What I Was Taught

I recently saw someone applying Romans 16:17 using the claim, “That’s not what I was taught.”

The problem is that this surely well-meaning person has failed to do adequate exegesis on the passage itself. You see Romans 16:17 has nothing to do with what you or I were taught. It rather refers what the Romans were taught by the apostolic authority. And it doesn’t even really refer to all that the Romans were taught, but rather that part of the teaching that causes dissensions and hindrances. These, I believe, have very specific meanings that do not include what Brother So-and-So said.

In other words, the “what” of the “what you were taught” refers to apostolic teaching, not your Sunday School class, or your long time pastor, or your mentor, or your favorite blog (not even if it’s this one).

There is real confusion on the part of many as to what Romans 16:17 is teaching, and how it should be applied.

There appears to be some real resistance on the part of some to do real work on the text. Instead they jump to inherited application without much regard for what Paul actually said.

This, friends, is dangerous because it removes the authority of Scripture and substitutes it for the authority of tradition, even well-intended tradition.

One relatively prolific blogger, when asked to offer some substantive interaction with these types of passages begged off, claiming that he did not have the time to do such work.

Another person recently wrote an article posing the question of whether or not he should apologize for actions his church took more than fifty years ago.

Absurdity of the question aside, it misses the point because the reference point used was not the Scripture, but rather the actions of a church more than 1900 years removed from the apostolic authority.

As people of the book, we must be serious about what the book says.

We would do well to give Romans 16:17-18 more thoughtful interaction, such as Dave Doran did at the recent Preserving the Truth Conference where he dealt with this passage very carefully.

We must also recognize that there are various difficulties of application. We should stop short of claiming that those who disagree with our application (however well-intended it may be) are disagreeing with the Bible.

One Further Question

Building off my two previous posts (here and here), I want to pose one more question.

Is all non-fellowship the same? Is there any category of “lack of participation” that is not “separation”?

There are some who argue that all fellowship is non-separation, and all separation is non-fellowship. In other words, there are two categories: fellowship and separation. To the degree that we are in fellowship, we are not separated. To the degree that we are not in fellowship, we are separated. This idea is based on the idea that fellowship is things held in common. Where we hold things in common, we are in fellowship. Where we do not hold things in common, we are not in fellowship.

There are others who strongly object to this because it does not leave room for simple non-participation without censure.

I have typically been of the first position, and I have great sympathy for it. Some might even say fellowship. I do think that all non-fellowship is some sort of separation. But I am almost persuaded (cue the invitation hymn) that a two-option position is unworkable because it does not leave room for simply non-participation.

Let’s take, for instance, a pastor in California. I won’t name him, but the guy I am thinking of is a graduate of the same seminary I went to, and he has planted a church in California. Are we fellowshipping or separated?

The answer is neither. I have nothing to do with him, not because we disagree, but because we are separated by a few thousand miles. I know the guy, and have talked to him at a few conferences. I like him. I think he is a doing a great work and rejoice about it. But we have no fellowship. However, several local pastor friends (who may or may not claim me as a friend) do have ministry fellowship with this individual. They have sent money, people, and resources to help. They have even had him to preach at their church.

With this good brother, there is no censure. I do not need to rebuke him, call him to obedience, or expose him for some dastardly compromise. I know of no reason to. But neither do I need to pretend that we have fellowship. If we did, “fellowship” would have no meaning that I can see.

Let’s take, for another instance, some pastor who subscribes to what I believe unbiblical positions, and let’s say that he has some influence in my realm of influence. I don’t have any fellowship with him and I can’t really separate from him (because we weren’t together to begin with), but I need to say something in terms of correction or rebuke for the sake of those in my ministry sphere who are being influenced by him. It’s neither fellowship nor separation, so far as I can see. But there is some public statement of caution.

Let’s take, for one last instance, some pastor with whom I have participated in the past but who has now embraced some positions that I think are clearly unbiblical. (I have no friends in this category that I can think of at the moment.) Now that he has embraced these unbiblical positions, I must act. Depending on the severity and visibility of the positions, I may have varying responses.

Let’s say that he has been a regular speaker at my church, and he has now embraced a local flood. I may simply stop having him come, and privately tell him why.

Let’s say that he has switched to being a paedobaptist, which I say, to the chagrin of some of my friends, is no baptism at all. Our churches are close and we now must stop doing some of the things that we have done together. I may have a more public response because it marks a distinct and public change in his church.

Let’s say that he has embraced baptismal regeneration. That is different than being a paedobaptist, or embracing a global flood. That is a clear denial of the gospel that makes participation in ministry disobedience. It requires public rebuke to the degree that he is an influence in my sphere of ministry. (However, I don’t feel the need to rebuke some small church in Texas for embracing baptismal regeneration.)

Let’s say that he has joined up in an ecumenical evangelistic effort. Now my response will be public. It will be a public censure because it is a community wide issue where the church’s name is published as a supporter of a public effort in ministry. I cannot stay silent and let people think that we agree. My non-participation is inadequate, I think. A private conversation will not suffice. I must do more.

My point in all of this is to say that I think at one level, all non-fellowship means that we are separated. But not all separation is equal.

Some separation is merely practical (e.g., distance). Some separation may be philosophical (e.g., different styles of ministry). Some separation may be theological (e.g., global flood, baptism, ecumenism).

In all of these cases, I should respond differently. Some things are merely “agree to disagree.” Others are “censurable,” which is to say we do not merely agree to disagree; we expose and publicly rebuke.

Again, I urge caution based on humility and grace.

At one level, I urge fear—fear that we might take a stand that proves to be the wrong one.

At another level, I urge boldness—boldness to stand and contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Let us treat our body kindly and have a tendency towards skepticism in our understanding. Let us be learners and students.

Let us be humbled by the gospel while at the same time being emboldened by it.

Let us pursue fellowship where we can. Let us embrace separation only where we must.

Two Further Questions

Building on my previous post regarding the purity of the gospel, I want to raise two additional questions regarding fellowship and separation.

The first question is this: Can we have fellowship (meaning ministry participation) with those outside the gospel?

The answer is unequivocally “No.” We cannot reach across the lines of the gospel to participate in ministry with those who deny the gospel because whatever we do with them is not “Christian” ministry. Furthermore, we send a false message that they are Christians when we try to establish “Christian” ministry with someone who is not a Christian.

By the way, I am speaking here specifically of participating in ministry. I am not speaking of a “community cleanup day” whether your church and other local churches might clean up the same city park. I am not speaking of participating in a local food bank where food is given to hungry people. Your church may or may not choose to do this, but that is not “Christian” ministry. It is common grace kindness and mercy.

This leads to the second question: Must we have fellowship with everyone inside the gospel? Or to put it slightly differently, is there anyone inside the gospel that we must not have fellowship with?

The answer is No and Yes. (There are two questions there.)

We do not have to participate with everyone inside the gospel. Our fellowship may be limited by a number of things, including location, areas of theological or philosophical disagreement, or other practical matters. With Paul, we can rejoice that the gospel is preached, even by people with whom with disagree on some issues. We can (and should in some cases), simply agree to disagree and rejoice that God carries out his gospel work through sinners saved by grace, including those with whom we disagree.

However, there are people inside of the gospel (i.e., true Christians) with whom with must not have fellowship. 2 Thessalonians 3 makes this abundantly clear when it commands censure and withdrawal from a fellow believer, namely, the lazy man. Regardless of your understanding and application of 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, the salvation of the lazy man is not questioned. In fact, it is presumed in v. 11 where he is “among you,” meaning in the fellowship of the body, and v. 15, where he is to be admonished “as a brother.”

So those who say that there is never any cause for separation from a fellow Christian are denying the plain teaching of Scripture. It is not only permissible; it is commanded.

The question about 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 regards the scope of the command—whether it applies to only a lazy man (or some variation; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11), or whether it applies to all those who walk disorderly and not according to the apostolic tradition, meaning teaching (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6). I have read some impassioned defenses of both options given above by people who I respect and like.

For me, it is hard to imagine that Paul places his doctrinal teaching below the matter of laziness in a local church. In other words, it is hard for me to imagine that Paul is saying, “Separate from the lazy man and rebuke him for his sin, but do not separate from the man who has embraced some other kind of doctrinal disobedience.”

So my answer to this question of scope is admittedly the latter, that Paul’s commands apply not only to laziness but also to the matter of the apostolic teaching.

Furthermore, I think it applies to matters of apostolic teaching that are clear and “load-bearing”—the weight of Christianity falls on these doctrines.

For instance, the global flood is an undeniable teaching of Scripture. Those who say the flood was local either can’t read what the text says or refuse to accept what Scripture clearly says.

Yet a man who denies the global flood is clearly not on the same level as one who denies the deity of Jesus. He is not even on the same level as a man who questions the limitation of the canon to 66 books (even though the global flood is revealed in Scripture and the 66-book canon is not).

Must we separate from and censure a man who denies a global flood? I don’t know.

I certainly wouldn’t have him to speak at a conference on origins and geology, unless it was to present an opposing viewpoint for a debate. And for me, the fact that he denies a global flood would call into question how sound he is on other things. So as a practical matter, I would probably not participate in ministry partnership with such a one, at least on an ongoing basis. I might participate in an “Origins Conference” with him as opposing viewpoints.

But if you choose to partner with him, that is probably not going to affect our relationship.

Which is to say that if you participate with people I would not, that does not mean necessarily that I am going to refuse to participate with you. I may or may not. I don’t know until you do it and until we talk about it and seek mutual understanding. And if I don’t have anything to do with anyway, I certainly can’t separate from you. 

In these matters, I think we need to exercise a lot of humility and a lot of grace towards others. We need to be humble to recognize that our interpretations might be wrong. Our applications of truth might be wrong. And if we separate over wrong interpretations or wrong applications, we are wrong even if we mean well and do it in good conscience.

There are some who are convinced that they are absolutely right in their understanding and application of passages like Romans 16:17-18, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, and 2 and 3 John that they believe that anyone who disagrees with them is unquestionably wrong.

I may be weak, but I do not have that kind of confidence. I have applications of all three of these passages that I have worked through. And I am willing to discuss them and advocate for them. But I don’t have the conscience that allows me to think that I am the next apostle to hand authoritative commands to others. Humility is not a strong point for me, but even this is too much for my proud heart.

We also need to exercise grace towards others in recognizing that the Holy Spirit is working in them and through them. We need to be cautious in our response. This is not some Rick Warren nonsense about not criticizing what God is blessing. (See I can take a stand.) Quite frankly, I have no way to know what God is blessing. All I have are the Scriptures and the community of faith through which the Spirit works to teach me. Numbers, results, growth, stagnation, whatever may mean God is blessing or not. It may mean any number of things. Since I am a cessationist, I don’t have any way of knowing. So I shouldn’t pretend to know.

I have no problem being critical. In fact, that is probably a problem with me—I tend to be too critical at (most) times. I rarely am too quick with grace and humility.

I would urge us to remember that the fact that someone does it differently than we do does not mean that they do it wrong. We might be wrong. Or there might be more than one way to faithfully carry out gospel ministry.

Purity of the Gospel or Purity of the Church

There have been a few recent discussions about whether or not biblical separation is for the purity of the gospel or the purity of the church. Some profess confusion over why others say separation is over the purity of the gospel before it is for the purity of the church.

The reason is actually pretty simple, I think.

Of course, I actually thought about it, which puts me in a small minority of people, particularly of those who blog. But I digress …

The reason is that the gospel, not the church, is the boundary of Christian fellowship. There can be no Christian fellowship with those who are outside the bounds of the gospel. This is a matter of definition. To be a Christian means to be inside the bounds of the gospel.

The church, speaking of the visible church (whether a particular local assembly or those who profess faith in Christ but are not a part of our local assembly), might contain those outside the boundary of the gospel. With these, we have a false fellowship, which is purely surface and indeed is no fellowship at all.

For me, this does not minimize the church. It simply recognizes that a pure church stands on the shoulders of a pure gospel. It is the gospel that marks the boundaries of Christian fellowship. A church will usually have some false professors in it.

The gospel is prior to the church. The gospel creates the church, and establishes the boundary for the church.

The gospel sets the basis for the purity of the church which we guard by guarding the purity of the gospel.

Grudem on Boundaries (Separation)

Wayne Grudem has an interesting and well-done article on the topic of boundaries and separation. I won’t interact with all of it, but there are a few interesting things to me.

He says, False teaching changes, so old boundaries do not protect against new problems.

This is an excellent point, and it is, IMO, why appealing to “historic fundamentalism” is rather unhelpful. I think I understand what people mean when they say, “I am a historic fundamentalist.” It means they eschew all the recent additions to fundamentalism, like KJV-Only, certain cultural taboos (or allowances), multiple levels of separation (that are often inconsistently applied), etc.

But “historic fundamentalists” cannot really exist today for the simple reason that that history doesn’t exist today (except as history, of course). We have long since moved past the battles of yesteryear. (It’s also ironic that some of those who appeal to “historic fundamentalism” are also among the ones who insist on modern forms of ministry. No prejudice against either; it’s just kind of ironic to me.)

Some are reemerging to be sure as the doctrine of the Bible endures shots from both sides of the issue. Some attack the Bible outright, denying its nature and its truth. Others in their desire to protect the Bible have constructed a bibliology that does not flow from the Bible’s teaching and actually contradicts the Bible’s use of itself.

Science is another raging battleground today, just as it was then. Revered OT scholar Bruce Waltke just resigned his position at Reformed Theological Seminary over his comments on the relationship between science and faith.

But the landscape has changed. Today brings a whole new set of challenge that makes Grudem right on this issue. Old boundaries do not protect against new problems.

Grudem also reminds us that there are some wrong questions to ask:

"Are the advocates my friends?"
"Are they nice people?"
"Will we lose money or members if we exclude them?"

He says, “Such questions are grounded in a wrongful fear of man, not in a fear of God and trust in God.”

There is a “good ole’ boys club,” both in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. And some are hesitant to call out those who are of “our own.” And some are rather inconsistent about it. They will call out “one of our own” when that one says something that might reflect on another “one of our own.”

So when we speak with the voice of a prophet, we all need a large dose of humility and grace. We need to recognize that our “voice of a prophet” does not include special revelation as with the prophets of old. We might be wrong. We might simply be being a jerk. We might be missing our call of ministry by being a watchdog over those for whom we are not responsible.

Let us think seriously about boundaries and let us think graciously about others.

Who is a Faithful Fundamental Man?

A recent article on a fundamentalist mailing list says,

If a man finds fault with faithful fundamental men and claims that they go too far in regard to biblical separation, he is in the shadow of new evangelicalism. The ruse may take the form of a declaration that the men being criticized are too narrow and that the fault-finder is the true Champion of The Cause. Any man who thinks a holy purity in position for the Gospel should be balanced against a pragmatic viewpoint is leading his people down the path to compromise.

Similarly, beware of the man who breaks fellowship with sound separatist brethren on the supposed basis of "other issues." He may claim, "We stand in the same place doctrinally, but our disagreements are on other non-doctrinal or secondary issues." If I were you, I would press the man for specific, clear details of exactly what issues are at stake. Cut into him here and you may find him bleeding the green ooze of new evangelicalism.

It would be nice to “press [this] man for specific, clear details of exactly what issues are at stake.” It would be interesting to know how this man defines “faithful fundamental men.” It may well be that that is a synonym for “people who draw the lines exactly where I do.” This man gives no biblical arguments. In fact, his whole article contains exactly two biblical references, neither of which have to do with separation.

This, friends, is troubling.

The fact is that many who are considered “faithful fundamental men” aren’t. And many who aren’t considered “faithful fundamental men” are.

For too many, the “shadow of new evangelicalism” has little to do with theology and the Bible. It has to do who has the pedigree, “the card” as someone recently expressed it.

This is all too typical, unfortunately.

The guy makes a good point here and there, but then throws in this kind of stuff to try to paint some lines and pretend like he is bold for the truth.

The truth is that he may merely be a schismatic.

The Gospel and the Faith

I am meditating this morning on Jude 3, and the distinction that Jude seems to make between “our common salvation” and “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Assuming that our “common salvation” is tied directly to the gospel and “the faith” is distinct from that (since Jude says “I want to write about the one but I find it necessary to write about the other”), it seems that Jude is saying that there are issues other than the gospel that are worth earnestly contending for.

It is furthermore interesting that in Jude’s discussion of the “persons who have crept in unaware” he does not focus on their doctrine or teaching. In fact, very little (i.e., nothing directly) is said about that. He focuses more on their character, their motivations, and the methodologies.

Today, it is frequent even among fundamentalists to talk about a “center bounded set” by which is meant “We agree on the gospel as the center of fellowship and not necessarily on things that are not at the center.” This statement is often followed up with “If they teach right things, it doesn’t matter so much what they do.”

Yet Jude seems to say that there are things in the “faith delivered” that need to be earnestly contended for that are not related to “our common salvation,” and that are not even related directly to what is said, but rather to how the person lives and how the message is communicated out of that life.

No doubt, Jude could have documented the false teachings, but he did not.

Perhaps this should be instructive for us in constructing a theology of contention.

The gospel is important. But it is not the only thing that is important. There are other things worth fighting about when they are attacked or denied, and character, motivation, and methodology are among them.

This is not to say that all things are equally important. It is to say however that a center-bounded fellowship is insufficient for true Christian fellowship. There are other things that matter.

Some are eager to talk about our common salvation, but are unwilling to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered in its totality, including the character, motivations, and methods of others.

As people of the faith, we must be careful about contending for too little. It’s just as dangerous as contending for too much.

On Presbyterians, Baptism, and "Disobedient Brothers"

I recently had a great conversation with a friend that migrated to a number of different topics, including Presbyterians, baptism, and the designation of "disobedient brother." (I sincerely hope my friend will agree that I have rightly represented him, and invite him to contact me privately [or publicly] if I haven't.)

My friend asked me if I would call a Presbyterian who did not hold to believer's immersion a "disobedient brother."

I said, "Yes."

He was somewhat astounded by that, mentioning by name a Presbyterian for whom we both have a great amount of respect. He said he agreed with me that the Scriptures taught the immersion of believers. He believes, however, that infant baptism can be considered a matter of conscience since it is within the stream of orthodox Christianity.

My response to him was simple, and along two basic lines of thought:

First, if we believe that the Scriptures truly teach the immersion of believers, then we at some level have to call someone who is not immersed as a believer disobedient to the command of Christ, as well as out of step with the pattern of the early church in the NT. If Christ said "Do X" and someone does not do X, then we must call them disobedient. (And if you believe that infants should be baptized, then you must call credobaptists disobedient.)

That does not necessitate placing them in the same category as adulterers, or heretics. So long as a person does not hold to baptismal regeneration, or "washing away the stain of original sin," they have not compromised the gospel by sprinkling an infant, and baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation. So an unbaptized Presbyterian (or Baptist, or anyone else) can still have genuine salvation, and be a faithful witness to the gospel of Christ while still being disobedient. However, failure to make a public confession of Christ as Lord through baptism is a matter of obedience, it seems to me.

I think we need not be afraid to recognize that there are various levels of obedience. While on the one hand, all sin is sin, on the other hand not all sin is equal. The Law of Moses, given by God, has varying penalties for various sins. This shows that, at least in the community life of Israel (relationships with one another), not every sin had equal societal or personal affects. While we must be careful of pressing this too far, we must also stop short of treating all sin as if it has the same affect in the community of the church.

Second, making something a "matter of conscience" can very easily lead to an existential theology, where conscience becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth rather than Scripture, where truth is only truth when it means a particular thing to the individual. Now, let me be clear—my friend does not believe in existential theology of any sort. He is fully committed to the authority of Scripture. Let me also be clear that I do believe that there are matters on which believers may differ because of conscience. But let me be clear (yet again): These differences do not mean that both are right, or that both are obedient. One can, in good conscience, be disobedient to Scripture. That is because the conscience can be poorly trained. The Baptist distinctive of conscience was never intended (so far as I understand it) to be a rationale for living in disobedience.

Let me sum it up this way:

1. As for separation and Presbyterians, at some level we (Baptists) have to separate. That does not mean that we are antagonistic, that we cannot have Christian fellowship, or that we cannot even share a pulpit. We can still appreciate their contributions in other areas. It simply means that we have differences about a core matter of scriptural distinctives. I believe that separation takes place on a continuum. It is not an all or nothing proposition. And we, as separatists, need to be very careful in making it such. But if the Bible teaches the immersion of believers, and someone does not get immersed as a believer, what else do we call them except disobedient in that area?

2. We need to be very careful about our consciences, and the leeway that is sometimes granted. We need to be careful that we rightly understand the Scripture, but the conscience is not the authority; Scripture is. And while that may be too fine a distinction for some, it must nevertheless be a distinction, it seems to me. The fact that someone may, in good conscience, do something does not mean that they are correct in doing it.

3. When we disagree about a matter of biblical distinctives, we need not be graceless or tactless about it. Let's just disagree. I have been called disobedient by Presbyterians for not baptizing infants. I am okay with that. It's not personal, to me anyway. We all must decide at what level and over what issues we will separate. We must work to preserve the unity of the body only after honoring the commands of Scripture.