What is a Separatist within Christendom? Actually, it may surprise you.

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
What is a separatist within Christendom?


Especially in recent Christendom with the growing left-wing, anti-Christian censorship culture in the first world, the Christian separatists' actions can be readily seen by their attempts to ban certain information that makes their position look bad, to put it simply before providing greater detail that explains why.

Banning, censoring, or mislabeling viewpoints that disagree with or threaten one's own is in actuality a primitive, fear-based reaction driven by the motivation to protect one's isolated team rather than seeking truth even at the expense of isolated teams (Calvinism, for example, is just one isolated team of many, and we know that former Presidents of the SBC like Criswell were anti-Calvinist, yet still communicated with them instead of isolating himself and using false labels that misrepresent what Calvinists actually believe).

In fact, those who bring in information out of a concern to help others align closer with God's truth are those attempting the influencing (not the separation) with God's word as the unifier, not the protection of traditions of men or any one team as the unifier. By contrast, those fighting to keep these people and their information out are actually separating themselves from those who disagree with their isolated team. Separatists will never be found communicating in a way where they're willing to learn from those who disagree with them: they will typically only associate with those who agree with their view, and dishonestly smear and misrepresent those who don't as their primary tactic to win people to their side.

Notice the difference in approach: influencers simply use the truth, they are purely information spreaders, whereas separatists instead censor and/or misrepresent the information of other positions to make their own position look better than it actually is. This is because they understand their knowledge outside their isolated system (whether that be Calvinism or Arminianism) is usually weak and there's a chance they will lose face in an open discussion where it's being compared against new information. This is why they must resort to separating themselves by banning/censoring those who disagree, after which they use their platform that is now free from anyone questioning it, to quite frankly and plainly, lie and smear campaign against those who can no longer speak to defend themselves with truth and information.

In recent times, we are seeing this more within the New Calvinist Movement. In times where mass information and various viewpoints are instantly visible all at once on the internet, they're realizing their belief system does not hold up against careful examination from other perspectives that they did not previously understand or interact with as much, yet they are inclined to protect their reputation regardless, as this is a higher priority than admitting where they may have been wrong and realigning themselves with whatever truth God reveals to them.

Just one example of this, the President of CARM issued an open challenge exclusively to non-Calvinists, then hit the mute button on them once truth he was previously unfamiliar with began to threaten the validity of his business (a natural response, but this is why being a Christian leader is extremely difficult: we must be ready and willing to sacrifice and give anything up to stay with God and his truth, even if that means laying the errors of our life work at his feet and suffering the temporal consequences, James 3:1):
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
118
Points
63
I think Christians should separate themselves from overuse of boldface text.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
I think Christians should separate themselves from overuse of boldface text.
I'll try to use it less. Oh my goodness, guys.

"I actually listened to correction from another person! I was proven wrong before the whole world! My reputation is now damaged forever! No one will listen to me ever again!" -Christians not fully qualified to be leaders
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
I also fixed your title for ya.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Separation within Christendom.... great topic! This is a loose and necessarily condensed history of separationism in Christendom from its inception as a coined term to today.

Origin of Separation
The term, "separatist," was coined in regard to Robert Browne, a Puritan separatist. Separation, originally, was from the Church of England which maintained most of Catholicism. "A Treatise of Reformation without Tarrying for Any" in 1582 established his support for leaving the Puritans with their mess and starting his own... well... what turned into a mess ;) So, separatism, originally, was not Calvinism vs Arminianism... it was breaking away from the Church of England which was still too Catholic.

Separation and people who were called Baptists
John Smyth founded General Baptists (not the same as any Baptist today and died off in the 1800s). He wrote the treatise, Differences of the Churches of the Separation, 1608. Again, they were separating from the Church of England because of the Catholicism.

Separation and Original Fundamentalism
In the late 1800s, Baptists (and other Bible believers) found themselves at odds with the secular beliefs of evolutionism and the Modernists who were accepting it. The issues were the authority of Scripture and Christ.

Separation and the New Fundamentalists
As the Bible College movement began, separationism was redefined. Was it because of Bible Colleges? I think so... But, what is certain is that separationism departed from the fundamentals and ended up becoming subservient to the idea of "standards." You are supposed to separate from those who used a different version of Scripture*, those who didn't dress or have their hair cut the same... and even to the idea that the other Bible College was not as "fundamental" as your Bible College. Bible Colleges were vying for support from local churches. They established rules to acommodate the various practices/beliefs of the more extreme churches.

Pastors who graduated from these colleges established the same rules in their local churches... who never practiced those things before. We got a new youth pastor, straight out of Bible College and all of the sudden, no more movies and only use this version of the Bible. The next youth pastor came in and all of a sudden "mixed swimming" was a problem.

Summation
So, what people, today refer to Separationism, generally-speaking has nothing to do with breaking way from the Church of England or Modernists. Christians, today, are separating over the "compromisers" who have differing standards applied by various Bible Colleges.









*In 1995, the president of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Arno Weniger), who was fond of the NASB and neither King James Only, nor Preferred, established a King James exclusive text use for the classroom. Why? Well... the school had board members who were King James Only, so politics won the day. A school, devoted to training future pastors of churches ends up clouding the version issue just to appease King James Only radicals.
 
Last edited:

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
what is certain is that separationism departed from the fundamentals and ended up becoming subservient to the idea of "standards." You are supposed to separate from those who used a different version of Scripture*, those who didn't dress or have their hair cut the same
Agreed. There is much legalism in the IFB movement that has needed to go for a while now.

Separation, originally, was from the Church of England which maintained most of Catholicism
Yep.

separationism was redefined.
And people are subjectively redefining it all the time to fit their own worldview.

and all of the sudden, no more movies and only use this version of the Bible.
Here's where we have an issue. "No more movies" is clearly legalistic and has nothing to do with which version of the Bible you prefer and why.

Using the KJV does not equate to being a legalistic IFB person.
This stereotype needs to go.

And it shouldn't need to take the Pentecostal church to go KJV-O to change it, clearly it is a fallacy of false equivalence since everyone before the heretics Westcott and Hort showed up more or less used the KJV.

Christians, today, are separating over the "compromisers" who have differing standards applied by various Bible Colleges.
Again, it sounds like you're exclusively describing the IFB.

With UGC, for example, though primarily a podcast with some video Bible studies, it should be obvious that we are not IFB by any of today's legalistic standards. We believe in sharing the fundamentals from scripture, not various disagreeing confessions with other Christians and it is usually them who separate themselves from us when their tradition is threatened by scripture itself. As if all denominations got scripture right when they all think it says different things: God is not the author of confusion. This isn't always the case, but it certainly happens.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
Using the KJV does not equate to being a legalistic IFB person.
This stereotype needs to go.

And it shouldn't need to take the Pentecostal church to go KJV-O to change it, clearly it is a fallacy of false equivalence since everyone before the heretics Westcott and Hort showed up more or less used the KJV.
That's not really accurate. Obviously no one used the kjv before 1611. It wasn't even the preferred version for the puritans for at least a few decades after that.

"The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible."

greatsite.com
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
That's not really accurate. Obviously no one used the kjv before 1611.
That's not even on topic. Nowhere was I referring to anyone before 1611 in that post.

I've already touched upon what scriptures God held men responsible to read and know before 1611 in another thread.

It wasn't even the preferred version for the puritans for at least a few decades after that.
Sounds like a weaksauce James White argument. Next you'll tell us about the Mayflower and all its vast 100 passengers.

Do you know what percentage of all Christendom was Puritan from 1611 to 1900? The Mayflower sailed in 1620, not even 1 decade after the KJV was translated. What a silly example. By the way, the Pilgrims were of the Puritan sect known as "Separatists".

And you admitted yourself, it only took a few decades for the KJV to become the dominant version. 1611 to 1900 is more than just a few decades.

yet it is not even a Protestant translation!
Perhaps you need to look into the Anglican Church of England.

Your appeal to them persecuting other Protestants and your claim that the KJV is a "non-Protestant Bible competing with Protestant Bibles" clashes with your defense of Protestant Calvinism because "the KJV translators were all Calvinists who followed the Church of England's Articles of Faith", remember.


...This actually only further proves my point that just because a number of the translators identified with Calvinism, not Catholicism, does not give Calvinism any credibility.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
That's not even on topic. Nowhere was I referring to anyone before 1611 in that post.

I've already touched upon what scriptures God held men responsible to read and know before 1611 in another thread.


Sounds like a weaksauce James White argument. Next you'll tell us about the Mayflower and all its vast 100 passengers.

Do you know what percentage of all Christendom was Puritan from 1611 to 1900? The Mayflower sailed in 1620, not even 1 decade after the KJV was translated. What a silly example. By the way, the Pilgrims were of the Puritan sect known as "Separatists".

And you admitted yourself, it only took a few decades for the KJV to become the dominant version. 1611 to 1900 is more than just a few decades.


Perhaps you need to look into the Anglican Church of England.

Your appeal to them persecuting other Protestants and your claim that the KJV is a "non-Protestant Bible competing with Protestant Bibles" clashes with your defense of Protestant Calvinism because "the KJV translators were all Calvinists who followed the Church of England's Articles of Faith", remember.


...This actually only further proves my point that just because a number of the translators identified with Calvinism, not Catholicism, does not give Calvinism any credibility.
UGC said "And it shouldn't need to take the Pentecostal church to go KJV-O to change it, clearly it is a fallacy of false equivalence since everyone before the heretics Westcott and Hort showed up more or less used the KJV."

We would be in agreement than that "everyone before..." wasn't really accurate then. So KJV was overwhelmingly dominant from about 1640 to about 1901. A little over two hundred years. If our standard of what is the true Bible is number of years dominant, shouldn't Latin Vulgate be our Bible?
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
We would be in agreement than that "everyone before..." wasn't really accurate then.
I'm starting to wonder if you work for CNN, as your ability to wrest context to misrepresent what others say and red herring is decent.

The "everyone" in the context of that sentence was obviously referring to everyone horizontally across Christendom "more or less".
Not "everyone" vertically through time since I was referring to the KJV which obviously was not here before 1611, and I should not have to add extraneous content to my sentence just to clarify that, it is already implied because everyone already knows the KJV was translated in 1611, therefore I'm obviously not referring to people before 1611, how in the world would that make any sense whatsoever. This is why, mole, I always say that the anti-KJV only has weak arguments so they have to twist or misrepresent the other side to even hope to win. The better you are at doing that, the more successful you'll be on the anti-KJV side. It's that simple. Because the facts don't like: it's obvious that the NV's have a far worse history and associations than the KJV. That's just reality.

So KJV was overwhelmingly dominant from about 1640 to about 1901. A little over two hundred years.
That's over 260 years. You might want to round up to 300 instead of down to 200, doing everything to the misrepresent facts, math 101: 2.6 round to 3, not 2.
And I wouldn't even say 1640, I would say 1631 to be generous, to give you a full 20 year head start on your weak argument.
If you're going to nitpick, at least be accurate about it.

A little over two hundred years. If our standard of what is the true Bible is number of years dominant, shouldn't Latin Vulgate be our Bible?
Take a look at this: http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Variations_Between_TR_and_KJV

Before the KJV, God used whatever the predominant manuscripts/text accessible to the lay Christian and held those people accountable to know those words (as he says in scripture) whereby he will judge them by those words provided them, nowhere in scripture does God say "wait, for I will provide a confession and judge you by that". The scriptures, accessible and knowable, therefore legible and understandable to the people, as verified by the eternal implications found in scripture itself, are the source by which God will hold his people accountable and judge the world. In the Church Age, Paul says they will be judged by his gospel (Rom. 2:16). This gospel is found in the scriptures. Not in a confession or some statement of faith that came hundreds or thousands of years later.

Today, across all languages, there is a divide (scary word, I know) between Bibles translated from the Majority Text and those that were later influenced by Westcott and Hort's corrupt Critical Text. New Versionists can try, try all they want, but Westcott and Hort are unavoidable since they are the very crux, the very pivot point of this radical change that brought in these radical New Versions in just the past 120 years, rounded down to 100. 1 century. No track record at all. The KJV more than doubles that and has better fruits across the world of Christendom in both unity and growing the numbers of the church.

The New Versions are now shown to have had the opposite effect: more divisions (even to the delusional point where some whacky New Protestants who have abandoned the KJV in just the past century are calling KJV readers "radical", these people are tunnel visions in on a micro timeline of their own personally familiar history and not thinking about the history of Christians who came before them), more denominations since, mass apostasy in the first world.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
(By the way my posts sometimes have occasional spelling errors because I on rare occasions post from my phone, which tries to auto-correct or else it's just fat thumbed if auto-correct is off. I have to focus more on work and other things, so I don't have time to give my full and uninterrupted attention to every response I provide in here).
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
I'm starting to wonder if you work for CNN, as your ability to wrest context to misrepresent what others say and red herring is decent.

The "everyone" in the context of that sentence was obviously referring to everyone horizontally across Christendom "more or less".
Not "everyone" vertically through time since I was referring to the KJV which obviously was not here before 1611, and I should not have to add extraneous content to my sentence just to clarify...
So when you said "everyone before..." you didn't really mean everyone and you didn't really mean "before". That's why I like our conversations. Mostly people on here just use facts or what they believe to be facts to support their case. You my friend reinterpret language-that's much more interesting.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
That's over 260 years. You might want to round up to 300 instead of down to 200, doing everything to the misrepresent facts, math 101: 2.6 round to 3, not 2.
And I wouldn't even say 1640, I would say 1631 to be generous, to give you a full 20 year head start on your weak argument.
If you're going to nitpick, at least be accurate about it.
Sure go with 300 doesn't really change anything.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
The New Versions are now shown to have had the opposite effect: more divisions (even to the delusional point where some whacky New Protestants who have abandoned the KJV in just the past century are calling KJV readers "radical", these people are tunnel visions in on a micro timeline of their own personally familiar history and not thinking about the history of Christians who came before them), more denominations since, mass apostasy in the first world.
Again, you are trying to argue with someone who isn't on this forum. I've not seen anyone on here say that the KJV reader is radical. Someone who , in opposition to what the KJV translators believed, take the KJV to be inspired or double inspired is a radical new way of looking at it. If someone prefers the KJV I don't think I've seen anyone on here state that's a bad thing.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
FSSL said: "and all of the sudden, no more movies and only use this version of the Bible."

UGC ignores the wording and creates a strawman: "Here's where we have an issue. "No more movies" is clearly legalistic and has nothing to do with which version of the Bible you prefer and why. Using the KJV does not equate to being a legalistic IFB person. This stereotype needs to go."

I didn't say "using the kjv"... I said "ONLY use this version of the Bible." Requiring an exclusive use of a version is legalism. It certainly has no place in a Bible College designed to train preachers.

FSSL said:
Christians, today, are separating over the "compromisers" who have differing standards applied by various Bible Colleges.
UGC: Again, it sounds like you're exclusively describing the IFB.
The last point is about the IFB.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
So when you said "everyone before..."
I meant "everyone before" in the context of my original sentence without twisting it, as I just explained in post #11.

reinterpret language-that's much more interesting.
Mole nonsense.

Sure go with 300 doesn't really change anything.
It changes everything.

I've not seen anyone on here say that the KJV reader is radical.
Read the forum more.

creates a strawman: "Here's where we have an issue. "No more movies" is clearly legalistic and has nothing to do with which version of the Bible you prefer and why. Using the KJV does not equate to being a legalistic IFB person. This stereotype needs to go."
Yeah that's not a strawman. Read up on fallacies unless you want me to repost that embarrassing post lecturing the moles here about them. As if we live in times where these tactics work online anymore.

I said "ONLY use this version of the Bible."
That's what was implied if you know the context of my stance here which has not changed in all of my recent posts, many of which involved both you and tmjbog.

Watch the smear campaign against any who prefer the KJV before other versions from these amateurs: they're going to keep quoting things out of context, ignoring empirical data, and liberally red herring themselves around the moon. Actions that are a witness against their position. Might want to humbly back off at this point before giving me more to work with. People are not happy about how they've been lied to about all of this by famous "Christians", some of whom are friends with other famous folk that won't currently be mentioned.
 

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
29
Points
28
By the way, the Pilgrims were of the Puritan sect known as "Separatists".
You are mixed up or are trying to rewrite history. The Puritans were all still members of the Church of England, and they wanted to purify the Church of England of some of its remaining Roman Catholic practices.

The Separatists were not members of the Church of England since they choose to separate from it or to remain not part of the it.
 

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
29
Points
28
Watch the smear campaign against any who prefer the KJV before other versions from these amateurs: they're going to keep quoting things out of context, ignoring empirical data, and liberally red herring themselves around the moon. .
It is clear that you have it wrong and mostly backwards. The smear campaign often comes from those who are KJV-only advocates, and they are the ones using fallacies including red herrings, the ones ignoring the actual sound evidence, the ones showing partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611, and the ones using unjust divers measures [double standards]. You have engaged in carnal smear tactics.

You try to misrepresent what constitutes a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV, and it is not reading only the KJV.
Human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching has to do with the making of unproven, exclusive, only claims for one English translation--the KJV.
 
Last edited:

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Watch the smear campaign against any who prefer the KJV
There is a huge difference between "using the KJV" and forcing other people to "ONLY use the KJV."
 
Top