JasonS
fundyreformed
Damien T Garofalo
Philip D
Erik
williamdudding1977
Mohler on Separation from Heretics
Posted by Damien T Garofalo on November 6, 2009
No doubt the Bible speaks of both unity and separation. Often the case is oversimplified: fundamentalists emphasize separation too much while evangelicals emphasize unity too much. I think there are many exceptions to this, and whether one wants to be called a fundamentalist or evangelical is, honestly, irrelevant to me. I think any Christian and church should strive for a biblical balance between these two concepts. Does Dr. Mohler find that balance in his response here? Why or why not?
Damien T Garofalo said
He provides a helpful commentary, in my opinion.
I like how he used the root of the word heresy to show that a choice has to be made. That helps me realize that one can believe a false teaching because that one is still immature in Christ and hasn’t had to make a choice between the true and false. When they are presented with biblical truth, a mark of a true believer is that he’ll embrace that truth. Someone constantly fighting over that which the Bible is clear about is a heretic. In this regard, Mohler is helpful.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure that heresy is only reduced to that which touches the gospel. I’d like to believe that, actually, but I need to be biblically convinced (perhaps someone can help me on this one). I think the thing that gets the fundamentalists riled up here is that very thing – there is no biblical reason to believe heresy only deals with the gospel. They would argue that all truth is God’s true and there goes Mohler’s ‘triage’. Again, I tend to agree with the triage idea. I think there are fundamentals and non-fundamentals (after all, isn’t this the essence of fundamentalism?). But I’m still waiting for biblical reasons to believe so. The most I can think of is that Paul didn’t exhort the Romans to split up because of their disputes about meats and holidays. Then again, one can argue that those things don’t compare with matters of eschatology and soteriology.
I haven’t read Mohler’s article in Table Talk concerning leaving a church. But his quick summation of it at the end of the above video has me intrigued. I see what he’s saying, but I really think that there could be problems way beyond just doctrine. Suppose you are in a Christ-centered, gospel preaching, God honoring Presbyterian church, but you consider yourself a Baptist? Wouldn’t it make sense to join the Baptist church? Maybe this is only possible thanks to capitalism and free choice, but hey.I think staying/leaving a church goes beyond what the guy in the pew next to you thinks. The church may cross its t’s and dot its lowercase j’s right where you want, but if it has a lack of evangelistic zeal, or missionary zeal, or focus, or vision, or whatever, and God allows you to find a church you are more in line with, then perhaps it’s time to move on.
Overall, I agree with what he’s saying because at the root of it all, the fact is no two Christians agree on everything. And at times, fundamentalism has had a knee jerk reaction to this kind of thing. I do want to be careful of being too lax concerning a biblical mandate to separate, however.