what would you separate over?

[Just_A_Thought]

I was reading a post...

Of course, there are the more liberal Baptist, which I can't attend, because of their liberal agenda (e.i.....drink a little wine....for stomach's sake "they quote Timothy",,,,..their dress code is different.....women preachers, women deaconess'......and one of the main reasons, they use everything "but" the King James Bible). I attend a more conservative Baptist Church, where we believe in dressing right, talking right, no alcohol, men preachers, deacons are the husband of one wife..... and 1611 King James only is used. In light of some of these issues, I think it is worth Separation. There is one doctrine that I think we all agree on and that is the birth, death, burial, and resurrection of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

I only took part of this but tried to make sure I did not change it's meaning by cutting to much out.

So here is my question...what is worth seperating for you and what do you think people seperate over that really is not that important?

Here is my thoughts...as a "liberal Baptist" who drinks a little, does not believe women need to wear pants, and uses the Geneva and Tyndale Bible as well as some modern version...we seperate over way to much. I always seem to go to IFB churches. They are usually KJVO, against women in pants, and certainly against acohol. I realize my pastor is never perfect and that I am not either. We may disagree on things and those things we disagree on I do not talk to other church members about. I feel it is more important to further the cause for Christ than to further my personal feelings. As long as the pastor pushes me to have a better relationship with Jesus and keeps pointing to Him then what is to fight about or seperate over?

I will seperate over salvation (including the teaching that if someone does not change thier lives after they get saved then they really are not saved or those that teach you can lose your salvation, baptism (if it is taught as a part of salvation), the virgin birth, women preachers, women deacons, and chruches that do not believe in the great commission. There may be some other things but I can't think any at the moment.

[Anon]

I think we need to define "separation." Does it mean never talking to the person, or does it mean not being in the same church?

[Just_A_Thought]

I think we need to define "separation." Does it mean never talking to the person, or does it mean not being in the same church?

I am referring to church. For instance, I could go to somone else's church if they have CCM (which I do not care for), but I could not attend their meetings and might even teach against the church if they preach/teach/have _________ there.

Sorry ... guess I should have been more specific.

[MS77]

I was a part of a church that separated over old Earth and new Earth, and the pastor didn't even emphasize his belief - just pointed out the two theories, and during a bible study, told us why he thought one was true over the other. I thought it was crazy. Is Jesus really going to damn someone to hell whether or not they believe in an old or new Earth?

I am not sure at what point I would separate as a church. I think we separate way too much and are way to judgmental toward one another's choice of worship, though. But that's just my own humble opinion.

[Anon]

Ohhh. Okay. Because we are more strict about "church" fellowship than we are about "personal" fellowship.

We prefer churches to be fairly similar to ourselves, whereas I will have friends that differ quite widely than what I believe.

Some things I think we can "agree to disagree" on in our church are pants on women...whether or not divorce is ok if involving fornication....certain variations in music (although no true CCM)....shorts on men.... hair lengths to an extent....and many other "standards" too numerous to mention I suppose. I suppose anything we feel is spelled out 100% in the Bible, it would be pretty hard to fellowship with someone who totally disagrees. But the "grey areas" it might be easier, like many standards.

[Just_A_Thought]

I was a part of a church that separated over old earth and new earth, and the paster didn't even emphasis his belief just pointed out the two theories, and during a bible study told us why he thought one was true over the other. I thought it was crazy. Is Jesus really going to damn someone to hell weather or not they believe in an old or new earth?

I am not sure at what point I would separate as a church. I think we separate way too much, and are way to judgmental toward one another's choice of worship though. But that's just my own humble opinion.

I agree very much with you on this. Great post!

[Just_A_Thought]

Ohhh. Okay. Because we are more strict about "church" fellowship than we are about "personal" fellowship.

We prefer churches to be fairly similar to ourselves, whereas I will have friends that differ quite widely than what I believe.

Some things I think we can "agree to disagree" on in our church are pants on women...whether or not divorce is ok if involving fornication....certain variations in music (although no true CCM)....shorts on men.... hair lengths to an extent....and many other "standards" too numerous to mention I suppose. I suppose anything we feel is spelled out 100% in the Bible, it would be pretty hard to fellowship with someone who totally disagrees. But the "grey areas" it might be easier, like many standards.

I think you are right on on this. I know people who will not let a women work in the nursery if she wears pants at HOME! (Keep in mind that the women were wearing dresses or skirts to church.) The church attendence has dropped so low that they must allow it now but the pastors wife was ashamed about this. She told my wife about this not realizing that my wife aslo wears pants. This stuff seams pointless and causes division. It only hurts the cause of Christ and does not edify anyone. HOw does this point anyone to Jesus? It doesn't but it does cause other to look down on other Christians. Kinda like those who look down on women who wears pants. (Not all Christian women look down on those who wear pants. I do not want to broad brush here but I have know many who do.) Christians need to stop fighting over stuff like this.

[Crushmaster]

Here are some things I would undoubtedly separate over...
Women preachers/deacons/elders/etc.

Divorced deacons/deacons who've married someone who's divorced.

Usage of paraphrases such as "The Message", treated as Scripture (though I seriously doubt that would happen in any church I would join).

Believing baptism or any other sacrament or work to be salvific.

...And, basically, anything majorly against Scripture. There are differences, and then there are differences.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[irishman]

First let me say that few people with these standards (myself included) believe that anyone is "condemned to hell" as someone put it for breaching the standard; we do however believe that they are not right with God if the standards are biblical, and they try to expalin it away or make excuse.

The "Key" verse for women in pants is Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

First, though this is O.T. an abomonation is still abominable today. Do you think that God changed His mind under grace, and suddenl;y decided that it wasn't so bad? If it was an abomination in the O.T. it is still an abomination today! That is a very strong word for God to use, and He does not take it lightly.

Now, I have heard all the arguments that you offer--"Womens pants are different than mens pants" but what were they modeled after originally? We are so far down the road from this verse that they do make pants specifically for women now, but does that make it ok? Besides, most women that I've seen that wear pants will occasionally wear mens jeans too, what about that? I know too that some claim that men wore robes like women, but tell that to Jesus! Do you actually think he would have worn anything feminie? I do not pretend to know the styles of the day, and no one does today really, it is all conjecture, but I will guarantee you that there was a difference in their dress, or God would not have to have put this verse in the Bible.

Consider too the reason for the verse: The breaking down of the sexes is the embryo of the homosexual movement! When we all began to look alike we also began to act alike, and you can see how men and women act today. I believe that it all began because the distinction between men and women has been broken down, and the family unit has suffered. Why do you think the priests dressed differently from the laity? It was a matter of dininguishing the office, separating it the one from the other. This is not very popular tioday, I know, partly because the women are rebellious, (as well as the men). Today you have a fight on your hands if you demand that your wife wear dresses all the time; it has to do with her lack of submission in that case, just as long hair is symbolic of submission (her head covered~1 Cor), and the man is not in submission to her, but her to him.

Dress was/is important to God because it has meaning, and it is the way He ordained it to be. Hey, even MacDonalds has the symbols on their bathrooms with woman is dresses and men in pants! It is strange that they know the difference when many of us don't! (joking)

Enough for now, I assume this will get someone a little stirred up, sorry if it does.

[JerryNumbers]

First let me say that few people with these standards (myself included) believe that anyone is "condemned to hell" as someone put it for breaching the standard; we do however believe that they are not right with God if the standards are biblical, and they try to expalin it away or make excuse.

The "Key" verse for women in pants is Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

First, though this is O.T. an abomonation is still abominable today. Do you think that God changed His mind under grace, and suddenl;y decided that it wasn't so bad? If it was an abomination in the O.T. it is still an abomination today! That is a very strong word for God to use, and He does not take it lightly.

Now, I have heard all the arguments that you offer--"Womens pants are different than mens pants" but what were they modeled after originally? We are so far down the road from this verse that they do make pants specifically for women now, but does that make it ok? Besides, most women that I've seen that wear pants will occasionally wear mens jeans too, what about that? I know too that some claim that men wore robes like women, but tell that to Jesus! Do you actually think he would have worn anything feminie? I do not pretend to know the styles of the day, and no one does today really, it is all conjecture, but I will guarantee you that there was a difference in their dress, or God would not have to have put this verse in the Bible.

Consider too the reason for the verse: The breaking down of the sexes is the embryo of the homosexual movement! When we all began to look alike we also began to act alike, and you can see how men and women act today. I believe that it all began because the distinction between men and women has been broken down, and the family unit has suffered. Why do you think the priests dressed differently from the laity? It was a matter of dininguishing the office, separating it the one from the other. This is not very popular tioday, I know, partly because the women are rebellious, (as well as the men). Today you have a fight on your hands if you demand that your wife wear dresses all the time; it has to do with her lack of submission in that case, just as long hair is symbolic of submission (her head covered~1 Cor), and the man is not in submission to her, but her to him.

Dress was/is important to God because it has meaning, and it is the way He ordained it to be. Hey, even MacDonalds has the symbols on their bathrooms with woman is dresses and men in pants! It is strange that they know the difference when many of us don't! (joking)

Enough for now, I assume this will get someone a little stirred up, sorry if it does.

Probably, but not me, you laid it out right good. I'll add this to it.

I would not have no part of our local SBC in our small town, they will and do associate with anyone, no matter their doctrine, that is even if they teach work based salvation. They also exchange pulpits with these churches. There also is music to consider, they use some of that praise music, where they play electric music instruments that are extremely loud and sing the same 3 to 5 words over and over again and again. Don't ask me what those 3 to 5 words are, you can't tell because the music is so loud it drowns them out.

Some of those who I got to know back in the 90's who surrender to the lord to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ have went on to pastor SBC. But back in those days they said they would never do that, but I suppose they wanted a church so bad that they compromised their beliefs.

I like our local SBC pastor, but he is a bit to liberal for me, he also has recommended from the pulpit movies his congregations ought to go watch. One day I was watching their service on TV, he mentioned a movie he and his wife went to the night before, said it had a bunch of cussing in it, but it was a good movie to take your children to.

One thing about accepting any false teachings, once you cross that line its just a matter of how far you will go. Most good Baptist church who venture off into false teachings usually starts with one small step, them before they know what has happened their neck deep in sin.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1 John 3:4 (KJV)

[Just_A_Thought]

First let me say that few people with these standards (myself included) believe that anyone is "condemned to hell" as someone put it for breaching the standard; we do however believe that they are not right with God if the standards are biblical, and they try to expalin it away or make excuse.

The "Key" verse for women in pants is Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

First, though this is O.T. an abomonation is still abominable today. Do you think that God changed His mind under grace, and suddenl;y decided that it wasn't so bad? If it was an abomination in the O.T. it is still an abomination today! That is a very strong word for God to use, and He does not take it lightly.

Now, I have heard all the arguments that you offer--"Womens pants are different than mens pants" but what were they modeled after originally? We are so far down the road from this verse that they do make pants specifically for women now, but does that make it ok? Besides, most women that I've seen that wear pants will occasionally wear mens jeans too, what about that? I know too that some claim that men wore robes like women, but tell that to Jesus! Do you actually think he would have worn anything feminie? I do not pretend to know the styles of the day, and no one does today really, it is all conjecture, but I will guarantee you that there was a difference in their dress, or God would not have to have put this verse in the Bible.

Consider too the reason for the verse: The breaking down of the sexes is the embryo of the homosexual movement! When we all began to look alike we also began to act alike, and you can see how men and women act today. I believe that it all began because the distinction between men and women has been broken down, and the family unit has suffered. Why do you think the priests dressed differently from the laity? It was a matter of dininguishing the office, separating it the one from the other. This is not very popular tioday, I know, partly because the women are rebellious, (as well as the men). Today you have a fight on your hands if you demand that your wife wear dresses all the time; it has to do with her lack of submission in that case, just as long hair is symbolic of submission (her head covered~1 Cor), and the man is not in submission to her, but her to him.

Dress was/is important to God because it has meaning, and it is the way He ordained it to be. Hey, even MacDonalds has the symbols on their bathrooms with woman is dresses and men in pants! It is strange that they know the difference when many of us don't! (joking)

Enough for now, I assume this will get someone a little stirred up, sorry if it does.

I am not upset but this is off topic. I will start another thread for this and we can discuss it there. The topic is what would cause you to seperate. Women in pants can be a reason but just not debate it. Thanks!

[heartstrings]

First of all, I would only attend an IFB church; So would women preachers or the teaching of works-based salvation or "once saved now lost" even be an issue there? If so, I would separate.
I would quickly separate myself and family from a church which didn't use the KJB and I would also leave if the pastor began teaching seriously false doctrine, like Calvinism. If the pastor was divorced/remarried or otherwise disqualified to pastor, I wouldn't attend. Since you mentioned pants....If it got so liberal that the women members were wearing pants to church, and the pastor never preached against it, I would leave. And if anyone begins false teaching like "it's OK to drink alcohol", I would hurry to get away from them.

[irishman]

Jerry, i agree with you 100%.

Just_A_Thought, I am sorry if I stole the thread, I thought that since it had been mentioned, that it was open for discussion. Sorry, I will bow out, please don't feel you have to start another thread. Thanks for giving me a hearing though.

[Just_A_Thought]

Jerry, i agree with you 100%.

Just_A_Thought, I am sorry if I stole the thread, I thought that since it had been mentioned, that it was open for discussion. Sorry, I will bow out, please don't feel you have to start another thread. Thanks for giving me a hearing though.

I am not mad. If I came across that way I did not mean it to sound like that. I do appreciate you Christian attitude to bow out so politely. If other Christians treated each other as you just treated me this world would be a much better place.

I did start a thread on the "Women in pants" subject but Matt locked it. He said it causes problems. I think he made a good choice if it causes problems. Sorry we could not chat on it as I promised.

God bless!!!!!

[JerryNumbers]

Jerry, i agree with you 100%.

Just_A_Thought, I am sorry if I stole the thread, I thought that since it had been mentioned, that it was open for discussion. Sorry, I will bow out, please don't feel you have to start another thread. Thanks for giving me a hearing though.

I fail to understand what is off topic about your post. it was right on the mark, you told what you would separate from, the topic was and is, "what would you separate over."

Just because Just_A_Thought would not separate the issue you stated, does not mean you were off topic.

In fact I gave you a positive reputation because of that post. In fact I fail to understand why Just_A_Thought said that to you.