The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Second Degree Separation

What do you think of the doctrine of 'second degree separation'?
Personally speaking, if I understand the doctrine properly, it can amount to guilty by association.
If I believed that, I would need to separate myself from many friends and family.
Understand I am not saying I shouldn't say something when I see so called Christians error. The doctrine seems to go too far on this.
Am I understanding the doctrine properly?

Tom

I have never heard of this doctrine before? Is it legit?

John
It should read: "second degree separation".
It is legit alright, the question is whether it is Biblical.

From what little I have read about this practice... I had to look it up on Google because I had not heard of it before now. ... the details of how it is defined and how it is practiced varies. So saying "it" is biblical or unbiblical is near impossible. Certainly, a true Christian cannot and will not have close associations with non-Christians. In regard to professing Christians who either espouse heretical doctrine and/or practice heinous sins, one would expect that the overseers of their church would be involved counseling such individual(s) or that having failed, they would put the person(s) under discipline. In the latter situation, especially when excommunication has been ordered, the Bible is quite clear that the church (members) is to not have fellowship with them.

Can you be a little more specific as to the actual type of "second degree separation" you are asking about? And what are YOUR thoughts? It would appear that this is something almost exclusively held and practiced by Baptists and mainly of the Fundamentalist variety, although perhaps others adhere to it also?

Pilgrim
One example I heard is of a Reformed Baptist who is a Cessationists, who although speaks out against non-Cessationism, is never the less a friend of a few non-Cessationists, who hold to the doctrines of grace.

It is because of this, that someone I know has completely distanced themselves from this Reformed Baptist (and those who listen to his sermons), because as far as he is concerned; in being guilty by association, they must be non-Cessationists despite their claim to be Cessationists.
Tom

Ah yes...... now I understand the situation. I believe a non-Cessationist position is a serior error. Depending on how far it is carried, the error can be even more serious. But I don't think it is on the same plane as semi-Pelagianism. I did have some "friends", better to say "associations" with a couple of pastors who professed to hold to the Reformed Faith yet were non-Cessationists. I could never be close to them because of their views, especially worship which at the time was unheard of in Reformed circles but which is now very popular. So, as you can plainly see, I did NOT in any way, shape, or form approve of their aberrant views/practices, never mind embrace them.

I once was told of an incident which I think (memory isn't so good here) was in the Church of Scotland. A man attended the funeral of a 'friend' who was a Roman Catholic and was consequently excommunicated because of it. Methinks that was unwarranted since the man totally rejected Catholicism and never encouraged his 'friend' to continue in it.

The definition of FRIEND in our day has been radically changed, especially with the inception of Facebook. My definition of "friend" is miles apart from how it is currently used including all its variants. To me, a friend is someone who I can trust, one who I would do most anything to help if needed, one I can share most of my inmost feelings, fears and joys, one who loves God and desires to do that which is holy and good. In short, it is a brother/sister in Christ who believes and lives consistently with his/her profession, i.e., a person who embraces the Doctrines of Grace and whose life is outwardly virtuous. Needless to say, I don't have many 'friends'.

Tom,

I realize you are not wanting to take the conversation here, but I have a problem with calling this a doctrine. A principle may be developed using those constructs, but calling it a doctrine is too much in mind.

Pilgrim

I think I can agree with you here. The non-Cessationists I am talking about although in error are not charismatic to the degree that we see Charismatic’s today in Charismatic circles.
Some are more like someone like D.Martyn Lloyd Jones. While others are non-Cessationists mainly because they don't see proof in the Bible that gifts like tongues have ceased, although they are very cautious about believing what they see Charismatic circles as biblical tongues.

Some say that anyone who doesn't distance themselves from a non-Cessationist is guilty by association and therefore they couldn't in good conscience associate with them.
If I did that, I would need to distance myself from many of my own family and a few friends.
Understand, I am not talking about non-Cessationists being members of the same local body.
Tom

John

What in your view constitutes 'doctrine'?

I call it a doctrine, mainly because it is based on a set of principles that make up that particular basic teaching.

However, you are correct my using the word 'doctrine' was not meant to make the conversation go there.

Tom

When I think of doctrine, I think of those teachings in Systematic Theology books, or books that tells about doctrine. I don't think you will ever find 'second degree of separation' in any of those books.

Yet someone who holds to second degree separation would probably disagree, saying that it is a Scriptural doctrine implied by certain passages of Scripture.

Tom