Biblical Separation

Biblical Separation Introduction 0
Biblical
Separation
A series of Sunday school lessons designed to explain and
defend the practice of biblical separation
Liberty Baptist Church

Antigo, WI
Biblical Separation Introduction 1
Introduction to the Series

“Why can’t we all just get along?” seems to be a common sentiment within Christianity
today. Calls for unity and cooperation among the faithful grow louder by the day. Perhaps
all professing Christians should band together to stand against the rising tide of
secularism and false religion. After all, most Christians do agree on a great many things.
The Christian church should be united as a testimony to the lost world and as an efficient
workforce in proclaiming the gospel. Yet the prophet Amos asks the question, “Can two
walk together except they be agreed?” Perhaps it is natural, even desirable, that different
viewpoints and philosophies prevent professing believers from working together. The
goal of this series is to examine when believers can cooperate and when they must
separate.
Contents
Note: some of these lessons will likely take more than one period to complete.
1. The Biblical Basis For Separation

2. Personal Separation
3. Ecclesiastical Separation
4. Arguments Against Separation Evaluated
Resources
Kevin Bauder, class notes, DM881, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003
Fred Moritz, Be Ye Holy (BJU Press, 1994), Contending for the Faith (BJU Press, 2000)
Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation (Regular Baptist Press, 1979)
Biblical Separation Biblical Basis for Separation 2
The Biblical Basis for Separation
Separation is a thoroughly biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches a system

of truth, and any ideas that deny, pervert or contradict that truth is
wrong. Loyalty to the truth will prevent believers from cooperating with those who teach
or endorse error. This lesson will focus on what the Bible says about the relationship
between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, holiness and wickedness. We will find
that separation from sin and error is the proper response for believers.
I. The Bible teaches a system of truth that believers must uphold and defend.
A. Texts:
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the
testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Ac 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples
multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were
obedient to the faith.
1Co 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fullness of Christ:
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the
common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you
that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered
unto the saints.
B. “The faith” is that system of truth that the Bible presents that believers are
to believe and obey. It’s that teaching and conduct which Christ delivered
to the apostles which has been communicated to the church in the
Scriptures. What exactly is included in “the faith”? One could think of the
faith as a field with fences or walls around it. Everything inside the fence
is part of the faith, and everything outside the fence denies the faith. In
other words, there are strict boundaries that define “the faith.” What
constitutes these boundaries? The following essential teachings of the
Bible constitute the fundamentals of the faith. Anyone who denies these
cardinal doctrines is outside the walls. Those who affirm them are inside.
1. A proper understanding and affirmation of the gospel. The gospel
is what sets apart Christianity from all other faiths. The gospel
forms the church. When the gospel is removed, the church ceases
to exist. What is the gospel? Paul explains it in 1 Corinthians 15:1-
5 (read). Note the following from this text:
 Christ: One must have a proper understanding of the person

and work of Jesus Christ. This would also include the doctrines
of the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the virgin birth.
 Christ died: Jesus actually, physically died. The death of Christ
had a certain purpose and meaning. One must understand and
affirm the true meaning and purpose of the atonement.
 Christ died for our sins (and was buried): One must understand
and affirm human sinfulness, that God judges it, the
universality of it, and the effects of it.
 Christ rose again (the 3rd day and was seen by many). Genuine
believers affirm that Jesus physically rose from the grave.
 Thes events occurred “according to the Scripture.” Hence, one
must affirm the authority of Scripture. The Bible is inspired
and authoritative.
 The proper response to the gospel is to repent of sin and trust in
the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).
We are not suggesting that a convert must have a comprehensive
grasp of all these issues at the point of salvation. A childlike, weak
faith is enough to save. However, those who deny or pervert the
above points are clearly outside the boundaries of “the faith.”
What must one believe in order to be saved?

The gospel message includes the fact of man’s condition (sin), God’s
remedy for that condition (the person and work of Christ), and the
response God requires in order for that remedy to be applied to the
sinner (faith and repentance). In order for a man to be saved, he must
understand that he is a sinner who has fallen short of the standard of
perfection demanded by a holy God and is, therefore, deserving of sin’s
penalty, namely, death; that the God-man, Jesus Christ, has met the
standard by means of His sinless life and has paid the penalty by means
of His sacrificial death; and that by responding in faith and repentance he
can be justified in God’s sight as a result of Christ’s work (both His
sinless life and sacrificial death) being imputed to him. Anyone who
denies or corrupts these truths is outside of the faith.
2. Doctrines which may not be denied when learned: One may be

ignorant of certain teachings at the point of salvation, but when he
does hear them, he will affirm them because they are true. For
example, one may be ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity when
he is saved, but a true believer will affirm it when he hears it. How
do you know which doctrines are most important?
a) Centrality—how closely connected is the doctrine with the

gospel? If an essential doctrine is known and denied, it
constitutes a denial of the gospel. E.g., the resurrection –
critical
b) Clarity—how clearly revealed is the doctrine? A
fundamental doctrine will be clearly taught throughout the
Bible. All interpretation includes degrees of probability, but
some doctrines require virtual certainty of meaning. If the
doctrine cannot be demonstrated from a clear text to an
ordinary reader, the doctrine is probably not a fundamental.
E.g., man’s sinfulness is clear. How Adam’s sin impacts
current humans is not so clear.
c) Catholicity—has the doctrine been widely accepted within
the believing community? If genuine believers have
historically embraced a doctrine, it must be important. This
does not preclude the development of doctrine as time
proceeds. E.g., inerrancy is found from the beginning, but
has not been clarified until recently.
3. Orderly practice: Fundamental practices are also essential to the
Christian faith (1 Tim 5.8). One is not saved by works, but one’s
works do display his faith. An unchristian way of living denies or
brings into question one’s profession of faith (Titus 1:15-16).
Believers display “the faith” through a certain type of lifestyle.
Whom do we recognize as Christian? Only those who give a credible profession
of faith in the gospel and who verify it by the way they live. Those outside the
walls deny the essentials of the gospel and thus deny “the faith” once for all
delivered to the saints. Those inside the walls understand and affirm those
essential doctrines. True believers uphold and defend the system of truth
contained in the Bible.
II. The Bible warns us about the danger of false teachers.

A. Texts:
Mt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mt 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man
deceive you.
Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
shall deceive the very elect.
Ac 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after
them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I
ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ.
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as
there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in
damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring
upon themselves swift destruction.
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2Jo 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of
old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our
God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord
Jesus Christ.
B. Notice several characteristics of false teachers:

1. False teachers appear to be harmless. They dress themselves in
“sheep’s clothing,” which suggests that they look and act much
like the “sheep.” However, internally they are enemies of the true
sheep, like wolves who destroy and scatter the flock.
2. False teachers intend to deceive, and some will succeed in
deceiving many. In order to prevent this, believers must be on
guard against their mendacious ways.
3. False teachers may have impressive talents or skills. Even great
signs and wonders may accompany the work of false prophets.
Miraculous displays do not confirm or validate any ministry. Satan
is a powerful enemy who can enable amazing spectacles to draw
attention away from the truth.
4. Following false teachers may result in disaster by hindering
effective ministry. Human tradition and secular philosophy are
particularly insidious means of derailing a church.
5. False teachers have been, are, and will be quite common, even
among congregations of genuine believers. There are many false
prophets in the world. Some whom we would not expect will arise
to lead people astray.
6. False teachers spread their evil influence to those who listen to and
support them.
7. False teachers pervert and corrupt the gospel and deny the Lord.
C. What ought to be the believer’s attitude toward false teachers? Should one
cooperate with them, encourage them, or treat them like genuine
believers? Should one watch their TV shows or listen to their radio
broadcasts? Should one support a false prophet financially? Obviously not.
What if they are present in one’s church? Believers should take the
following steps against them.
1. Evaluate them against the standard of the Scriptures. Believers
must “test the spirits” to detect those who are false (1 Jn 4:1). Jesus
said that we would know false teachers “by their fruit” (Mt 7:15-
20). Also, the better you know the Bible, the better you will be able
to evaluate your teachers. Read Acts 17:11.
2. Expose them. Show them for what they really are. Do not allow
their sheep’s clothing to prevent others from seeing their
pernicious ways.
3. Rebuke them. Stand against them verbally or in writing.
4. Warn others about them. Try to prevent them from continuing on in
their deceiving ways.
5. Separate from them. Have nothing to do with them. Do not
cooperate with or support them in any way.
It’s important for pastors to take these steps against false teachers,
especially if they are influencing anyone within the church. One obviously
cannot confront every false teacher he is aware of, unless perhaps he
wants to make a ministry of exposing false prophets. But when a false
teacher arises within one’s environment, he should take the above steps.
D. Note that these false teachers are not just mistaken believers. Even
genuine Christians may have blind spots and weaknesses, which may
result in some faulty ideas. The false teachers we have in mind are not
genuine believers, but are anti-Christian deceivers who both calculating
and intentional in their wicked schemes. Christians must prevent such
people from having a negative impact upon them.
E. Some false teachers may be described as “apostates.” Apostasy is religious
defection. It implies the removal from or forsaking of a person or a system
of thought (c.f., Acts 21:21). Satan is the ultimate apostate, who revolted
against his creator and deliberately turned his back on the truth. Apostasy
is a direct repudiation of divine truth to which one has been clearly
exposed and which one has professed. When one withdraws from the faith
and turns his back on it, he is an apostate. Apostates are confirmed in their
rejection of the truth. They will not repent of their errors and return to the
fold. They are spiritually dead and doomed to judgment (Jude 12-13).
Interestingly, in the Old Testament, the Jews were to stone to death any false
prophet that attempted to lead Israel away from the true God (Deut 13:1-11). We
are not suggesting the same fate for modern false teachers. However, the
seriousness of error is the same today as it was back then. Believers must take a
serious and strong stand against false teachers.
III. The Bible warns us about the dangers of false doctrine.

A. Texts:
De 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither
shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the
LORD your God which I command you.
Ga 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils;
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all
power and signs and lying wonders,
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility
and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not
seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
B. False teachers promote false theology. What is true of false theology?
1. It adds to or detracts from the Word of God. Believers must reject
any so-called scripture (like the Koran or the Book of Mormon)
that supposedly adds to, replaces or contradicts the Bible.
2. It is something different than the Word of God. It is “another”
gospel, something distinct from and in opposition to the true
gospel.
3. Demonic forces may inspire it. Satan is the father of lies, and he
intends to use falsehood to deceive as many as possible.
C. Sometimes we use the word “heresy” to describe false theology. However,
this word more accurately refers to those who spread division and discord,
not those who teach false doctrine. A “heretic” is guilty of causing
division, but not necessarily of teaching error.
D. Christians must be vigilant to learn and adopt “sound” doctrine (Titus 2:1).
Sound doctrine suggests a proper understanding of the Bible. Sometimes
we call sound doctrine “orthodox,” that is, straight or right. The farther
one strays from orthodoxy, the closer he moves toward error. Sound or
proper practice is sometimes called orthopraxy. Proper feelings or
sensibilities may be called orthopathy.
IV. The Bible commands believers to separate from apostates and false doctrine.
We’ve thus far learned that there is such a thing as “the faith,” and that false
teachers and false doctrine contradict this body of truth. When falsehood and error
confront an individual believer or a congregation, the biblical response is
separation.
A. Texts:
2Co 6:14-17 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what
communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with
Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what
agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the
living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I
will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from
among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean
thing; and I will receive you,
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the
truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from
such turn away.
Re 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her,
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of
her plagues.
B. Believers are not to form an “unequal yoke” between themselves and
unbelievers. A yoke is a farming implement that connects two animals like
oxen or mules together. The image suggests connecting two things for
cooperative labor. The context of 2 Cor 6:14f suggests the yoke in view is
religious cooperation of some kind. Believers are not to cooperate with
those who are pulling in a different direction. Christians share no common
religious ground with unbelievers, Satan or false teachers. Genuine
believers should never cooperate with, aid or encourage those who have
departed from or deny orthodox Christianity. Instead, they must “come out
from among them and be separate.”
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had
been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out,
that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
The principle of not cooperating with unbelievers also applies more
broadly. Churches should “yoke up” only with other churches of like faith
and practice. Believers should not cooperate in religious endeavors with
those who do not share substantial agreement regarding their faith and
practice.
C. Believers are to withdraw themselves from false teachers and false

doctrine. If they refuse to do so, they may partake in the sins of such
people.
V. The character of God demands that believers separate themselves from evil and
error.
A. Texts:
De 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are
judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Ps 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God,
thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Isa 6:3, 5 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the
LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory….Then said I, Woe is
me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in
the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King,
the LORD of hosts.
Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look
on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and
holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more
righteous than he?
1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all
manner of conversation;
B. The primary attribute of God is holiness. Holiness is the governing
attribute and crowning glory of God’s character. Holiness has two aspects:
1. Separation, uniqueness: a primary meaning of the term “holy” is
“to be set apart for special use.” That which is holy stands in
contrast to that which is profane, common or ordinary (the old
word for this is “vulgar”).
2. Moral purity: God is perfectly sinless, absolutely separated from
evil and error in his being.
C. Encountering that which is holy demands certain kinds of responses.
1. Humility: in the cases of both Moses (Ex 3) and Isaiah (Isa 6), the
response to the holiness of God was great fear, awe and a feeling
of unworthiness.
2. Imitation: the desire to be holy (1 Pet 1:15). Because God is holy,
believers should be holy as well. Individuals should seek holiness,
as should congregations.
Conclusion: In this lesson we’ve discussed the fact that believers should seek to separate
themselves from false teachers, false teaching, error and apostasy. Because God is holy,
believers should seek to be holy themselves. Separation from error is a biblical idea. We
should not tolerate false doctrine or false teachers in our churches or in our personal lives.
We must uphold and defend “the faith,” and separate from those who deny it, corrupt it,
or turn from it. God is holy and Christians should be as well. Whatever cooperative unity
believers enjoy must be based on common commitments to orthodox doctrine.
Discussion:
1. Do miracles, signs and wonders necessarily confirm or validate any ministry? No,
demonic religion is able to emulate the miraculous.
2. What standards should one employ when evaluating teachers? The Scriptures, their
fruit
3. Define apostasy. Religious defection. An apostate is one who has forsaken the faith.
4. How do you know false theology when you hear it? It adds to, reduces or
contradicts the Bible; it’s something different than what the Bible teaches.
5. What do we mean by “sound” doctrine? Teaching that is proper, fitting or orthodox.
6. What is an “unequal yoke”? Any religious cooperation between believers and non-
believers. Or cooperation between those who hold sound doctrine and those who
substantially disagree with it.
7. How does the character of God impact the doctrine of separation? God’s holiness
demands that believers be holy.
Biblical Separation Personal Separation 11
Personal Separation
Separation is the teaching that Christians ought to be distinct and

different from the sinful, corrupt world around them. The doctrine of
separation is based on the holiness of God. Throughout the Bible, we find the command
to be holy because God is holy (Lev 11:44 19:2, 20:7; 1 Pet 1:16). God is both totally
separate from sin and totally unique. Believers ought to imitate this character of God by
separating themselves from sinful influences and by striving to live a life of holiness.
Today’s lesson will focus on how the doctrine of separation applies to individual
believers.
Three Areas of Personal Separation:

I. Physical Separation
1 Cor 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are
bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which
are God’s.
A. Physical separation is staying away from those activities or substances
that would be dishonoring to God. We must remove ourselves from
certain environments in order to prevent ourselves from sinning or being
associated with sinful practices.
B. Man’s primary duty in life is to bring honor and glory to God. This duty
suggests that the believer seeks to avoid anything that would prevent or
hinder him from doing so.
C. The Holy Spirit indwells the body of the believer. As such, the believer
should seek to live in a way that would not dishonor God. There are many
activities that would defile one’s body and dishonor God. What are some
examples? Sexual immorality and those activities associated with it,
pornography, drunkenness, drug abuse. What about dancing? Some
forms might be OK–square, ballroom, folk. But modern dancing to rock
music is not appropriate for a Christian.
D. Believers ought to stay away from any substances which would defile
their bodies. What are some potential examples? Alcohol, cigarettes,
drugs, some foods, etc.
We live in a very sinful culture. Christians ought to be truly counter-cultural. They
ought to be offering an alternative lifestyle to what most others are pursuing. They
must stand against the evils of society and refuse to be forced into the mold that
modern culture is promoting. That’s what separation is all about.
Unfortunately, many voices within the church tell us that we need to be like the
world in order to reach the world. We supposedly must format Christianity in a
way that is the least offensive to unbelievers. Many churches are going the
“seeker sensitive” route in order to be more appealing to lost people. However,
the doctrine of separation teaches us that we cannot lower our standards or engage
in worldly behavior just to make ourselves, our message, or our church more
appealing to the lost.
II. Relational Separation

2 Cor 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath
light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part
hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of
God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will
dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto
you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
A. Explain what a yoke (not yolk) is. The wooden farming implement used to
hook together animals in order to pull a plow or cart.
B. The Israelites were forbidden from plowing with an ox and a donkey
yoked together because the animals were of unequal strength (Deut
22:10). Paul uses the idea of a yoke to teach that believers should not be
joined with unbelievers in certain activities. What reasons does Paul give
for separation from unbelievers? Union with unbelievers constitutes an
unequal yoke; believers have nothing in common with unbelievers
spiritually; an unequal yoke may cause a believer to be involved with
“unclean” things; such a yoke may prevent one from enjoying a proper
relationship with God.
C. The clear teaching of the Bible is that believers should not marry (or date)
unbelievers. Such a union would be an unequal yoke.
Deut 7:3-4 Neither shalt thou make marriages with the heathen nations;
thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou
take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that
they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled
against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
1 Cor 7:39 [A widow] is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in
the Lord.
Saved people and unsaved people disagree on a very basic and significant
level. Thus, a marriage between a lost person and a saved one creates all
sorts of difficulties and problems. Name a few. How to raise the kids, how
to handle church activities, how much money to give, what is morally
acceptable behavior, etc.
Applying the doctrine of separation should also prevent a mature Christian

from dating and/or marrying an immature Christian. If spiritual goals are
not shared equally by both partners, it’s probably not a good idea for the
two to date or marry. So it’s not enough that both individuals profess to be
saved. Both should also be in agreement regarding theology and practice.
D. Separation should prevent a believer from forming close, personal bonds
with those who would be a bad influence upon them. Rather than going
along with evil people, believers should rebuke them.
Ps 1:1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
Prov 13:20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion
of fools shall be destroyed.
1 Cor 15:33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”
Eph 5:11-12 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those
things which are done of them in secret.
There are times when a believer has no choice but to be in the company of
wicked people. And it’s acceptable for Christians to have non-Christian
friends. However, believers must not follow such people in their evil ways
or allow them to negatively influence them. Believers must strive to be a
good influence in such situations.
E. Separation is not isolation. It does not require the believer to enter a
monastery or insulate himself against all contact with unsaved people.
Christians are to be “in” the world but not “of” the world. God commands
us to reach the lost, so we have to be out in the community interacting
with those who need the gospel. Believers are to be salt and light to a
corrupt and perverted world. However, we must prevent ourselves from
being negatively influenced by wickedness.
III. Doctrinal Separation

A. Paul’s primary concern in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 is that believers separate
themselves from false teachers and false doctrine. This would include
non-Christian teachings (e.g., Islam), quasi-Christian theology (i.e., the
cults) and even erroneous “Christian” ideas (e.g., the openness of God).
B. There are occasions when believers must break fellowship with other
genuine believers. Note several causes for separation from professing
believers:
1. Doctrinal departure
2 Thes 3:6, 14-15 Keep away from every brother who is idle and does
not live according to the teaching you 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. Yet count him not
as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
Note that the division called for here is between profession believers.
There is room for doctrinal differences among orthodox believers, but
some disagreements require brethren to separate from one another.
2. Divisive spirit
Rom 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause
divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the
teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second
time. After that, have nothing to do with him.
What does “divisive” mean? Causing divisions and disunity within
the church
Believers should stay away from those who cause friction and/or
disunity within the church. What kind of behaviors might cause
disunity? Gossip, insults, criticism, lies, false teaching
What is the biblical word for one who causes division and discord?
Heretic
3. Disorderly conduct
2 Thes 3:6 Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not
live according to the teaching you received from us.
2 Thes 3:14 If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take
special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may
feel ashamed.
Disorderly conduct covers a multitude of sinful behaviors. Individuals
and churches have to determine whether or not a believer’s behavior is
so disorderly that he or she must be put out of the fellowship. What
might some disorderly behaviors be? Drinking/drunkenness, various
forms of immorality, being quarrelsome, financial misdeeds, idleness,
unbiblical divorce, etc.
The goal of church discipline is to bring the offending person to
repentance. Church discipline is for the benefit of both the person and
the church. If the person refuses to repent, church members should
treat him as an unsaved person and avoid him. This is why church
membership is so important—if one is not a member, the church is
impotent to take any action.
C. What the Bible teaches regarding separation from professing believers:
Passage Problem Procedure

Matt 18:16-20 Fellow believer is in sin Personal appeal
Return with witnesses.
Tell it to the church.
Excommunication
Acts 15:36f Paul and Barnabas separate over John Conflict over procedure may
Mark. Neither one in the wrong. Sharp result in separation. This is
conflict over procedure. Truth and ecclesiastical separation.
ethics not at steak. Ministry and
purpose in question.
Rom 16.17 Mark those who cause divisions and Mark them, note who they are,
offenses. Professing believers here. expose them. Avoid them.
Maybe unbelievers, but not nec. Not
mistaken opinions; errors, falsehood.
1 Cor 5.1-13 Professing believer caught in Place them outside the church.
immorality: fornication, greed, idolatry, Deliver them to Satan for
pugnacious, drunkenness, extortion destruction. Don’t eat with them.
Don’t treat them as a brother.
Eph 5.1-13 Various forms of immorality. Don’t let them be among you. Tell
the guilty to stop.
Don’t participate with those who
are guilty. Separate.
Rebuke the guilty.
2 Thes 3.6 Brother who walks disorderly and/or Withdraw from this person.
abandons the apostolic tradition
2 Thes 3.14-15 Disobedience to apostolic commands Note the person—church action.
Have no company.
Warn him as a brother.
1 Tim 1:19-20 False teaching Deliver to Satan.
1 Tim 6.3-5 False teaching about ethics Withdraw self.
2 Tim 2.16-18 Profane and vain babblings Shun those who practice this.
Titus 3.9-11 Foolish questions, genealogies, striving Warn him twice, reject him.
about the law. Heretic—factious person
Applying the Doctrine of Personal Separation

At times it may be difficult to tell when you should separate yourself from an activity, a
person or a group. Asking yourself the following questions may be of help:
 Does the Bible allow it or forbid it? 2 Timothy 3:16-17
 Is it of the world or will it make me worldly if I do it? John 15:19; 1 John 2:15-17
 It is good for me physically, emotionally and/or spiritually? Romans 12:9b; 1
Corinthians 10:23
 Can I do it knowing that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit? 1 Corinthians 6:19
 Will it glorify the Lord, or will it possibly bring shame to his name? 1 Corinthians
6:20; 10: 31
 Can I honestly ask God’s blessing on it and be certain I’ll not regret doing it?
Proverbs 10: 22
 Is it apt to damage my testimony for the Lord? Philippians 2:15; Genesis 19:14
 Is it possible that it is a stumbling block to weak believers? Romans 14:7, 2 1; 1
Corinthians 8:12, 14
 Will it look bad? Does it have the appearance of evil? 1 Thessalonians 5:22
 Would I be ashamed to be found doing this when Christ returns? 1 John 2:28; Mark
13:28
 Will it make me a slave to anything or anyone but Christ? 1 Corinthians 6:12
 Will it eliminate me from any type of Christian service? 1 Corinthians 9:27
 Do I have any doubts that it might be wrong, or does it violate my conscience?
Romans 14:23
 Is it a valuable use of my time, or does it waste time? Ephesians 5:16
 Could Satan use this as a way to gain a “foothold” in my life? 2 Corinthians 2: 11;
Ephesians 4:27
 What do my spiritual leaders (parents, pastors) and/or other godly people think about
it? What advice would they give me? Hebrews 13:17
 Is this actually an area of Christian freedom? Rom 14
Note: There is virtually no way to totally eliminate personal, subjective choices from this
process. Each person will likely make different judgments on these issues. Diversity is
not a sin, nor is poor judgment (in many cases).
Conclusion: Personal separation is the teaching that Christians ought to be distinct and
different from the sinful, corrupt world around them. God commands believers to shine
like lights in the midst of a dark and depraved culture. We are to separate ourselves from
those activities and substances which would defile our bodies, the temple of the Holy
Spirit. We are to separate ourselves from those people who would influence us in a
negative way, even if those people are professing believers. And we are to separate
ourselves from false doctrine and those who teach it. We must also remember that
separation is not isolation. We are in the world, but not of the world. Separation does not
prevent us from reaching out to those who need to be saved.
Discussion:
1. Explain the analogy of the yoke and how it applies to separation. The yoke tied
two animals together for cooperative labor. Believers should not cooperate on a
religious level with the unsaved or with the unorthodox.
2. Does separation mean that you can’t have unsaved friends? No, simply that you
don’t allow them to influence you toward evil. This may mean that you can’t do
what they do–certain parties or other activities where you know they’ll be
encouraging you to sin. There may be times when you have to end a friendship.
3. What’s the difference between separation and isolation? Isolation is preventing
all contact with evil people, a “fortress mentality.” Separation is preventing evil
from influencing you.
4. What are the biblical grounds for breaking fellowship with professing believers?
Doctrinal deviation, divisive spirit, disorderly conduct
5. How do you know when to separate from something or someone? Apply the
principles in this lesson.
6. What’s wrong with this argument: “In order to reach people, you have to be like
them.” It’s simply not true. Sick people don’t need another sick person to help
them. People often are more responsive to someone who is different from, not the
same as, they are.
Biblical Separation Ecclesiastical Separation 18
Ecclesiastical Separation
It is truly unfortunate that all professing Christians do not hold a

common understanding of faith and practice. Imagine the testimony and
effectiveness of a single, unified organization composed of all genuine believers lovingly
cooperating together to fulfill our Lord’s commands! Alas, such is far from the case and
probably never will materialize this side of glory. Among those who call themselves
Christians are many and diverse forms of belief and behavior. Some of these differences
are minor, some are major. Some are merely traditional or cultural, but others center on
significant doctrinal considerations. Even cult members may consider themselves to be
Christians. Because of these differences, churches may find it necessary either to avoid
cooperation with other groups or to sever connections with them.
We have already considered the importance of personal separation. Each individual
believer must separate himself from ungodliness and the ungodly. He must also strive
after a life of holiness.
Today’s lesson will focus on how separation applies to churches and how they relate to
one another. We will find that churches must apply similar principles of separation in
their relations with each other. We call this sort of separation “ecclesiastical” because the
Greek word for “church” is “ekklesia.”
I. Governing texts
Am 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
1Co 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of
God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;
for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
2Co 6:14-7:1 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? …
A. Many of the same texts that we have previously noted also pertain to
ecclesiastical separation. If it is proper for an individual believer to
distance himself from unbelievers and/or unorthodox believers, it is also
proper for a church to separate itself from erroneous and/or unorthodox
churches. Churches have to be on guard against false teachers and false
theology and must take steps to avoid cooperation and/or association with
error.
B. It is unwise and unbiblical for churches to cooperate with other churches
that vary on important doctrinal or philosophical issues. What might some
of these issues be? Baptism, the spiritual gifts (tongues, miracles),
associations (e.g., WCC, ECT), universalism, worship practices, etc. It’s
common for churches and organizations to depart from orthodoxy.
C. What are some issues that churches may disagree about, but might still
cooperate? Bible version, dress standards, music preferences (to some
degree)
II. Churches claim certain theological and philosophical positions.

A. Liberal
The major distinctive of Liberalism is the desire to adapt religious
ideas to modern culture and ways to thinking. Liberalism teaches
that the Bible is not supernatural, infallible, or authoritative, but is
the work of limited writers whose message must be updated for the
modern audience. A liberal church is one that denies part or all of
the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. Many of the mainline
denominations [Church of Christ, some Lutherans, some
Presbyterians, Congregationalists, United Methodists, most
Episcopal, some Baptist] are liberal, as are many theological
seminaries, and they have been for many decades.
Years ago, schools like Yale, Princeton, Brown and Harvard were
strong theological schools. Now they are thoroughly liberal and
even anti-Christian.
Protestant Liberalism developed in Germany and Britain and crept
in to the U.S. around the turn of the century. Liberals denied
traditional creeds of Christianity and created modern, naturalistic
statements of the doctrines. All belief must pass the test of reason,
experience and critical examination. Sin and evil is seen as
imperfection, ignorance or immaturity. Salvation is achieved by
reversing the effects of sin, mainly through education and good
works. Liberal churches preach primarily good works and social
action.
A group often linked with liberals were called Modernists. Modernists
sought to impose a scientific grid over the Bible, thus removing anything
miraculous or supernatural. Today the words “liberal” and “modernist” are
virtually synonymous.
Another label associated with Liberalism is neo-orthodoxy. Neo-
orthodoxy tried to build a bridge of sorts between liberals and
evangelicals. They hold that God is “wholly other,” and that the Bible
contains the Word but is not actually the Word.
Note: In a theological context, it’s important that we reserve the

word “liberal” to refer to unbelief and apostasy, not to looser
standards of behavior. Someone is not “liberal” just because he
listens to popular music, wears the latest fashions, or goes to the
movies.
B. New Evangelical
A new evangelical church is one that professes to hold to the cardinal
doctrines of the faith, but refuses to separate from or criticize those who
do not. New evangelicals desire to interact with liberal scholarship, which
seems to have had a leftward influence on the movement. [Good example
is “Openness of God” idea espoused by Clark Pinnock, who used to be
evangelical, but now is closer to liberal.] New Evangelicalism arose in
the 1940’s as a reaction to what some saw as negative aspects of
fundamentalism (narrow-mindedness, lacking scholarship, harsh, divisive,
contentious, not addressing social problems). New Evangelicalism stresses
the opposite of those things (being open-minded, well educated, gracious,
non-judgmental and socially/politically active). They yearn for respect
from the secular culture and seek to win the minds of liberals and neo-
orthodox. This movement is quick to adopt and employ elements of
modern culture, such as popular music, mass media, and slick marketing.
Evangelicals strive to be highly cooperative and inclusive, often working
together with any group who professes Christianity. Their goal from the
beginning was to infiltrate (rather than separate from) mainline
denominations and attempt to influence them toward orthodoxy.
Evangelicals today are seeking dialog and even cooperation with Roman
Catholics. Most orthodox Protestant churches in the West fall into this
category. Usually this group is known simply as “evangelical.”
Evangelicals tend to be very interested in earning respect and credibility
within the secular culture. They do not want to be viewed as oddballs,
fanatics or extremists. They desire a place in the mainstream of culture—
in politics, education, journalism, media, art, etc. They covet respect and
serious dialogue with non-Christians and liberals. Social action is also
prominent with modern evangelicals. They typically support conservative
political parties, anti-poverty initiatives, pro-life programs, and even
environmentalism.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists generally share a common
understanding of theology, but differ on the more practical aspects of
Christian living. Today Evangelicalism is so open and tolerant that it is
nearly impossible to define or describe the essential elements of the
movement.
C. Fundamental
A fundamental church is one which upholds the cardinal (or fundamental)
doctrines of the faith, such as belief in miracles, the virgin birth, the
substitutionary atonement of Christ, his resurrection, salvation by grace
through faith, and the inspiration of the Bible. Fundamentalism arose in
the early 1900’s in a reaction to theological Liberalism coming from
Europe that was influencing the mainline denominations in the U.S. About
this time a series of books called The Fundamentals was written which
both defended orthodox Protestantism and attacked Liberalism, Roman

Catholicism, evolution and other enemies of the faith.
What are the primary characteristics of Fundamentalism?
1. Commitment to the fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
Fundamentalists believe the Bible is literally true and accurate. The
Bible is the only source of faith and practice.
2. Separation from sin and false doctrine. Fundamentalists emphasize
separation from the world and holiness of lifestyle. They also insist on
separation from wrong doctrine and from those who teach it. They
refuse to cooperate with those who deny or corrupt important biblical
doctrines. A primary emphasis of fundamentalists is their desire to
expose error and separate from it.
3. Militancy or zeal. Fundamentalists tend to be very blunt in criticizing
those who corrupt the faith. They are aggressive and assertive in their
defense of the truth and their exposure of error. Because of this, some
have characterized fundamentalists as cold, harsh and critical.
Fundamental churches tend to be independent, socially and politically
conservative, actively involved in evangelism and missions, and often
stand aggressively against social and religious movements they see as
being in error. They tend not to put much trust in political movements or
spend much money on social action.
How would you categorize our church? Liberal, evangelical or
fundamental?
Currents within Fundamentalism:
 Confessionalism – doctrinal essentials define the parameters of fellowship
and/or separation. Doctrine and philosophy are most important to this group,
rather than impressive statistics or charismatic personalities. This branch
values formal education yet still emphasizes personal piety and evangelism. It
also is willing to embrace aspects of Reformed soteriology. One would hope
that more within the movement follow this track. E.g., DBTS, CBTS, NTA,
GARBC. “Mainstream” fundamentalism? Probably not, or not yet.
 Imperialism – the movement rises and falls with a particular popular leader, an
“empire builder,” the local “Doc.” Certain fundamental leaders have arisen to
build impressive churches, schools or other ministries, and some see these
men as representatives of the entire movement. Such leaders often pass the
baton to their children or comrades, who step into leadership and continue
building the “empire.” E.g., Bob Jones, Hyles, Clearwaters, Cedarholm
 New Image or Neo-Fundamentalism – broader appeal to the evangelical
community; less emphasis on personal standards of holiness. Neo-
fundamentalists typically grew up within Fundamentalism, are committed to
the core beliefs, but are less militant, less separatist, and more open to
evangelical influences. Neo-fundamentalists tend to be younger people who
did not participate in the past battles with the liberals, and/or who are fed up
with Fundamentalism’s tendency toward externalism, conformity and
isolation. E.g., Falwell, Van Impe, Ceadarville University, Cornerstone
(Grand Rapids). Is GARBC moving this direction?
 Hyper-fundamentalism – elevation of programs, personalities, and personal
opinion to the level of cardinal doctrines. Hyper-fundamentalists often rally
around certain issues that most consider to be non-essential (e.g., Bible
versions, dress standards, musical forms, hair length, personal recreation
choices) and powerful, dynamic leaders who demand loyalty from their
followers. Hyper-fundamentalism is often highly exclusive, charging
dissenters with heresy and/or apostasy. This branch of the movement tends to
be pragmatic, holding that impressive statistics are an indication of God’s
blessing. Leaders in this category often downplay education and emphasize
personal piety and service. This branch is quite hostile to Reformed
soteriology. E.g., Hyles, BBF, Fairhaven College, etc. Such people would
strongly assert that this branch is true Fundamentalism.
These categories are obviously not airtight because some within the movement do
not fit so neatly into any of them and because people and groups move from one
category into another. Fundamentalism is not a monolithic, centralized movement,
so if reflects a broad range of sensibilities.
Can you tell anything about the position of a church from its name? Generally, a
church’s name has some meaning. E.g., if the church is called Pentecostal or
Roman Catholic, you can usually assume some things to be true of that church.
But don’t judge a church by its name alone. If you are committed to Baptist
distinctives, then you’ll probably look for a Baptist church. Some good churches
don’t have “Baptist” in the name. Bible or community churches may be good.
III. Doctrinal deviation is one reason why commitment to a confession of faith is a

good practice.
A. Baptists have historically adopted confessions or statements of faith.
These are valuable in that they specifically address the question of
orthodoxy and membership. Those adopting the confession are considered
to be orthodox and are welcome to be included in the group. Those
denying any major assertions of the document are outside the fellowship.
B. The earliest Baptist confessions were composed and adopted by English
Baptists. The First and Second London Confessions, the Philadelphia
Confession, and the New Hampshire Confession are examples. Many
churches employ such confessions, often with minor modifications.
C. Some hold a non-creedal position, suggesting they need “no creed but
Christ.” They are hesitant to reduce their faith to a man-made document.
Perhaps they would assert that the New Testament is the only statement of
faith they need. However, doctrinal statements condense and define
biblical teaching in a format that clearly explains a group’s beliefs and

teachings. Those who reject the use of a doctrinal statement may be
revealing their lack of commitment to truth.
D. Churches and other organizations must determine to what degree a
prospective member must subscribe to the doctrinal statement. Here are
various ways of understanding subscription to a statement of faith:
1. General subscription—agreement that the statement is orthodox,
but one might not endorse every single detail of it.
2. Systemic subscription – subscription to the overall system that the
statement represents, yet not necessarily to every single idea.
3. Absolute subscription—every part of the statement is perfectly in
line with one’s belief. One endorses it with no reservations or
hesitation.
When a member no longer subscribes to the doctrinal statement,
separation is the logical outcome, either voluntary or forced. This is one of
the values of adopting a statement—those who reject it, deny it or refuse it
are clearly outside the group.
IV. How do churches determine with whom to fellowship?

A. The word “fellowship” implies something held in common. Thus,
fellowship must be based on a common understanding or a common goal,
or something else held in common. The more values groups hold in
common, the more fellowship they can enjoy.
B. Some would suggest that as long as “we all love Jesus,” that commonality
should allow full fellowship. However, as we’ve previously noted, there is
much more to “the faith” than just claiming to love Jesus.
C. Some of the same biblical principles that apply to individuals also apply to
churches. Churches are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:11-17), and
must take care not to defile themselves. They must not be yoked together
with unbelieving or unorthodox organizations. They should even avoid
close cooperation with otherwise orthodox groups that differ significantly
on philosophy and practice. For example, most fundamental churches will
not cooperate with evangelical churches, not only because of doctrinal
disagreements but also because of philosophical differences.
D. Separatists generally separate from those who refuse to separate. If a
church is part of a compromising group or denomination, a fundamental
church would likely not cooperate with it. This is only proper. The Bible
clearly teaches a church to separate from falsehood and error, and if it
refuses to do so, it then becomes partaker in the errors of the unorthodox
group.
E. Churches must practice doctrinal separation. If another church or

organization departs from the faith, separation from it is appropriate. The
same would be true for churches guilty of a divisive spirit or disorderly
conduct. Fundamentalists would assert that liberals are guilty of doctrinal
deviation (and perhaps disorder), and that evangelicals are guilty of
disorderly conduct (and perhaps doctrinal deviation). Such disagreements
prevent churches from cooperating.
F. Churches should cooperate with those other churches and/or groups that
subscribe to the same doctrinal position and philosophy of ministry. Will a
“confessionalist” church cooperate with a “hyper” church? Highly
unlikely.
G. Other questions to ask when considering fellowship between/among
churches:
1. What is the purpose of the fellowship? Perhaps cooperation can be
based on something other than doctrine, like pro-life issues, family
issues, morality, politics, etc. Limited cooperation need not imply total
endorsement.
2. What is the gravity of the differences? How serious are the issues at
stake? Some doctrines are more important than others. For example,
churches that disagree on musical standards may cooperate by
financially supporting the same missionaries.
3. What is the church’s attitude toward differences? If a church holds a
KJV-only position, it will likely not desire fellowship with a church
that uses another version.
4. Which way is the church headed? Is the group moving toward
orthodoxy or away from it? Perhaps the opportunity for fellowship will
encourage a church to move in the right direction.
5. How will fellowship identify our church? Will involvement associate
us with error or compromise? Will fellowship imply endorsement? For
example, attending an ecumenical men’s meeting will associate my
church with those endorsing error and falsehood.
H. Thinking of fellowship/cooperation as a
series of concentric circles (like a target with
a bull’s eye) might be helpful. In the very
center, the bull’s eye, is the position that the
church holds. Other churches holding that
same position could enjoy full fellowship.
The next circle out would be a position that
the church would mostly agree to with minor
differences. Other churches in that circle
might enjoy some limited fellowship. The next circle out would describe
what may be tolerable, but the differences are becoming more pronounced.
Little fellowship with such churches would be possible. All the area
outside of the circle represents a position the church cannot tolerate. The
closer another church is to the center point, the higher the degree of
potential fellowship and cooperation. The closer a church is to the outer
boundary, the less likely is close fellowship.
I. Some doctrines are false, while others descend to the level of “doctrines of
demons.” All doctrine from God is true. Among the true doctrines, not all
are of equal weight because not all truth is of equal importance. Thus, each
church must decide what doctrines are most important and valuable, and
what level of cooperation it is willing to engage in.
J. One of the dangers of a separatist position is that a church or other
institution will so closely define itself that no other institutions are
“worthy” of fellowship. That is, if all the details of an organization’s
position are raised to the level of cardinal doctrine, there may be no other
organizations that share the exact same position, and thus fellowship is
impossible.
V. When does an organization become apostate?

A. Any organization that propagates the denial of the gospel cannot be
recognized as legitimate. If the church teaches unbelief in its official
documents, or if it tolerates apostasy among its people and ministers, it has
become apostate. This is not to suggest that the mere presence of
unbelievers makes a ministry apostate. All genuine churches will be
reaching out to the lost, and some may attend the church or even be
members. But when unbelief and error becomes entrenched within the
organization, and nothing is done to root it out, the organization is apostate
and genuine believers should leave it.
B. Separation from those who deny the gospel is not separation from any true
church. Refusal to separate from the false church is separation from the
true church. The true schismatic is the non-separatist, the one who refuses
to seek out a true church.
C. What must be present in a local church in order for it to be considered
legitimate? The minimum requirements for a church to be considered valid
are the preaching of the true gospel and the participation of genuine,
Spirit-baptized believers. When born again believers meet to minister the
true gospel, that organization can be considered valid. This does not
suggest that every legitimate church is a good church or an orderly church.
A true church may not be what it ought to be—very few are. It’s only
when genuine believers and the true gospel are no longer welcome in an
organization that it becomes apostate. A few comments about
Landmarkism may be appropriate here.
D. We must recognize that different levels of accuracy and error exist in
every church. Some errors have a much larger set of consequences than
others. We might envision a scale or spectrum we can use to evaluate

errors:
Truth—mistaken opinion—isolated error—systemic error—apostasy
Based on this scale, one has to either limit his message or limit his
fellowship. When disagreements occur, one may ignore them and
fellowship anyway, or admit them and not fellowship. Integrity demands
that degrees of separation increase as degrees of agreement decrease.
E. Where does one draw the line for separation? Each person and
organization will have to decide that for themselves. Minor instances of
mistaken opinion and isolated error are evident and tolerated in even the
best ministries. But when the error becomes evident throughout the
organization, separation is necessary.
F. What other bases of separation might come into play?
Some forms of separation are more practical than doctrinal. That is, certain
factors simply prohibit or hinder close association, not primarily on
doctrinal considerations, but because of other distinctions. Whether
churches can tolerate such differences and cooperate anyway depends on
the will of the organizations involved.
1. Denomination: if one is committed to a certain set of
characteristics associated with a denomination, it follows that he
would associate only with those within that group. For example,
Baptists have historically held certain doctrinal and practical
distinctions. Those not holding those same teachings may not
enjoy close fellowship with Baptists.
2. Polity: those valuing congregational church government will likely
not enjoy close fellowship with those who endorse a presbyterian
or episcopal polity.
3. Redemption history: within Protestantism, most churches and
groups espouse some form of either covenant theology or
dispensationalism. Those holding dispensational view will likely
not cooperate closely with those in the covenant camp.
4. Eschatological schemes: views on the details surrounding the last
days may prevent fellowship between groups.
5. External standards of conduct: some churches place a very high
value on personal piety, while others see such matters as issues of
Christian freedom. Those espousing one view may not get along
well with those who take a different position. For example, those
who think playing cards is evil will likely feel awkward at an inter-
church fellowship where people are playing cards.
6. Philosophy of ministry: churches generally promote a certain style
of ministry. This style or character is reflected in the type of music
used in worship, the type of sermons the pastor preaches, the level
of participation or lack thereof, the type of people who attend and

other similar factors. Some churches emphasize discipleship and
education, while others highlight evangelism and missions. Some
churches have a casual, warm, flexible, countrified atmosphere.
Others enjoy a more liturgical, structured and formal approach. It
is rare that churches on opposite ends of this spectrum welcome
close fellowship between them.
VI. Does Christian unity necessarily demand organizational cooperation?

A. Non-separatists commonly claim that lack of organizational cooperation
(i.e., between churches or denominations) runs contrary to Christian unity.
All believers should strive for unity, which should result in cooperative
efforts and close fellowship of all believers irrespective of distinctives, in
their view.
B. True Christian unity is created through common faith and the baptism of
the Holy Spirit. Every believer is organically united with every other
believer. All genuine believers endorse and embrace “one Lord, one faith,
one baptism” (Eph 4:5). Unity does exist in a spiritual sense, even among
believers who disagree vehemently over significant doctrinal distinctions.
C. This spiritual unity may be manifested in visible, external peace and
oneness among all true believers. However, subjective/experiential unity is
a goal, but not a present reality.
D. Unity among institutions should reflect the unity in the Body, but in reality
it does not and presently cannot. Visible unity must be based on the unity
of the faith—everyone holding the same basic commitments. This state
does not currently exist within Christianity as a whole, and thus unity
among institutions does not exist. Rejection of any aspect of the faith
fractures Christian unity. False teaching and sin also ruptures unity.
Churches and denominations reflect various degrees of distinctiveness
(and perhaps error), and this naturally sets them apart from other groups.
Some are willing to compromise on their distinctions and some are not.
E. Thus, while it is true that there is a spiritual unity within the whole Body
of Christ that unites every genuine believer, organizational unity and
cooperation does not necessarily follow.
Conclusion: It’s unfortunate that churches find it necessary to limit or avoid cooperation
and fellowship. The work of God would be greatly advanced if genuine believers were
able to more fully work together. Yet separation is a necessary, vital doctrine. Churches
that desire purity of doctrine and practice simply must not cooperate with those who
compromise the gospel or who disagree on significant matters.
Discussion:
1. What issues to churches typically disagree about? Baptism, the spiritual gifts
(tongues, miracles), associations (e.g., WCC, ECT), universalism, worship practices,
etc.
2. Describe a liberal church. One that has departed from the true gospel; one that does
not believe in the Bible.
3. What distinguishes a Fundamentalist from an Evangelical? Separation from error,
militant exposure of error, involvement in social/political action, and personal piety.
4. Describe the currents within Fundamentalism. Confessional, empire builders, new
image, hyper.
5. Why is subscribing to a confession of faith a wise practice? Because doing so helps a
church determine who can be a member or if it wants to join a larger association.
6. What must be present within a church to make it legitimate? The true preaching of
the gospel and the participation of born again believers.
7. How can one tell when a church becomes apostate? The official stand of the church
is contrary to the gospel and it refuses to excommunicate apostates.
Biblical Separation Arguments Against Separation Evaluated 29
Arguments Against Separation Evaluated
There is a great emphasis on unity within Christianity today. Groups that

once anathematized one another are now seeking reconciliation.
Separate denominations are uniting. Diversity is giving way to synthesis. Those who
insist on the absolute nature of truth find themselves marginalized and labeled as
extremists. Toleration and relativity rule the day.
Many are critical of a separatist philosophy. Some object on biblical grounds, asserting
that Jesus desires a united church, not one splintered into thousands of separate strains.
Others bring up more practical arguments critical of a separatist position.
Today we’ll examine some of the arguments against separation and see if they are
convincing.
I. Theological and Scriptural Arguments Against Separatism Evaluated

A. The prophets remained within Israel while decrying the apostasy and
corruption within it. Thus, believers should remain within their
church/denomination and try to influence it for the better even if it is
currently corrupt.
Answer: The prophets were members of the nation of Israel, a theocracy
governing both religion and state. Israel was the one and only sphere of
God’s special interest. To be outside of Israel was to be outside of
salvation. There was not a different, pure Israel that anyone could join if
he separated from the corrupt Israel. Only after the church began was there
another body that genuine believers could associate with.
The church is not spiritual Israel or a continuation of the nation of Israel.
The church is a special creation by God, unique to this age and composed
of those who have been placed into it by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The fact that the prophets retained their membership in Israel does not
prove that believers ought to remain in a corrupt system. Israel is not the
church and does not set the standard for how a church is to operate.
Interestingly, thousands of Jews did separate themselves from the
Northern Kingdom of Israel when it became apostate under Jereboam.
B. Jesus was not a separatist. He preached the gospel indiscriminately and did
not judge the conduct or doctrine of his audience.
Answer: There is a difference in Jesus’ relationship to Israel and the
believer’s relationship to the church. Jesus was still under the Old
Covenant and national Israel was a theocratic people. Jesus did in fact
challenge the false teachers in Israel. He cleansed the temple twice. Also,
there was a transition in Jesus’ ministry. Early on he welcomed those who
do not overtly oppose him. Later, he forced people to choose for or against
him. Toward the end of his earthly ministry he rejected the endorsement of
those who would not specifically acknowledge him as Lord and Savior. He
offended crowds and drove them away (John 6:66). Also, Jesus never
presented himself as a co-laborer with scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees or
anyone other than his disciples. There was only one event in the life of
Christ in which he cooperated with the false leaders of Israel—his
crucifixion.
C. The apostles did not practice separation. They worshipped in the temple,
preached in the synagogues and spoke in secular Gentile settings. Paul
adapted himself to the culture where he was so as to be relevant.
Answer: Judaism was not a false religion, but the true one, although it was
corrupt in New Testament times. Paul wanted to reach the Jews first to
allow them to respond. When rejected, he left (separated himself) and
sought the Gentiles. Also, Acts reflects a transition from Israel to the
church. The church did not displace Israel immediately. But by the end of
Acts, God is working exclusively through the church, not Israel. Israel
diminishes as the church prospers. God’s present plan is the church, not
Israel.
Paul’s claim to be “all things to all men” (1 Cor 9:22) was not a general
permission to use any and all means of obtaining a hearing before lost
people. Rather, it was a defensive strategy used to avoid giving offense.
He was not saying that he adopted all the practices of the places where he
traveled. Rather, his point is that he occasionally suspended the exercise of
potentially offensive personal liberties so as not to offend his audience. In
any case, he was certainly not identifying himself with a false religious
system.
On Mars Hill, Paul clearly refuted the false views of the pagans and
preached Christ. He was not seeking their endorsement or cooperation in
preaching the gospel. He did not recognize them as Christian brothers.
One must maintain a distinction between dialog and debate, compromise
and confrontation.
D. The church as a whole can be holy even if parts of it are unholy.
Answer: A church or denomination cannot be distinguished from its
members. Once corruption and/or apostasy is firmly entrenched in an
organization, it ceases to be pure even if parts of it are still holy. Also, this
argument fails to maintain the distinction between the invisible church and
the visible church. The invisible church is a holy church in a sense,
although the members of it are unholy. But this holiness is positional, not
practical.
E. Christ prayed for the unity of the church (John 17). Lack of unity in the
Body of Christ is sin.
Answer: We must distinguish between the universal, invisible, catholic
church and individual, local, visible churches. Believers can do nothing to
hinder the unity of the Body of Christ. It is unified via belief in the gospel
and Spirit baptism of all genuine believers. Unity is given to believers.

They can’t create it, contrive it, establish it or preserve it. Unity of the
body-church is not formal or visible; it is organic, resulting from the
believer’s unity with Christ. All those united with Christ enjoy unity with
each other. Such unity is guaranteed.
Note that in John 17 Jesus is not instructing his disciples to make
themselves one. He’s not telling them to be one. He’s not suggesting they
should act like they are one. Believers are one by nature. The nature of the
unity Jesus asked for and God provided is an invisible oneness, and
organic unity which exists in the Trinity (vs. 21). This is invisible, not
institutional. Only at the very genesis of the church was there any kind of
institutional/organizational oneness. Shortly thereafter, churches sprang up
throughout the Roman Empire, and each individual church exercised a
high degree of autonomy and independence.
The purpose of the unity Jesus talked about in John 17 is that the world
may believe and know that God sent Jesus (vs. 23). Some assume that the
purpose is apologetic in nature, i.e., that the world can see the visible unity
of all Christians. Such unity will testify that Christ really is from God.
However, another meaning is possible. Jesus may have been speaking
conditionally rather than apologetically. That is, unity has to exist before
the world can know about Jesus. He constitutes a church that is unified in
order to reach the world with the gospel.
Local churches should certainly strive for unity and peace within
themselves and with other churches when possible. But the doctrine of
separation does not contradict Jesus’ high priestly prayer for unity in the
invisible church.
F. Several churches mentioned in the Bible were guilty of serious error, yet
the apostles never suggested that anyone leave them. The proper procedure
is to solve the problems and/or to excommunicate those creating the
problems. Separatist just run away from problems.
Answer: The epistles mention various problems occurring within the
churches. Many of these problems were interpersonal and/or moral in
nature, not apostasy from the faith. Separatism does not demand leaving a
church because of individual moral or interpersonal problems. However,
the presence of such problems may reveal other problems that would
require separation.
The proper procedure is to solve problems, which may require that the
church excommunicate those causing the trouble. Unfortunately, churches
commonly do not take such required steps, but instead tolerate sin and
error. In such cases, when the church fails to follow biblical guidelines,
one should separate from that church.
In Jesus’ messages to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, it appears that
several of the churches were close to losing legitimacy. Once a church or
denomination no longer meets the biblical qualifications, one has the duty
to leave it. As long as some things remain (Rev 3:2), it may be proper to
retain one’s membership. But when Christ has spit a ministry out of his
mouth (Rev 3:16), one should leave with haste.
G. Separation is hostile to Christian love. Denial of fellowship is unloving
and unworthy of Christ.
Answer: Some separatists are undoubtedly unloving, cold and contentious
in their demeanor. But separatism and love are not mutually exclusive.
One may still love and appreciate a brother from whom he must separate.
It is possible to love those with whom ecclesiastical fellowship is
impossible. Love is an expression of loyalty and devotion to God. The
more one loves God and the Scriptures, the more he loves truth and hates
error. Christian love does not pretend that error and falsehood are
tolerable. Love does not demand that one be indifferent or weak. We
cannot accept in Christian love that which holiness condemns.
H. Believers should unite around essential doctrines and not raise other
distinctive beliefs to the same level. The things that unite us are far greater
and of more significance than the things that separate us.
Answer: One might be surprised at the lack of agreement that exists on the
fundamentals of the faith. Those who profess salvation through Christ by
no means all believe exactly the same thing regarding how and why they
are saved. So the idea that all professing Christians really believe the same
basic things is a mirage.
Also, what some people think of as non-essential, secondary doctrines
may not be so trivial to those who hold them. One’s view of baptism,
communion, the church, and the Christian life is hardly insignificant. Is it
wise to suggest that those who disagree on such points simply put away
their “petty” differences and cooperate? Who is to say what is secondary
and what is not? “The faith” for which we are to contend is broader than
just salvation.
Further, error and false theology are not to be winked at. If one believes
that a certain position is false, why would he overlook it and pretend it
doesn’t matter? It’s obviously true that believers must overlook some
disagreements (Rom 14), and these minor matters should not separate
brethren. Determining what is minor and what is major is difficult, but that
should not stop anyone from making such choices.
I. The Bible simply does not teach that genuine believers can separate from
one another on the basis of doctrinal disagreement.
Answer: We’ve already looked at several texts that strongly imply this
very thing. When Paul tells his readers to “withdraw yourselves from
every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he
received of us” (2 Th 3:6), he certainly seems to be commanding a
separation between professing brethren. Note also that the basis of the
separation is a disorderly life, i.e., not obeying the “tradition” Paul taught.
This seems to be a rather broad basis for withdrawal.
J. Believers have no right to pass judgment on others.
Answer: Jesus said “Judge not” (Mt 7:1), but he also said “Judge righteous
judgment” (Jn 7:24). He further said “Ye shall know them by their fruits”
(Mt 7:16). John exhorts us to “try the spirits whether they are of God (1 Jn
4:1). Paul tells us to “mark them” who oppose sound doctrine (Rom
16:17). Obviously the Bible does encourage some forms of judgment and
discernment. It is true that we cannot infallibly discern who is lost and
who is saved, and we are certainly prone to misunderstandings and
misjudgments. However, when one departs from the faith and/or gives
evidence of a lost condition, believers do have the right to respond in
certain ways that require judgment. Likewise, when a church or other
religious organization tolerates or endorses serious error, the discerning
response is separation.
II. Practical Objections to Separatism Evaluated

A. Separatists are cold-hearted, mean-spirited extremists.
Answer: When all else fails, critics start calling names. This simple ad
hominem attack carries little weight, especially because non-separatists
are often guilty of the same supposed failures. Some separatists no doubt
are an embarrassment to the cause because of their belligerent attitudes.
This fact, however, does not justify jettisoning the principle. Vitriol is not
a necessary ingredient of separatism. Many separatists are warm-hearted,
loving, sensitive people.
B. Lack of unity among churches is a bad example to the lost.
Answer: No doubt there is some truth to this charge. It’s unfortunate that
Christians cannot present a more unified front before the world.
Separation from a church and other institution should not occur without
serious thought and prayer. However, we cannot sacrifice truth and
holiness on the altar of unity. We cannot pretend that error has no
consequences. Wearing rose-colored glasses does not change the realities
we have to deal with. Further, compromise with error and falsehood is a
worse example to the lost than is lack of unity. Failure to stand for
righteousness and truth will result in the church having no distinctive
message.
C. Separation requires that ministries leave behind all they’ve worked for.
Answer: It is sad but true. When apostasy necessitates separation from a
church or denomination, one may end up leaving behind much valuable
“furniture” – buildings, schools, vehicles, land, funds, etc. People may be
reluctant to leave a ministry because of all the money and effort they have
invested in it over the years. Pastors may end up forfeiting their retirement
funds if they leave a denomination. Churches may lose their financing if

they separate. Better to leave, however, than to become contaminated by
unbelief and compromise. The honor of Christ and the purity of his
churches must be our primary consideration. God is able to give us much
more than these things. Remaining true to the gospel is far more valuable
than mere physical furniture.
D. Fruitful ministry is possible within an apostate denomination/church/
ministry.
No doubt vital ministry does occur within the context of an apostate
organization. Pockets of truth and faithfulness may exist right alongside
gross error. Effective individual churches exist within apostate
denominations. Godly believers are members of errant churches. Those
within such contexts may see themselves as keepers of the true faith,
soldiers of light in a struggle against darkness. Occasionally such folk may
actually bring a ministry back into an orthodox path. However, such rarely
if ever occurs. Remaining within an apostate organization is never
acceptable, even if one has an influence for good. The ends never justify
the means. The higher biblical principle of separation from error must
dictate our actions. If an organization is apostate or seriously
compromised, with little or no hope of returning to orthodoxy, the correct
course of action is to withdraw. More fruitful ministry is possible within
an orthodox setting. And leaving an apostate group may encourage other
genuine believers to do the same. It’s far better to separate than to
compromise.
Separation from apostasy should be an easy choice—a no brainer. A more
difficult scenario occurs when a ministry has not sunken into apostasy, but
becomes identified with some questionable practices and/or doctrines.
When a denomination or association begins creeping toward error,
churches within it must attempt reforms. If such efforts are not successful,
separation is the proper response. Determining what issues rise to the level
that require separation is the hard part. We’ve discussed previously how to
make such choices.
Conclusion: Separatists have always faced criticism. As we’ve seen, the biblical
arguments marshaled against separatism hold little weight. The pursuit of unity and
Christian love does not preclude separation from error. A tolerant, apathetic, indifferent
attitude toward error and/or apostasy is clearly contrary to biblical principles.
Discussion:
1. Why didn’t the prophets leave Israel when the nation became corrupted? Where were
they supposed to go? Israel was the only place of God’s special blessing. Also, they
had no mandate to separate.
2. Why is it important to distinguish between Israel and the church when considering
separatism? Because one cannot make a parallel analogy between what happened in
Israel and what should happen in the church.
3. Does Jesus’ prayer in John 17 teach us that all churches should unite? No, his prayer
for unity applies more directly to the universal church than the local church.
4. Should local churches seek cooperation, or should they be independent? Both
cooperation and independence have pros and cons. Churches should seek
cooperation and fellowship when possible while retaining their independence.
5. What did Paul mean by his statement “I am all things to all men”? That his goal was
to be non-offensive, to not create a stumbling block. He did not mean that he adopted
every culture in which he found himself or that all cultures are equally valid.
6. Is it possible to be a separatist and still value unity and Christian love? Yes.

Biblical Separation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biblical Separation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biblical Separation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the goal of this series?

What is the goal of this series?

What does the Bible teach about the relationship between truth and falsehood?

What does the Bible teach about the relationship between truth and falsehood?

Biblical Separation Introduction 0

Liberty Baptist Church

Introduction to the Series

1. The Biblical Basis For Separation

The Biblical Basis for Separation

Separation is a thoroughly biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches a system

 Christ: One must have a proper understanding of the person

What must one believe in order to be saved?

2. Doctrines which may not be denied when learned: One may be

a) Centrality—how closely connected is the doctrine with the

II. The Bible warns us about the danger of false teachers.

B. Notice several characteristics of false teachers:

III. The Bible warns us about the dangers of false doctrine.

C. Believers are to withdraw themselves from false teachers and false

Separation is the teaching that Christians ought to be distinct and

Three Areas of Personal Separation:

II. Relational Separation

Applying the doctrine of separation should also prevent a mature Christian

III. Doctrinal Separation

Passage Problem Procedure

Applying the Doctrine of Personal Separation

It is truly unfortunate that all professing Christians do not hold a

II. Churches claim certain theological and philosophical positions.

Note: In a theological context, it’s important that we reserve the

both defended orthodox Protestantism and attacked Liberalism, Roman

III. Doctrinal deviation is one reason why commitment to a confession of faith is a

biblical teaching in a format that clearly explains a group’s beliefs and

IV. How do churches determine with whom to fellowship?

E. Churches must practice doctrinal separation. If another church or

V. When does an organization become apostate?

others. We might envision a scale or spectrum we can use to evaluate

of participation or lack thereof, the type of people who attend and

VI. Does Christian unity necessarily demand organizational cooperation?

Arguments Against Separation Evaluated

There is a great emphasis on unity within Christianity today. Groups that

I. Theological and Scriptural Arguments Against Separatism Evaluated

and Spirit baptism of all genuine believers. Unity is given to believers.

II. Practical Objections to Separatism Evaluated

funds if they leave a denomination. Churches may lose their financing if

You might also like