Trust-Worthiness, a False Image

Disillusionment in the Body of Christ

When we repeatedly see in others their differences, or failures, it makes us feel dissatisfied and depressed. We call such feelings "disillusionment." It is while experiencing disillusionment that our greatest choices in life are made. Here is a picture of someone who chooses foolishly, Luke 18:9-14,

Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’  And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’  I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

It's one thing to see what is "missing" in someone else.  It's another to derive one's purpose out of their shortcoming.  Comparing ourselves to others is not the way.  Our self-worth isn't obliterated when we are humble. Humility restores our sense of self-worth. It assumes the equal value of everyone, but those who don't believe it fight and quarrel to make life "fair" (James 4:1-4).  As we focus firstly on Christ and His love, our sins seem bigger and others' sins seem smaller. Knowing our own struggle with sin makes us hungry not to exclude others but to obtain peace and acceptance with others. It also fulfills our sense of purpose in living, and He richly blesses us with power and significance among the children of God.

What studies have been done noting the benefits of marriage, could be applied to believers. Many married couples divide when experiencing disillusionment. People who live alone do not live as long of lives, do not have the benefit of pooling resources, do not benefit from someone striving for their happiness, experience higher stress, and do not have anyone to help monitor harmful ways. People who stay married are happier than people who live alone.

When someone makes an accusation, usual responses include apologies, making excuses or communicating "your side," or even attack or withdraw. The issue is never the issue. The best way to interpret what sounds like an accusation in our ears is to perceive it as an opportunity to establish greater understanding. It takes a long time for married couples to learn that they don't really know their spouse.  I suspect that members of the Body take just as long to learn the same lesson.

Trust-Worthiness, a False Image

We all share in an never-ending quest to honor Christ in how we live, taking every thought captive as they say, or being careful to keep ourselves from traditions of men. Col. 2:6-10 says,

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

In the spirit of this scripture I make a proposal for examination, whether it would be in fact a tradition of men. Could it be that "trust-worthiness" has become our idol? I am compelled to ask, does our mind's edifice of what constitutes "trust" behave like an idol? Does it interfere with seeking oneness? John 17:20-21,

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

But Isn't Trust-worthiness Necessary?

What are your scriptural ideals of a person's trust-worthiness? I have a hunch it's solid stuff, great stuff. How do you use it? People use God-given materials to fashion false images, and good information can be used to keep people out. Trust-worthiness doesn't come from conforming someone to your own language, doctrine, or works. To this we go straight back to the gospel. A profession of faith in Jesus Christ is our Body. The only grounds for separation are the yeast(s) of legalism or licentiousness. We are all, just like marriage, members of one another. If one member hurts, all members feel it. We are a joint-venture regardless of whether we ignore or punish others, and it only returns these things back on ourselves. What's more, fruit-bearing abiders are those who've entrusted themselves to God and God to them (John 2:23-25, 14:21, 23). I think we all intuitively have grown up in the church dependent upon this being reality: If there ever was a man to whom I would entrust myself on sheer faith, it would be to one who genuinely knew and served God. 

Setting our presuppositions aside, then, trust comes through knowing someone ongoingly.  How can someone intervene gently for a sin or overlook a weakness, except by the intimate knowledge of how they were built?  We learn of our friends' humanity only by growing closer.  We don't learn from acts of escalation to keep out those who would share life.  We don't learn from aloofness which runs down the clock to conceal true terms for peace and closeness.  And we don't learn (as much) by sharing wonderful intimacy for awhile but pointedly revoking it if it doesn't suit our idealism.

Trust especially comes to those who are on-goingly known by God.  No one becomes worthy of trust through conforming to another's idealism no matter how biblical.  Such expectations are the building of earthly kingdoms.

Pick Your Grid

Find your grid in scripture, but I've never seen a happy ending in God's doctrine where His people are "fine" while alienated by others or with God. His story comes to completion by restoring one another to a place of mutual ministry and rejoicing together. Let me point out three example grids off the top of my head:

• Job. Sure, Job accepted the truth of his insignificance repenting in dust and ashes. But the story did not come to a close till he was interceding for his pain-inflicting counselors.

• Romans 4-8. We're imputed righteousness and forgiven for sins in 4. But God isn't done explaining the gift till He explains that it works in Romans 8 like following His Spirit to put to death the deeds of the flesh and partnering actively with God as sons.

• John 4. The woman at the well could have been satisfied keeping the fountain for herself. Instead, unlike the unobservant apostles she naturally runs into the city to tell others - so that He who sows and she who reaps may rejoice together.

A negative example would be Jonah. God has the last word of the book, still pursuing Jonah with that bad attitude.  We can assume that God and Jonah lived the rest of their lives that way - God inviting Jonah to abandon his thoughts of being separate from other believers (think Luke 18 (above) again).  So: how can we trust someone who wants to join in, when they've wounded us and caused us disillusionment?

The Wounded One

There is a fine and highly disputed boundary between the wounded one and the disobedient (those who want to fail at becoming one with believers). It's okay to hurt. It's okay to hurt for a long time. But according to God's character a portion of healing is being sent by Him into the inward man. Similarly an outward portion of healing comes from the party who caused trust to collapse. If they are not taking outward approaches, we can be sure they are not taking them inwardly. How can I say such a thing? This gets to the very heart of God: while we were enemies, Christ died for us, that we through intimacy might be transformed. Bank on God for this. Then observe whether they feign confusion.

There are exceptions to this generalization. Some dear believers suffer from depression or a host of various chemical or mental disorders - I have a number of such friends myself. I know that there is honest effort when it comes to these issues, and it is a challenge to be "Christian" toward others. Until there is some vulnerability, those on the receiving end won't see how grace is helpful in situations. In any case, we ought to be prepared for weaknesses and handicaps in others. The weak are even more welcome into His presence, and I will testify that at least as far as I have seen God treat the weak, it has by no means marginalized their perfectly designed role in the Body.

The Challenge to Persevere toward Oneness

Where do we go when disillusioned with God's people?  If we break off to be with those who are like ourselves, what reward will we get?  We are no different from the greedy.  Matt. 5:47,

And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

Sects are common, but cults are worse.  It is important to take a few basic notes on what cults do. They isolate members from family and friends - true relationships where they receive care outside of the protocol of the group. They foster disconnection from outsiders as a mainstay of their theological tenets. And in the case that someone leaves the group, relationships are radically cut off with rumors that aren't allowed a decent hearing to see if there's any truth to them.

Decide for yourself who you will serve this day.  Love isn't given or taken because of performance. Love isn't held hostage and it isn't debating in private recesses whether or not you are qualified to share in the venture of life together. Love, is. It is its own purpose. It never fails.

His Kingdom is Desirous for Outsiders

The kingdom and its work isn't possessed by a few believers at the top who have learned how to use protocols like barbed wire and booby traps (thanks Charity). It belongs to whosoever loves Him. If there is a biblical fellowship, it isn't formed and gathered firstly on the pinnacles of hierarchy. The fellowship of God and God's people is down here, where people are gaining Christ. This is where God is alive, and this is where we share the same mind and heart together in the mutual venture we have in making disciples for Him (study the use of the word koinonia in the book of Philippians).

En-Trust to Build Trust

Accepting fellowship for what it is supposed to be and not for our false images, we will glorify Jesus Christ. Ushering and acknowledging others in the presence of Christ is the safest place we should herald them to be. In His presence there is hope that weaknesses and sins will be overcome. Do you hunger and thrist for this kind of reconciliation and commission, for any kind of person, with God? Then, upon this we have obtained "koinonia." Let us set off in the boat together with our Master.

No one is immune to the fellowship-choking path to sects and the building of earthly kingdoms. This includes me. I need someone to knock me in the head every once in awhile. Doesn't have to be any more elaborate than this, "I sense pride in you, so maybe you should think about it." Christian or unbeliever, it does not matter; I need massive help to avoid serving my own purposes (in the name of God, no less!). Even unbelievers hate pride--get some--they're very astute on shortsightedness in the church. As much as I operate in the flesh, I am going to let God down. If I really want to build God's kingdom, someone has to notice the difference between God in His grace and truth, and how I love to build my own kingdom. As much as I want it to be about me because I am in flesh, it's not. When I operate in the Spirit, I see God's generosity to truly be with you because of your abiding faith in Him. That's the happy ending, to marvel at God as One. Each believer has gifts absolutely essential to feed those who have come to His table so we may be edified to grow as one in the full stature of Christ (Eph. 2:19-22).

Genuine hunger for God's kingdom is demonstrated when believers entrust themselves to those who may seem like "outsiders" in seeking the same. That has been my foremost aspiration for the Body of Christ both online and offline. I am by no means the only one who feels this way for believers - I am in the company of greatness and a great many.

There is no flourishing with fragmentation.  When Jesus was incarnated, it may have appeared as though He was alone.  However, He did not come by Himself. This is the subject of the next blog post.

Type 1, Type 2

I am convinced there are two sorts of participants in the FG hot topics around the blogs. They jump in the conversation according to what they feel is most important.

Type 1 in this conversation prioritize (rank in importance) the FG hot topics like this:

1 - COSF (most important)
2 - purity in speech/conduct

Type 2 in this conversation prioritize topics inversely:

1 - purity in speech/conduct (most important)
2 - COSF

Neither Type 1 or Type 2 are wrong; they're just different to stress one over the other but I assume both Type 1 and Type 2 esteem COSF and purity. (Perhaps the difference in emphasis is due to different gifts or parts of the body?) I'm a Type 2. I think there are several who are Type 2 in the blogosphere and I believe the ranks are growing, converting and displacing a few Type 1s. There are many reasons to be a Type 2. Here's some my feeble mind has thought it could notice:

-- One could be hard-core (how shall we label these COSF doctrines?) FGA, GES, or Glorious gospel, but are so disenchanted through seeing ungraciousness that being dogmatic just isn't spiritually worth the cost anymore

-- One could have started off being either FGA or GES and may still believe that COSF is the most important thing, but because there is no pragmatic difference in what is being preached to the lost, or perhaps because one has been convinced by scripture there really is not much difference in the theology between the two, the result is the COSF "debate" doesn't really need to be "debated" like once believed

-- One has studied the COSF debate and does not believe the correct answer is any of those (three) COSF doctrines, but a fourth. And it was when these ones had to sit around on their hands for three years to even get a chance to share their mind they noticed and appreciated grace, and will stay on the cause for purity in speech and conduct because it is still worthwhile to have it as priority

-- One is a student who knows they can't even begin to know the answer to COSF, but one thing they can know for sure right now, which is what purity ought to look and sound like

Are there more?

Dr. Lybrand mentioned in a comment at his blog here (on October 12, 2009 at 5:56 am) how he believes he is observing a variety of people from different backgrounds and values. It is possible this is part of what he meant through acknowledging such. I would be happy to learn more on his thoughts. I noticed "ad hominem" and its purpose to discount the COSF views being contended, and, I saw how Kev wrote on his blog post that "pointing out the [weak points] of another man is plainly silly" if its not related back in to the issue of who should be persuaded by which doctrine. However - I disagree, and that's where I've been for a year and a half. I hope that makes sense. I think purity is its own important issue.

Read this post written over a year ago, sharing my own Type 2 priority which is unchanged:

My Own Conference Soundbytes

I suppose it's possible that one's reason for being a Type 2 is because they love ecumenism, and they choose blind "unity" at the expense of truth. I just don't know if that's anyone around here like we're being told?

How are we supposed to have real dialogue with any person who does "90% contending" when there are all these unique reasons to be a Type 2?

Secondary Separationism, Part 2

Where are the Scriptures which Teach This?

On pages 250-251 of his text, "Biblical Separation" [1], Dr. Pickering quotes several of his opponents to this teaching, those who admit for example, "The scriptures say nothing about secondary separationism," and, "There is no such thing as first-degree, second-degree separation, etc." Pickering acknowledges that secondary separationism is not labeled specifically as such, in the scriptures. But that's not the end of it: Pickering also has to justify his teaching past this confession that it is no where directly taught in scripture.

Pickering insists that the practice can be drawn as a valid principle from the following scripture:

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 from us.... 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" (2 thess 3:6, 14).

Pickering acknowledges that in context the Thessalonian Christians were merely shirking their responsibilities and had become busybodies. He then immediately rationalizes upon this scripture, saying (on page 255): "The question is this: Is that all this passage teaches? Does the principle go beyond the specific situation evident at Thessalonica, and should it be applied in other situations as well?" He then moves right in to pointing out Paul had authority from God to teach the truth. And he points out that those idle brothers, in their disregard of Paul, were called "disorderly." Through this simple but poor connection, Pickering gives his readers the impression that 2 Thess. 3 is calling all those who reject Paul's written authority, those who are idle.

Rather, I ask you to take a look at this passage and see if it is not saying that those who Paul is calling "disorderly" are those practicing idleness. It is the demonstration of idleness, which Paul is commanding the Thessalonicans to take note of, and withhold their company from.

Pickering nevertheless insists that "Their improper actions resulted from their incorrect grasp of doctrine." Friends, this next unabridged paragraph (pg. 256-257) is where you are going to see the door open up for a moral kind of legalism in the practice of secondary separationism....

The main question among separatists is this: Does this portion of scripture apply only and exclusively to people who leave their work, sponge off other believers, and live idle lives that contribute to spiritual confusion? Certainly this is the context of the passage as it is written. Is it not true, however, that the principle clearly seen here applies to other situations? The principle is this: When our brethren do things that are wrong - caused by an incomplete knowledge of or deliberate disobedience to some teaching of Scripture - we should not merely continue to fellowship with them as those who have done nothing wrong.... It is the principle of maintaining a pure walk that should be stressed. It is the principle of refusing to condone, honor, or utilize those who continually and knowingly are following a course of action that is harmful to other believers and to the welfare of the churches.

Can he defend his interpretation with other scriptures? He had none others. Following this look into 2 Thess. 3, Pickering quotes the commentary of other respected fundamentalists who happen to agree about this interpretation from the text, and concludes, "We cite them, however, to show that there have been a host of men through the years who have believed that the practice of so-called secondary separation has Biblical support" (pg. 261).



[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

Secondary Separationism, Part 1

Secondary Separation: What is it?

In his book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" [1], Dr. Pickering explains the teaching of secondary separation. This is the position that maintains a man must not only separate from apostates. There is a second degree of separation one must take, by withdrawing from any fundamentalist who is known to cooperate in any way with apostates.

(Remember, in a previous post Pickering refuses to use the term "heretics" for those who err doctrinally; his word for those who teach doctrinal error is "apostates." Yes - in a future post we will look into this term categorizing those who are reckoned "apostate" according to Dr. Pickering... definitions are on the way soon!)

For illustration.... Imagine that you're a separationist. Though you may personally benefit from a relationship with an erring Christian, by affiliation you are not permitted to cooperate with or minister to such an erring (unrepentant) Christian.

But there's more. If you choose to invite your erring Christian, to, say for example give a speech on any range of other doctrines in which you are in agreement, you then become subject to separation yourself -- you will be separated from, by your fellow separationists. Separationists would invoke the second degree of separation, upon you.

A concise definition is on page 251:

Coined in the aftermath of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, the term "secondary separationist" refers to those who will not cooperate with apostates or with other evangelical believers who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them.

Pickering teaches why he believes secondary separation is necessary. In his book he explains how it is critical to maintain the purity of the truth through our times. To accomplish this, each one of us must take a clear stand against those who have become apostate. In addition, we must not keep company with those who do not also withdraw from apostates. If a teacher be apostate, the testimony of the truth is being attacked. How can we fellowship with those who are an enemy of truth? An apostate teacher may be a true believer. He may also be a gifted and many times accurate teacher; however he is nevertheless teaching some false doctrine. He may be well meaning. But we have to consider how he spreads untruths to the unsuspecting.

Pickering goes on to insist that those who are younger in the faith have no way of knowing for themselves whether what they have heard could be false, and they will assume it is true because of his position as a teacher. To permit a man to teach what is known to be error, implies to others that there is nothing wrong in him doing so, or at least not sufficiently serious enough to do anything about it.

Dr. Pickering has made a checklist to help his readers consider their personal responsibility to not only separate from apostates, but also from fundamentalists who will not keep their own fellowship pure from apostate teachers. I take this directly from his text, pages 276-277:

1 - Am I honoring God by my fellowship? "Whatever therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). When a believer remains in an apostate denomination, that believer is supporting the Lord's enemies through is or her money and presence. Is that believer honoring the Lord by "staying in"?

2 - Am I aiding or encouraging someone to continue a walk of disobedience? If a great preacher continues to remain within a group largely influenced by apostates and a separatist church has him speak, is this occasion helping or hindering others? Having them participate with us is not the way to assist them from the path of disobedience.

3 - Will my cooperation with a person or organization give the impression that I condone a lackadaisical attitude toward apostasy and compromise? Did not the writer of Proverbs say, "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil" (prov 8:13)? Is the support of apostasy, its publications, schools, spokesperson, and missions evil? If it is, do I as God's child truly hate it?

4 - Will others under my leadership or influence be tempted to further compromise or be confused or weakened in their testimony because of my actions? We cannot live to ourselves. We are responsible for our brothers and sisters as well.

5 - What long-range effects will cooperation have? As previously noted, Bob Jones Sr. often said, "Never sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."

[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

The Teaching of "Secondary Separation"; Introduction

I've taken note on a legalistic characteristic comprising a substantial portion of the free grace community both on and offline. Paul called the infusion of legalism in the Galatian region at that critical time in their history, being "thrown into confusion". Confusion does seem to abound for FG, does it not? At least it appears the case in their interrelationships.

This infusion may have drawn many to mere confusion. However, for those holding staunchly, where you discern the practices and affects of legalism, you will also find the doctrines fueling it (just as you would with any other schism), if you dig around a bit. With Pickering's text, I am persuaded to have found one centralized source of FG legalism (though there may be two). It was the landmark nature and widespread adoption of his text which makes it a central point of examination.

In particular I wish to draw attention to possibly the most controversial portion of Pickering's teachings on biblical separation: The Teaching of Secondary Separation. As I said in the last comment in the previous post, I have always learned and participated better when the controversial aspects were discussed at the front. I realize that it goes in backward order; starting with the man-made assertions and working back to scripture, and I apologize for the sense of alarm that it might generate. Regardless if the teaching is biblical, it is popular and widespread and for this reason alone I think it is important to investigate.

With all kinds of biblical commands that attend godliness, they can be taken too far. They may morph as far as their Spiritual essence is concerned, creating bondage in the stead of health.

Take the command for water baptism, as an example of how any command may be used for good (Spiritual) or harm (legalism).

I've seen obedience to the command to be baptized in water, be Spiritual in effect to those who obey it. My own church is one such place - praise God. But I've also been a part of other churches, and witnessed for myself how the command to be baptized is used as a subtle tool of slavery and judgment within, and damnation to those without. People are slowly harmed by legalistic theology. Soon falls a trend of members escaping, or burning-out of living for God. With the trend the need is born to express to one another the legalism present in the command - more - its legalistic emphasis within or behind the command. Books need to be written. It takes skill to explain how a command from scripture crosses the line from being healthy, to being harmful (legalistic). It takes discernment and a gift of teaching to expose for newcomers, the nuances where the command had become obsession in self merit as opposed to gratitude for the accomplishments of Christ. Those sorts of books have been written - in the case of refuting the baptism-based legalistic doctrines.

This dichotomic usage of the command to be baptized expresses a principle concerning all commands, including the teaching of biblical separation. Separation is taught in the scriptures and is meant for our benefit. The question to ask, however in my thinking, is this: How do you discern when it has crossed the line, promoting legalism? Would an investigator take heed and note when the feel-good, sounds-right, stops becoming "good" and stops becoming "right"? It will require the whole counsel of God, and an understanding of the essentials of legalism - what legalism is as a generality.

"Heresy:" Pickering & Swindoll

In times passed it has been a confidence-booster to read only the scriptures long before consulting man-made commentary. I've been reading just the scriptures used in Separationist philosophy for awhile now. Recently I posted at Dr. Lybrand's Free Grace blog a comment exploring what the Bible has to say in definition of "heresy." Click here to read that comment.

By publicly sharing my conviction, it made me feel the committment of it all. It has become time for me, at least, to visit other writings, and test how far off my concept is compared to the experts.

Pickering

Dr. Pickering's book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" was originally published in 1979. According to Kevin Mungons who wrote the Foreword to the Second Edition, Pickering had "come to write a book that became the standard defense of fundamentalist ideas" [1]. Before it, there was no established text on the subject.

The word "heresy" is addressed in Biblical Separation, but to my reading I have only found one page where it is mentioned. It says on page 191,

It should be carefully noted that heresy (using the term in the strict sense in which it is used in the New Testament) is not apostasy. The word "heresy" is used only in Titus 3:10 and refers to a selfish choice that results in party divisions within the church. It emphasizes carnal troublemaking, not theological error.

Interesting.

Pickering's idea of false teaching and preaching falls altogether into the category of -- "apostasy" -- not "heresy." I may publish some excerpts soon on the subject of "apostasy," for, to Pickering this is where we would take the popular question of "what constitutes heresy?"

Okay. Now off to visit Swindoll.

Swindoll

In 1990 Chuck Swindoll published a text called, "The Grace Awakening: Believing in Grace is One Thing; Living it is Another" Swindoll addresses what the word "heresy" means on pages 104-105: [2]

Legalists were disturbing others and distorting the truth as they spread doctrinal heresy. Their heretical message was that the Galatian Christians should let Moses finish what Christ began. ... We continue to hear that "different gospel" to this day and it is a lie. It is heresy. ... The problem is, it appeals to the flesh. Paul's twice repeated reaction to the one who introduced that doctrinal heresy is "Let him be accursed!" This is Paul's way of saying the person is doomed! The original word is anathema! It is the strongest single Greek term for condemnation. Nevertheless, the heresy goes on. Most every cult you could name is a cult of salvation by works. ... Please allow me to be straight with you: Stop tolerating the heretical gospel of works!

Both confirm the two variations of which I took note. In the case that readers have not read the original comment I made regarding "heresy," here were are two variations: One - the use of the word in doctrinal matters, designates legalism. Two - in non-doctrinal matters the word designates opposed camps of Christians attempting to be treated first. This would be opposed to Christ's teachings "For many who would seek to be first shall be last, and the last, first." It also is hypocritical to the practice which is under dispute in the context - The Lord's Supper - at which event Christ washed the feet of the disciples, setting an example for them to follow.

I do not observe further apparent liberty in using the word beyond those two variances. I should say, however, that the second variance may have many uses beyond the context's discussion of the Lord's Supper.

Summary

Can "heresy" mean what it is popularly said to mean?

Can it mean an invasion of untruths against any biblical doctrine?

I don't know what freedom there is to use the word in this generalized manner, since the scripture only uses it to reference the schismatic effect of the teachings of legalism. Legalism is so easy to fall back into. John Maisel, with all his incredible life-experience in church-planting, confirms this sort of disappointing phenomena in his FGA National Conference presentation. I can imagine why Paul wished to be rid of it, yet it kept creeping back in, even affecting Peter for awhile. If there is truly a "Christian's slippery slope," I imagine legalism would be a top contender for destructive things to keep one on constant lookout.

I am very interested to hear what others think "heresy" means in the scriptures.



[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

[2] [2] Swindoll, Charles R. The Grace Awakening. Walker & Company, New York; 1990.

My Introduction to Separationism

Legalism of Belief vs. Separationism

Before Zane Hodges coined the phrase "Theological Legalism" I was describing the same thing calling it "Legalism of Belief" here at my blog. Being someone who has been in and out of cults many times I got quickly tired with seeing the scriptures abused, through their use in endless variety of arrangements to show me that "Because you don't believe this, this, and this just as I do, you cannot have been saved!"

Well, thanks be to God that I am able to recognize that my salvation is not predicated upon precise or advanced doctrines that can only come through being a student of the Word for many years - though there are still many Christians who either believe or else act as if this is the case. What I am more interested in at this time, is to examine the same allegation made by those who might measure who is walking blameless before God by faith, through orthodox beliefs and confessions. Again, they would say to me, "Because you don't believe this, and this and this just as I do, you cannot be in right relationship with God!"

I'd like to think it is true, from the foundation I have so far in the Word, that believers who have fellowship with God by faith in the Spirit, also have rights to full fellowship with one another in the Body of Christ. What do you think? Would you place any restriction on fellowship with such an obedient believer?

Dr. Pickering, in his landmark text called, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church," did. On the grounds of one requirement if not more (I'm still grasping this as I share this in blog posts). He has found reasons to bar from fellowship other Christians who are walking in the Spirit. And he bases this upon whether they confess or teach orthodoxy.

Is Dr. Pickering justified in teaching this? I want to lay out his concepts and let readers conclude. I tentatively plan to post brief excerpts from his text on these topics:

Apostasy
First Separation
Second Separation
The Holiness of God
Ecumenism

And then as a summary, I would like to of course examine the scriptures to see what they say... without all the commentary.

Concluding Comments

I want to re-submit two comments of mine in a post last week at my blog: First; at this time I am convinced that there is a conservative Baptist disagreement in how seriously Christians should retreat from error. Therefore, it may be a free grace problem. I'm not sure if that's right but I'm hoping to explore if this might be the case.

The second comment I resubmit is that I have had a change of heart about my own "legalism of belief" perspective. There came a place for me to rescind, probably in conversations with Kev, that doctrines are designed for my sanctification, not my bondage. The world may use the Word of God for evil but I should not give off aires that His Truth is anything short of freedom to the child who is growing up in the LORD. I'm not bashful to admit that I went too far.

Also: (this is just me, but) it is interesting to note that a 298-page textbook can be written on a topic which includes... what, maybe 15 relevant scriptures, total? How can it be drawn out to fill so much space - I wonder this, then wonder the same thing of all the other texts which have done the same thing on the same short supply of biblical mandate. And then to think that some Baptists will set these books out as the markers for why they do what they do as they engage in ministry. But, I am learning, as I post through this. Which is most unlike the educated reader that my blog most fortunately takes now and then. I pay forward gratitude if or when they should contribute in explaining things if I would overlook something significant.