secondary separation. BJU didn't back him, making BJU a pseudofundamentalist institution; yet Jones did not separate from them.

And there's a lesson here. Jones was using a new method of controlling Christians: "You are not allowed to be a fundamentalist if you do not obey me."

Don't let the word "fundamentalist" wreck your Christian life. You don't need to fear any self-proclaimed fundamentalist leaders.
 
John MacArthur was not allowed to speak at fundamental colleges because of this silly notion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BJU really did practice secondary seperation when I was there and even before I got there. Case in point that was brought up there. Billy Graham was before he started his city wide crusades was thought highly of by Bob Jones Jr. Until Billy opened the campaign and stage to other denominations, religion groups,  that BJU and Jones Jr did not think was worthy to be invited. After that BJU seperated itself from Billy Graham. That was talked about when I was there in 1971. Also single black students could not attend BJU then, that is another story for another time.
 
FSSL said:
John MacArthur was not allowed to speak at fundamental colleges because of this silly notion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If memory serves me, many distanced themselves from John MacArthur in the 80's because of his position on the blood of Christ and because of his strong Calvinist leanings.
 
sword said:
If memory serves me, many distanced themselves from John MacArthur in the 80's because of his position on the blood of Christ and because of his strong Calvinist leanings.
Click to expand...

Our circle of IFBs distanced ourselves because he spoke at a charismatics' conference.
 
Bob Jones Jr.  shamefully slandered John MacArthur in their magazine ?Faith for the Family? in 1976 .  Here is what John MacArthur believes concerning the blood of Christ.

Col 1:14 redemption.  The Gr. Word means ?to deliver by payment of a ransom,? and was used of freeing slaves from bondage.  Here it refers to Christ freeing believing sinners from slavery to sin (cf. Eph. 1:7, 1 Cor. 1:30).  through his blood.  (Cf. v. 20.  A reference not limited to the fluid as if the blood had saving properties in its chemistry, but an expression  pointing to the totality of Christ?s atoning work as a sacrifice for sin.  This is a frequently used metonym in the NT (see Eph 1:7; 2:13; Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 1:19).  The word ?cross? (as in v.20) is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work (see 1 Cor 1:18; Gal 6:12,14; Eph 2:16). 

This is the historical interpretation of orthodox Christianity.  Compare this to what Charles Spurgeon said.

"...the blood of sprinkling" represents the pains, the sufferings, the humiliation, and the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which he endured on the behalf of guilty man. When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God;
 
I am all for Biblical separation.

Like if you know a saved person who is currently living in fornication, or drunkenness, then obviously you should separate from him and have no company with him, even as Paul admonished in 1 Cor. 5:11, seeing that that saved person is living carnally and walking disorderly.

But when it comes to ultra separation or "double separation" I get suspicious concerning that. Now again, there are standards that we as Christians are to walk and live in. And granted, we should not compromise our Biblical convictions, and we should not join ourselves to organizations and denominations (Although they may profess to be Christian) that disobey the word of God. Such as any denomination that is ecumenical, and that 'ordains' Lesbian or Sodomite ministers.
 
Biblebeliever said:
But when it comes to ultra separation or "double separation" I get suspicious concerning that.
Click to expand...

Really? You had no skepticism at all about a WooTube video about Michelle Obama being a man, and you're suspicious about this?
 
Ransom said:
Really? You had no skepticism at all about a WooTube video about Michelle Obama being a man, and you're suspicious about this?
Click to expand...

Well Scott, I already admitted to being wrong concerning this topic that you bright up again. I was clearly deceived on this a while ago and I already repented of that. Sad thing is though, I know Christians that still think that Michelle Obama is a man.

The same proof that was shown unto me in this forum a while back, I showed the same childhood photo to this Christian I was trying to gently correct concerning this, and that Christian still refuses to believe that Michelle Obama is actually a woman and not a man.

As I mentioned afore already, if I am shown to be wrong and to be in error concerning something, then I will take the correction and reproof and admit therefore that I was wrong.

You see Scott, true King James Bible believing Christians will admit when they are wrong, and they will repent, and then continue to go on for the truth.

But many of the Independent "Fundamental" professing Baptists of today will not take correction, they will not humble themselves and admit where they are wrong. (Does the name Jack Hyles) ring a bell???

Why? Because they are proud and arrogant.

And I do not want to be proud or arrogant. But rather, I want to be like my Lord and Saviour, humble and meek and lowly.
 
Biblebeliever said:
Well Scott, I already admitted to being wrong concerning this topic that you bright up again. I was clearly deceived on this a while ago and I already repented of that.
Click to expand...

Sadder thing is, you actually believed it in the first place. What a gullible loon!

You see Scott, true King James Bible believing Christians will admit when they are wrong
Click to expand...

Except when it comes to the Blessed Virgin King Jimmy Holy Infallible Authorized Holy--Holy, I Say--Holy Bible, then you'll never admit you're wrong.

So you no longer believe Michelle Obama is a man. What of it? You've strained out the gnat but still swallow the camel of bibiological heresy.
 
In a post to Biblebeliever, Ransom states:

"What a gullible loon!"

"You've strained out the gnat but still swallow the camel of bibiological heresy."

In a post to the Roman Christians, Paul wrote "You who judge do the same things."
 
Vince Massi said:
In a post to the Roman Christians, Paul wrote "You who judge do the same things."
Click to expand...

Just because that's the only Bible verse you actually appear to know, doesn't mean you are applying it correctly.
 
Why, Good Heavens, Ransom, that isn't the only Bible verse I know. For instance, I know the one where Jesus said "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Now, Readers, I despise the wickedness of Peter Ruckman and the paganism of St. Augustine, so I would favor neither Biblebeliever nor Ransom. But Biblebeliever generally speaks as both a Christian and a gentleman, while Ransom practices insults, false accusations, and name-calling.

According to Jesus, which of these two men is posting like a disciple?
 
Well, since Vince has abandoned his topic and decided to make personal attacks, this thread is locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top