Skip to content

July 9, 2010

11

Ecclesiastical Separation, Part 4

Psalm 119:63 says, “I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts.” The esteemed John R. Rice, founding editor of “The Sword of the Lord,” was a man of God who made no bones about the evils of modernist liberalism, yet he said that “on the authority of that verse I decided … that I would be for the man who is for Christ and the Bible. So I work with all people of God who are born again and live like it and believe the Bible and who are willing to work with other Christians.” (Dr. Rice Goes to College)

Consider these words of Rice from his sermon “Christian Cooperation and Separation” preached in 1959:

Somebody says, “Here is a fellow wrong on baptism.” Well, that is too bad.  Bring him around and I will help straighten him out.  But meantime, is he born again?  Does he believe the Bible?  Does he love Jesus Christ?  If he does, then he is a brother and you are to receive him.

You say, “This person talks in tongues.” Well, personally I prefer the English tongue!  But a man who talks in tongues – is he saved?  Yes.  Does he believe the Bible?  Yes.  Does he love the Lord?  Yes.  Is he right on all the essentials about Christ and the Bible?  If so, I can have fellowship with him, provided he does not make doubtful disputations.

Here is a postmillennialist.  Shall we let him co-operate in a revival campaign?  Now a man can be saved, yet be a postmillennialist.  He is wrong, of course, but would you let this saved postmillennialist come in a revival campaign?  Yes, if he makes no divisive issue of his postmillennialism.
 
You say, “This man is an Arminian.” Well, he is wrong if he believes Jesus saves you part of the way and you save yourself the rest of the way; He saves you the first second, then the rest of the sixty years you have got to keep yourself saved.  That is wrong.  I don’t agree with him at all, but he can still be a good Christian.  Many of the best Christians are not very clear on some minor matters of doctrine.  But for Jesus – yes sir!  For Christ, for the Bible, the virgin birth, blood atonement, deity, the bodily resurrection – yes sir!  Now if he makes no divisive issue and strife, let him in, let him co-operate, seek his fellowship.

Here is a preacher who believes in sprinkling.  But is he saved?  Is he for Christ?  For the Bible?  The important thing is, Is a man for Christ and the Bible?  If he is and he makes no divisive issues and strife, then fellowship with him.  So the Scripture teaches.
 
That means I can fellowship with some who fellowship with some they ought not fellowship with. (p.91-92) Would you fellowship with a man in the Southern Baptist Convention?  Suppose he supports the Convention program.  (Because of long experience with my Southern Baptist people and because I was trained in Southern Baptist schools, pastored Southern Baptist churches, I use them as an example.) 

Could you fellowship with such a man in a revival campaign, if he is for Christ and the Bible, if he is right on the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, blood atonement?  Is he standing up for the Bible?  Yes.  I am sorry that he supports some things he ought not support.  Perhaps he does not know as much as I do about it.  In any case, if he makes no divisive issue over that co-operation, I would say go along with him.  Let him come in the revival and help.

Now then, would you go along with people you differ with?  Yes, if the difference is on minor things, but not on whether the Bible is true, not on whether Christ is born of a virgin, not on whether the blood of Jesus paid for sins, not on whether Jesus rose again, not on whether you need to be born again.  On certain essentials about Christ, salvation, the Person and work of Christ, there is no room for difference, no room for co-operation when people differ on the main things. (p.93). 

Many in our modern-day Independent Baptist movement would find the above statements shocking! But I think our Baptist forefathers would find our modern attitude about Ecclesiastical Separation to be “shocking.” So what does a Biblical structure of “Ecclesiastical Separation” look like? The last post in this series will look at a sensible structure of cooperation going forward….

11 Comments
  1. Jul 9 2010

    No doubt intresting stuff. To be okay with tongues, however seems to contradict Biblical salvation. The pentacostal is not fully saved until they experience tongues. The Bible believing Christian is saved by Christ alone. That is grounds for seperation, by Dr.Rice’s definition. Your thoughts?

  2. Trent Cornwell
    Jul 9 2010

    I am enjoying reading your thoughts on this subject. I am not surprised by the statements by John R Rice, but do imagine many will be. I look forward to reading more as you give explanation to some of the texts used correctly and incorrectly on this subject.

  3. admin
    Jul 9 2010

    I think there would be people in the charismatic tradition that would hold that theology. (Tongues necessary for salvation) If they do, they are adding something to salvation and would not meet his tests of fellowship. I do not believe that was the segment of that tradition that John R. Rice was referring to…but, he is dead, so I cannot ask him.

  4. Brad Gilbert
    Jul 9 2010

    Interesting quotes from Dr. Rice. It seems to me as if we have a different definition of “fundamental…fundamentalism, etc.” today then in generations past. Reminds me of an older sermon that I have read/listened to called “Ten Shekles and a Shirt” by Paris Reidhead.

  5. admin
    Jul 9 2010

    Brad… Great sermon by Paris. Love his accent! With regards to the word “Fundamentalist”…interesting story about Dr. Rice…he pastored the “Fundamentalists Baptist Tabernacle” in the 1930’s…and as he was going into full time evangelism, before he resigned, he led the church to rename the church “Galilean Baptist Church.” His reasoning? (Direct quote from John R. Rice) “While we are Fundamentalists, the name in the southwest has come to mean something besides standing for the fundamentals of the faith…” A few years before, he had proclaimed “I am an out and out Fundamental Baptist and I want everyone to know it.” So over the course of his ministry, he changed how he positioned his ministry and used the term. I think most people today have a very negative take on the word “Fundamentalist” because of radical Islam. So I choose to believe the doctrine/positions espoused as fundamental…but do not use it on my church sign as an identifier. But if you do, I understand why and have no problem with it. Blessings.

  6. visitor
    Jul 9 2010

    @ phil actually many pentacostals do not believe tongues is required for salvation. many also beleive that you receive the Holy Ghost at salvation, however you are Filled with the Holy Ghost when you speak in tongues.

  7. Jul 9 2010

    While I cannot say that we never use it, we don’t promote it just for that reason. Even in the IFB circles, fundamental means different things to different people. I prefer to say we hold to the fundamentals of the faith, but that may be nothing more than word semantics. The issue with that is there is division on what is fundamental and what is not.

    I am enjoying your take and thoughts on it.

  8. Jul 9 2010

    I agree that some may hold correct doctrine, but as a rule many attach either tongues or baptism (water or tongues) to it. I think that in the context (if I’m understanding it correctly) of Dr.Rice’s views, I’m not sure I want to be in the middle of a revival meeting when we find out. I think in a practical sense, much of the seperation we see today, for good or ill, is out of a good intention of protection. I think this discussion is very important and that we should know why we do what we do. I especially love Bro. Reed because his brings these things up. Unfortunatly in today’s circles asking questions is cause for seperation and that simply is not Bible Christianity.

  9. Aug 8 2010

    “Somebody says, “Here is a fellow wrong on baptism.” Well, that is too bad. Bring him around and I will help straighten him out. But meantime, is he born again? Does he believe the Bible? Does he love Jesus Christ? If he does, then he is a brother and you are to receive him.”
    “But for Jesus – yes sir! For Christ, for the Bible, the virgin birth, blood atonement, deity, the bodily resurrection – yes sir! Now if he makes no divisive issue and strife, let him in, let him co-operate, seek his fellowship.

    Here is a preacher who believes in sprinkling. But is he saved? Is he for Christ? For the Bible? The important thing is, Is a man for Christ and the Bible? If he is and he makes no divisive issues and strife, then fellowship with him. So the Scripture teaches.”
    Now then, would you go along with people you differ with? Yes, if the difference is on minor things, but not on whether the Bible is true, not on whether Christ is born of a virgin, not on whether the blood of Jesus paid for sins, not on whether Jesus rose again, not on whether you need to be born again. On certain essentials about Christ, salvation, the Person and work of Christ, there is no room for difference, no room for co-operation when people differ on the main things.” (p.93).
    Clay, Dr. Rice badly blunders here as a classic “fundamentalist” by insisting there are only 5 “fundamentals.”
    The Baptists before the rise of Fundamentalism were reluctant to join forces with Protestants (a few did) in any endeavor. In fact, from the early 17th century they were persecuted by these “brethren” because of their Biblical stance on baptism.
    Clay, could you answer something? (I am not trying to be unkind.) Do you believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are fundamental to Biblical faith?
    just curious,
    James Beller

  10. admin
    Aug 11 2010

    Pastor Beller….I personally believe that “Baptism” and the “Lord’s Supper” are an important part of our Baptist faith.

    The following is our churches stance on Baptism..

    Salvation must precede baptism. We believe that Scriptural baptism is the immersion in water of a believer in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost under the authority of the local church. It is to picture, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Savior, identifying our death to sin and resurrection to a new life. Salvation and baptism are prerequisite to the privilege of church membership. (Matthew 3:16; 28:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:36-39; Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12)

    But I believe that people who believe differently about these issues can be good people (unless they believe in Baptismal Regeneration–which adds works to salvation) who are brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Per post 5, I could not plant a church with one of these folks who has a different opinion about these issues…but I could work in a number of other areas such as disaster relief, or community prayer.

    Blessings.

  11. Roy Hensley
    Oct 17 2010

    Biblical separation is separation from the world and joined unto Christ. When the Promise Keepers were around and popular, they believed in breaking down the walls and all coming together and getting along. My concern about all this is in order to join forces many times one would need to give up something in order to make it happen, like compromise. We as Christians need to be careful with this philosophy and allowing ourselves to be influenced by carnal thinking. If I am going to be separated or invest in a lifestyle like Biblical separation, I’m going 100 %, not meeting in the middle somewhere. I can still love others from other churches but I’ll never join hands or change my standards to be like everyone else. Be different on purpose !!!

Comments are closed.