Separation Not alone Our Privilege, But Our Duty

Friends will have noticed with interest the repeated debates in the London Baptist Association, as to whether there should be "A credal basis" and what that basis should be, if it were decided to have one. There seems to be a current opinion that I have been at the bottom of all this controversy, and if I have not appeared in it, I have, at least, pulled the wires. But this is not true. I have taken a deep interest in the struggles of the orthodox brethren; but I have never advised those struggles, nor entertained the slightest hope of their success. My course has been of another kind.

As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since, then my one counsel has been, "Come ye out from among them." If I have rejoiced in the loyalty to Christ’s truth which has been shown in other courses of action, yet I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of distinct separation from known evil. I never offered to the Union, or to the Association, the arrogant bribe of personal return if a creed should be adopted; but on the contrary, I told the deputation from the Union that I should not return until I had seen how matters went, and I declined to mix up my own personal action with the consideration of a question of vital importance to the community.

I never sought from the Association the consideration of "A credal basis," but on the contrary, when offered that my resignation might stand over till such a consideration had taken place, I assured the brethren that what I had done was final, and did not depend upon their action in the matter of a creed. The attempt, therefore, to obtain a basis of union in the Association, whatever may be thought of it, should be viewed as a matter altogether apart from me, for so indeed it has been.

I may, however, venture to express the opinion that the evangelical brethren in the Association have acted with much kindness, and have shown a strong desire to abide in union with others, if such union could be compassed without the sacrifice of truth. They as good as said –"We think there are some few great truths which are essential to the reception of the Christian religion, and we do not think we should be right to associate with those who repudiate those truths." Will you not agree that these truths should be stated, and that it should be known that persons who fail to accept these vital truths cannot join the Association?

The points mentioned were certainly elementary enough, and we did not wonder that one of the brethren exclaimed, "May God help those who do not believe these things. Where must they be?" Indeed, little objection was taken to the statements which were tabulated, but the objection was to a belief in these being made indispensable to membership. It was as though it had been said, "Yes, we believe in the Godhead of Jesus; but we would not keep a man out of our fellowship because he thought our Lord to be a mere man. We believe in the atonement; but if another man rejects it, he must not, therefore, be excluded from our number."

Here was the point at issue: one party would gladly fellowship with every person who had been baptized, and the other party desired that at least the elements of the faith should be believed, and the first principles of the Gospel should be professed by those who were admitted into the fellowship of the Association. Since neither party could yield the point in dispute, what remained for them but to separate with as little friction as possible?

To this hour, I must confess that I do not understand the action of either side in this dispute, if viewed in the white light of logic. Why should they wish to be together? Those who wish for the illimitable fellowship of men of every shade of belief or doubt would be all the freer for the absence of those stubborn evangelicals who have cost them so many battles. The brethren, on the other hand, who have a doctrinal faith, and prize it, must have learned by this time that whatever terms may be patched up, there is no spiritual oneness between themselves and the new religionists. They must have felt that the very endeavor to make a contact which will tacitly be understood in two senses is far from being an ennobling and purifying exercise to either party.

The Brethren in the Middle

The brethren in middle are the source of this clinging together of discordant elements. These who are for peace at any price, who persuade themselves that there is very little wrong, who care chiefly to maintain existing institutions, these are the good people who induce the weary combatants to repeat the futile attempt at a coalition, which, in the nature of things, much break down.

If both sides could be unfaithful to conscience, or if the glorious Gospel could be thrust altogether out of the question, there might be a league of amity established; but as neither of these things can be, there would seem to be no reason for persevering in the attempt to maintain a confederacy for which there is no justification in fact, and from which there can be no worthy result, seeing it does not embody a living truth. A desire for unity is commendable. Blessed are they who can promote it and preserve it! But there are other matters to be considered as well as unity, and sometimes these may even demand the first place.

When union becomes a moral impossibility, it may almost drop out of calculation in arranging plans and methods of working. If it is clear as the sun at noonday that no real union can exist, it is idle to strive after the impossible, and it is wise to go about other and more practicable business.

Numbers of good brethren in different ways remain in fellowship with those who are undermining the Gospel; and they talk of their conduct as though it were a loving course which the Lord will approve of in the day of His appearing. We cannot understand them. The bounden duty of a true believer towards men who profess to be Christians, and yet deny the word of the Lord, and reject the fundamentals of the Gospel, is to come out from among them. To stay in a community which fellowships all beliefs in the hope of setting matters right is as though Abraham had stayed at Ur, or at Haran, in the hope of converting the household out of which he was called.

Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it. If any body of believers had terrorists among them, but were resolute to deal with them in the name of the Lord, all might come right; but confederacies founded upon the principle that all may enter, whatever views they hold, are based upon disloyalty to the truth of God. If truth is optional, error is justifiable.

There are now two parties in the religious world, and a great mixed multitude who from various causes decline to be ranked with either of them. In this army of intermediates are many who have no right to be there; but we spare them. The day will, however, come when they will have to reckon with their consciences. When the light is taken out of its place, they may have to mourn that they were not willing to trim the lamp, nor even to notice that the flame grew dim.

Our present sorrowful protest is not a matter of this man or that, this error or that; but of principle. There either is something essential to a true faith --some truth which is to be believed; or else everything is left to each man’s taste. We believe in the first of these opinions, and hence we cannot dream of religious association with those who might on the second theory be acceptable. Those who are of our mind should, at all cost, act upon it. The Lord give them decision, and wean them from all policy and trimming! -(by Charles Haddon Spurgeon. His statement written in 1888 explaining why he left the compromising London Baptist Association.) -- To Be Continued

back to top

-by G. Grady Daniel, Jr.

PROBLEM #5. Can God’s Word be legally copyrighted?

The obvious answer is "No!" because only MAN’S word can be copyrighted. When writing for publication no one should EVER have to get permission from a publisher to quote as much of God’s Word as he chooses.

I wrote a book that was published some years ago in which I quoted from several translations. Prior to publication, I had to get written permission from the publisher of each translation before I could quote GOD’S WORD in print. Did those WORDS belong to the publisher or to the translator(s)?

And if a man’s name happens to be associated with a translation of the Scriptures, that glorifies the man, not God. Would translators be willing to allow their "work" to be "a living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1)? Should their attitudes be as John’s: "He must increase but I must decrease" (John 3:30). To paraphrase a recent idiom: "It is unlimited what one could do for God if he didn’t care who got the credit." Following the same reasoning, should a reference Bible be named after the man that edited it, or even King James?

Having taught chemistry and physics for ten years, I know one must have accurate standards. These standards must always be considered, and they do not vary appreciably whether they come from some chemistry or physics text, or from a book of math tables, or from THE HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.

All translations cannot be God’s Word because they all don’t say the same thing. If God gave us ONE standard (and He did) it should always be the same; consistent. The standard should be pure. If the standard is defective the whole system will crumble. People lose faith in a questionable standard. They are afraid to trust it.

Most people might agree that there are counterfeit Christians (apostates) and counterfeit Christian music. Yet, they apparently don’t believe the master counterfeiter, who will counterfeit God’s own Son (Antichrist), would also counterfeit God’s Word.

Then which translation is God’s Word? God said He would forever preserve His Word perfect. The trouble with most Christians is they don’t actually believe God could, and has preserved His Word in perfect form today. Yet, He says that He has in Psalm 12:7; "Thou shalt keep them" (God’s words) "O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

They think only the original autographs were perfect, and God, though capable, could not keep His Word pure through the years (even though He said He would). They know that Scripture says, "With God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27), but in their hearts do not believe it.

Samuel C. Gipp, ThD. in THE ANSWER BOOK, points out some things that have come to pass in this country since THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION of 1901 started the American flood of modern Bibles. Abortion has been legalized, God (and prayer) has been kicked out of the public schools, dope (drugs and alcohol) has become an epidemic, Satanism is on the rise, abundant TV and VCR home pornography, child kidnapping and child pornography running rampant, and homosexuality accepted nationally as an "alternate life-style."

Truthfully, it may not be possible to DIRECTLY attribute all this decadence to an increase in modern Bible translations, but it certainly could be the INDIRECT results.

There is an old military adage of strategy which says, "divide and conquer." Christianity today is divided over Bible translations. We no longer have ONE standard. Being divided makes it easier to be conquered.

(A few illustrations within the NEW KING JAMES VERSION were used as examples primarily because, as translations go, this writer feels it may be the best of the worst, There were other illustrations within the NKJV which could have been used.

Other translations such as the AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION, NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION, THE LIVING BIBLE, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION, GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN, THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION and THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION are much worse.

It must also be pointed out that this is not to set the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION as the standard of comparison for all translations. Two different lines of manuscripts are compared, that of the AKJ and modern translations since they used a different line of manuscripts than the AKJ.)

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10)

If you have been receiving The Angelus for one year or longer, will you write a note expressing your appreciation? A gift of $1 will help us meet increased expenses.

Top of Page