Answering the Question of Separation
In a Q and A at Master’s Seminary, John MacArthur answered a student’s question in chapel about the practice of separation. I included the transcript of the question and answer in part one and made some overall analysis. In part two I compared MacArthur’s answer to one about separation shortly thereafter by Rick Warren. The Master’s Seminary student asked about “partnership in ministry,” having it with those who agree on the essentials without agreement on non-essentials.
MacArthur started his answer by saying that he should try to work with whoever the Lord allowed in the Kingdom. His argument is that people working together in the kingdom under Christ should figure out how to work together now. Scripture says nothing like that about working together in the kingdom. Several passages speak to this issue.
Separation from Believers in the Bible
The doctrine of separation requires separation from professing believers. Several places in the New Testament teach this and especially in what John MacArthur addresses to the question. In 1 Timothy 6:3-5 the Apostle Paul writes under inspiration of God:
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. . . . from such withdraw thyself.
This is a command for regenerated, immersed church members to withdraw themselves from those who teach different than what your church believes and practices, assuming this is orthodox doctrine.
Speaking of separating from brothers in Christ, the Apostle Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15:
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of 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.
Paul says that if a brother walks disorderly and not after the tradition received from the apostle, withdraw yourself from him. If he is not obeying whatever is in 2 Thessalonians, which includes eschatology and other doctrines, note that man and have no company with him.
Wrong Answers
Alienation from People in the Kingdom?
The above are verses that deal directly with the question asked of MacArthur. The young man even asks for scripture to answer the question. MacArthur does not do that. Instead, he goes anecdotal and alludes to a passage out of context. Why doesn’t MacArthur give him a scriptural answer? I think there could be many different reasons, but in the end, it’s just that he gave an unscriptural answer. “Do not separate” is in essence his answer.
The Apostle Paul doesn’t say, “I don’t want to alienate people who are in the kingdom.” Separation is a means of restoration. Shame is a tool toward repentance. Separation also practices holiness, such as “be holy as I am holy” (1 Pet 1:15-16). Does the truth alienate people in the kingdom? Separation is a biblical means for preserving the truth, guarding or keeping the truth. It’s not the first option, but when someone doesn’t teach the words of Jesus Christ, consent to His words, scripture says, withdraw thyself.
Not separating will only bring more false doctrine and practice. Scripture doesn’t say, “If you want to get rid of false doctrine and practice, write another book about it.” Writing a book might help, but scripture doesn’t teach that as a method. Separation is not easy to do. I never found child discipline easy. It’s easier to let people get away with what they say and do.
You Wouldn’t Send Someone to Another Church?
MacArthur makes the following argument:
I as a pastor; I would never say to a lay person, “Well your theology is bad; you need to go to another church.” So why would I say that to a Bible teacher or a pastor?
It is true that someone can have a bad theology and stay in the church. Even Jezebel was given “space to repent” in Revelation 2:21 at the church at Thyatira. Paul gives instruction in Romans 16:17:
Now I beseech you, brethren,, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Churches shouldn’t just allow false doctrine. At some point separation also must occur. Paul explains. In 1 Corinthians 1:10, Paul wrote:
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Church members are required to speak the same thing, be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. That isn’t happening when church members believe a different doctrine. When “a Bible teacher or a pastor” teaches bad theology, should John MacArthur consider that the same as a particular church member believing something different?
Separation Must Occur to Obey God’s Word
If a church member starts spreading false doctrine, the Romans 16:17 applies to that. According to 1 Corinthians 1:10, everyone in a church must have the same mind and judgment. Unity is not based on toleration of bad doctrine and bad behavior. This, however, is the way evangelicalism rolls. Is there any wonder so much false doctrine and practice exists?
I’m not going to go further with the MacArthur answer. His answer is bad. It should not be followed by anyone.
I could say there are a number of reasons why MacArthur takes the wrong position about separation. Maybe he thinks it’s right. That’s hard to believe. In the end, he missed. The young man wanted to hear what scripture taught. He didn’t hear it.
Essentials and Non Essentials?
The young man brought up essentials and non-essentials. His idea was, separate over essentials. Don’t separate over non-essentials. He was looking for the way to judge between these two categories. He wasn’t given it. Scripture doesn’t teach this arbitrary, subjective criteria for judging.
Sure, certain doctrines and practices are more consequential than others. Certain doctrines relate more closely to the gospel than others. I almost always think of two examples. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire, which was a wrong recipe at the altar of incense. Ananias and Sapphira kept back part of an offering, and said they gave it all. Are those essentials or non-essentials? God wants respected everything that He said.
Separation isn’t easy. It still must be done. It will be done, because God will do it. He will separate. It’s an attribute of His nature.
Hello brother Brandenburg, you mentioned that eschatology is a separation issue from 2 Thessalonians. Do you think belief in the pre-trib rapture is an issue worth separating over? I ask that for a few reasons.
1. It appears to me in both 1 and 2 Thessalonians that someone was misleading the Thessalonians about eschatological truths that Paul had to address, but not necessarily the pre-trib rapture.
a. Specifically in 1 Thessalonians the issue was that they were unsure what would happen to those who died before Christ’s return.
b. In 2 Thessalonians, they were afraid that “the day of Christ” was at hand, but Paul clarified that the day of Christ would not come until the falling away and revelation of the antichrist.
c. There appears to be a similar problem with those who were teaching that the resurrection was already past, which Paul warned Timothy about.
2. This misunderstanding was leading to sorrow, fear, and some were becoming lazy busybodies. Paul uses proper eschatological teaching to encourage them to keep living for the Lord and do what is right.
3. As I have studied the Scriptures, including 1 and 2 Thessalonians, I don’t see a hint of the pre-trib rapture by exegesis and find it confusing that it is considered fundamental doctrine without any Scriptural support. I haven’t seen you write much on eschatology, but I assume you believe in the pre-trib rapture, but I just don’t see it at all in 2 Thessalonians. It appears to me to be the exact opposite, that 2 Thessalonians teaches a post-tribulation rapture at the coming of Christ “When He shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God…when he shall COME to be glorified in his saints IN THAT DAY…We beseech you, brethren, by the COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ…As that the DAY of Christ is at hand… For that DAY shall not COME, except there be a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed…Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his COMING…”
I’m interested if you have exegetical reasoning from 2 Thessalonians other than “It can’t be talking about a post-trib rapture because we know that the rapture is pre-trib.” I don’t see how the Thessalonians were supposed to read that letter and know that there were two different “days” and two different “comings” of Christ being spoken of by Paul. Could you explain to me why the “day” of 1 Thess. 1:10 is not the “day of Christ” in 2 Thess. 2:2? Also, could you explain why the “When he shall come” in 1:10 is not “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” in 2:1 which is not “the brightness of his coming” in 2:8?
If you don’t want to take the time to discuss this, I understand. I believe that living a holy life and looking for Christ is more important than when someone believes the timing of the rapture is. I just don’t see exegetical support anywhere for the pre-trib rapture. I’ve reached out to many different men who are pre-trib and I have not had someone show me exegesis. All the evidence for the pre-trib I’ve seen is based on presuppositional interpretation. I actually heard someone teaching the post-trib rapture and I set out to prove post-trib wrong (without reading or listening to any post-trib authors) and I could not find any Bible support for the pre-trib. Thanks
Also, I’m not trying to spam the post. This is a real question I’ve had because I don’t really want good men to separate from me because of this issue. I just don’t believe the Bible teaches the pre-trib rapture.
Separation is not yoking together for a common church work. It does not preclude spending time with each other and on this blog. What would separation entail for you? We don’t support any missionaries from your church. You don’t support any from ours. Maybe this might mean we don’t preach at each other’s church. It doesn’t stop us from talking like this.
Hi David,
Yes, we would separate over the timing of the rapture. We don’t cut people off. If we were already in fellowship, we would give people space, probably awhile. This would have to be someone where we’re in proximity for fellowship anyway. We don’t have to separate from people we aren’t already yoked together with in work. This affects missions the most. Mainly for me, it is the issue of imminence, because it affects being ready, procastination, etc.
Sometime, not this moment, I will write on the pretrib rapture, Lord-willing. I know it is an issue among independent Baptists. I will also at that point answer all your questions here, again Lord-willing. Churches make the decision over which they will separate. I don’t want to argue it right now, because this post is not about the timing of the rapture. Thanks.
Thanks. I appreciate your answer and look forward to your pre-trib defense. I do believe the Bible teaches expectancy and to live in light of Christ’s return as the focus of believers, just so we’re clear on that. Matthew 24:48-51 and Titus 2:11-15 come to mind.
As for your question “What would separation entail?” I defer yo your understanding and wisdom there. I understand that you aren’t advocating for a hardline isolationist position, for which I’m thankful. Since I think I’m right about the rapture timing being post-trib, it just seems like I shouldn’t be separated from over it. I guess that’s how it is for everything though so obviously that would be between you and the Lord.