WikiPeebia.com Forums

Like after a fellowship meeting, just better.
It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:26 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please note: This forum allows the use of anonymous usernames and is a public forum. This means that there probably are members of the PBCC active in the forums. They may try to befriend you with the intention of gathering information that should not get out into the public domain. Be very careful what you say to persons that you do not know. Bear in mind too, that use of a username on another site or forum may not necessarily be the same person on WP with the same username. There have also been actions of copying what is said here to use elsewhere. This is not allowed. Please read the forum rules properly. Full forum rules can be found at http://wikipeebia.com/forum



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:04 am
Posts: 1347
Separation must be Moral, Physical, Legal, Total and Absolute

The idea that separation has to be moral, physical, legal, total and absolute runs consistently through several decades of Exclusive Brethren ministry. This ministry flatly contradicts the ministry of both Jesus and Paul, and it flatly contradicts the Preston Down statement of Faith in Practice.

This extreme idea is so pervasive, long-established and deeply embedded in Brethren thinking, that it will take more than a few empty promises to the Charity Commission to undo its influence.

In the Subject Index to the ministry of JTJr published in August 1982, under the main heading of SEPARATION there is a subheading that reads:
legal, moral, physical . . . . . 13:77 46:29 85:37 111:68

Here are the verbatim quotations from the relevant pages of JTJr’s ministry.

Ministry of J.T.Jr. Vol. 13 page 76-77
Quote:
J.T.Jr. That is another great matter of course. In one way the world is the house, but the house of God is a spiritual thought. There is the great house which is not the same idea but it includes the house of God. The great house is christendom, every christian is there, and he has to define his position, because what has come about is that, instead of the clarity that was at the beginning in regard to christianity, we have christendom with all these various ideas as to Christ. The individual has to declare himself. We cannot be partial in that. There are many people who are just partial.
Ques. Does it also mean physical separation?
J.T.Jr. Certainly it is physical.
Rem. I mean it is not having judgment about it, but it is an evident moving away from it and from persons.
J.T.Jr. There is no ‘no-man's land’, no such position. You are either in one or the other. That is what I meant by partial christianity.
E.S. So should we ask about the Persons who sit behind in our meetings?
J.T.Jr. We do not know where that idea comes from. I do not. It is either within or without. There are not three positions.

Ministry of J.T.Jr. Vol. 46 page 29
Quote:
J.T.Jr. It was an assumption of the priesthood, and very critical, so Moses told the people to depart from these people. And where did Moses go? It was a physical position he took up — that is the point in this. You take up a physical position, which is a moral position and a right position and therefore he says to God, ‘Do not take anything from him.’ He had that much authority, and God respects him.
J.McK. It brings in the position you have been stressing that we should take; then we can count on God coming in to manifest it.

Ministry of J.T.Jr. Vol. 85 pages 37-38
Quote:
P.P. At what point do we turn to the laws of the land and go to court? These divorce cases seem to have to come before the courts; to what extent do we have to wait until we take them to court? J.T.Jr. The Lord says, ‘Moses granted you this, because of your hardness of heart’ (Matt. 19 : 3). That is it, though it is law. Do you mean how long you should wait, or not do it at all?
P.P. I would like to know if it is the proper thing in every case to take it to court.
J.T.Jr. It is where it is a question of 2 Timothy 2; where, if you are in an iniquitous position, you cannot stay there. You cannot stay there physically or morally, and therefore the court adjudicates. You are not unrighteous in that, because you are just putting yourself in a right position through a judicial action in which they can do nothing else.

Ministry of J.T.Jr. Vol. 111 pages 68-69
Quote:
J.V.C. For instance, locally we have this condition and a sister says, ‘I am going to get out of the house.’
J.T.Jr. If she is not out she is not out, that is all.
J.V.C. She is looking for a place.
J.T.Jr. It does not matter if she is looking, she is not out, like brethren we have here who are in unclean conditions and they are not out. That is the same.
T.L.S. What about the legal side of a wife leaving the house? I am using the reference to 2 Timothy 2; moral, physical, legal. That is, I understand, what you have said.
J.T.Jr. You cannot say directly to a person, ‘You have to do this.’ Let them go by Scripture. Somebody can be charged with making a man separate from his wife. You go by Scripture, that is what I tell them. Separation from evil; that is J.N.D. Go back to him.
P.D.E. Moral separation must be supported by physical separation.
J.T.Jr. Romans 6 is physical separation. “Baptised unto Christ” is that you are baptised unto His death; that is physical separation, that is what that means. Get out of a wrong position. Whatever position you are in that is not right, get out of it; that is Romans 6. Let the brethren do it. We have been talking long enough about it here in New York.
A.B.P. That would be understood in a drastic sense at the beginning when to be baptised would mean your complete severance from judaism.
J.T.Jr. Absolutely. They felt it that they were separated from judaism and everything that they were attached to.
G.L.E. Is not 2 Timothy moral and physical? “If therefore one shall have purified himself from these," that is moral; “in separating himself from them,” is that physical?
J.T.Jr. I think so. I think we are clear enough on that. J.T. said it anyway. I know what he said and I know what he did, too.


J. H. Symington reminded the Brethren several times of what Mr Taylor had said about separation needing to be moral, legal and physical. In the Subject index to the ministry of JHS published in Nov to Dec 1987 under the main heading SEPARATION there is a subheading that reads:
moral, physical and legal ..... 8:135 9:172 9:185 113:13 113:16

Here are the relevant verbatim quotations.

JHS Vol. 8 page 135 (Plainfield, 16 September 1972)
Quote:
B.G.B. Is it ever right to withdraw from a person without a moral issue against them? I am thinking of a case where a husband might have to be dealt with, disciplined, and the wife cannot get free from that—from the house.
J.H.S. Well, the assembly would be protected if she was shut up, and God can change these things. There is nothing impossible with God. God can change these matters if He elects to.
B.G.B. The same would apply, would it, for young children that have to be kept in the home?
J.H.S. Well, you see, that is what I was referring to. There are these complex matters especially where young children are involved. Our beloved said that separation would have to be physical and moral and legal. Well, if that can be established so that there is protection, I think that settles it.

JHS Vol. 9 pages 172 and 185 (Winnipeg, 22 October 1972)
Quote:
The devil is working against it. We have had to face a few things over in Torbay, there was a position that had to be met. It was a great relief that the brethren met it. I am referring to a case where a brother and his wife agreed to disagree. They decided that they were incompatible to each other, and they let the thing grow; I mean neither one of them apparently judged themselves, that was not the consideration apparently, they just fixed on incompatibility. The devil was in it. So they separated and went so far as to acquire, obtain a legal separation based on incompatibility, which I did not and do not agree with. It must be based on a moral issue to stand.
. . .
A.MacL. In a simple way, separation agreement as signed has proved in many places, has it not, to be useful in establishing things on the side of the assembly in a household?
J.H.S. Our beloved said it needed to be moral, physical and legal. A legal document signed, I am told by legal people that if a recovery and reconciliation comes, it is just torn up and that is the end of it. And still it stands for the protection of the person identified with the truth. I am only saying that so that the matter is clear.

JHS Vol. 113 pages 13 and 15-16 (Neche, 9 and 10 November 1982)
Quote:
Now you see, our beloved ministered to us, set on as a pattern to follow, the importance of being morally, physically, and legally separate, and clear. And there are cases currently where the honest person is willing and has signed a legal separation. The moral matter being clear, the physical side being clear, and the honest participant signed the legal document to be clear to come to the assembly. And the unrighteous person, being asked to sign it, refuses, giving certain misapplications of scripture to confirm it. Is the honest person to go on till death unreleased because the other person refuses to sign? I know what I'm saying will be printed, but I'm saying it at this time because it needs to be said. If the partner who is refusing to sign would sign, it would be one step in the direction of reconciliation; but refusing to sign means that that single step is not taken. It's refused to be taken. Is that to cause the honest person to be kept out of fellowship until death? It's not right.
. . .
Now, you see, to make it abundantly plain what I’m saying, as we went over it last night, is in the connection of assembly administration, the importance of being morally clear, physically clear, and legally clear, which Mr. Jim laid on us. And we have cases at the present time, morally clear, physically clear, and the honest person involved having signed a legal separation to be legally clear. But the unrighteous party, free to sign it or not sign it, and in refusing to sign it, the administration has been held up for years. A righteous person kept out of fellowship for years because the unrighteous partner refused, and refuses, to sign the legal separation. Now what we've asserted, that I think will stand the light of the truth, is that if the unrighteous person would sign the legal separation, the document, it would be one mark in their favor in view of reconciliation, but refusing to sign it, as some are doing, that should not affect the righteous partner who has signed it.


John Hales didn’t use the phrase moral, physical and legal, but he taught the need for “absolute separation”.

Here are some entries from his new Series Subject Index published in July 2012:

Vol 18 page 196
Quote:
If we're not in absolute separation, we have no testimony, and nothing is certain. Do I deserve to be in fellowship? Am I a separate person? Have I lost my contact with the saints and the Spirit of God?

Vol. 4 page 332
Quote:
maintain separation inviolately in all our matters, personally in our businesses, and our houses, our households and families, and in our local assemblies ... what s heavenly can only be enjoyed and entered into as we maintain absolute separation

Vol. 4 page 367
Quote:
you don't get into the circumstance that's going to involve suffering if you don t have to. So you don't get into a position where the enemy can get something at you So the answer to it is total separation absolute, total separation.

Vol. 6 page 266
Quote:
if we accepted this matter of absolute separation the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. Where've you got it? John's epistle is you've got it in yourself. (1 Jn. 5:8)

Vol. 24 page 385
Quote:
The call is intrinsically related to the principle of separation. We have no basis whatever of being together as the assembly of God unless it’s on the principle of answering to a call that's based on absolute separation.


Bruce D. Hales also teaches the need for “absolute separation”. Here are some entries from his Subject Index published in October 2014.

Vol. 55 page 126 (Indianapolis, 24 September 2006)
Quote:
anyone that’s at all even a little acquainted with F.E.R.’s ministry could see that he was completely clear as to separation. And not partial, F.E.R. was, - he understood absolute separation. He makes it very clear. He had immense experience coming out of the Church of England. I think twenty-eight, he was twenty-eight years old when he came out. But it meant a lot to him, to come amongst, what he often refers to, the Christian circle. I think it’s one point he says, We had a lot to give up, associations, he said, and friends, and then he says, relatives.

Vol. 69 page 34 (Sydney, 10 November 2007)
Quote:
by the cross of Jesus stood His mother, and these other persons, including John, and no doubt others. They took their stand there. I think that was a point, really, of absolute separation (Jn. 19:25)

Vol. 35 page 271 (Sydney, 29 January 2005)
Quote:
If l’m prepared to out myself off-from the world, in complete and utter and absolute separation, God will then show me things

Vol. 78 page 113 (Sydney, 13 August 2008)
Quote:
it did come over me the totality of our beloved brother’s separation from the world, the utter—how quite to put it really, but it was absolute, I would have said it was absolute separation from the world


BDH also conducted a whole reading meeting and gave a preaching in Kellyville on 17 January 2010 that were both published under the title “ABSOLUTE SEPARATION” but he did not actually use that phrase in the meeting. See Vol. 95 pages 80 to 97.

The copyright of most of the above quotations is claimed by the Bible and Gospel Trust


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:10 pm
Posts: 222
Is it possible for someone to follow the teaching of the leaders mentioned above and to also be obedient to the apostle Paul's ministry in 1 Corinthians 7 where he tells them what to do if they are married to an unbeliever? I don't think so, maybe someone who does can say how it is done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 2504
The EB doctrine of 'separation' was based on flawed theology, misinterpreted words and totally ignored any scripture that allowed personal exercise.The result was a total disaster that ignored the life and teachings of Christ and replaced it with Pharasitical legalism.The irony of it all was that JTjr himself fell into the catagory of those that 'with such, not even to eat'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:04 am
Posts: 1347
Posterchild, you are right to draw attention to Paul’s crystal clear ministry in 1 Corinthians 7. See also the equally explicit ministry of Jesus in Matthew 5:32. The Brethren seem to think they know better than Jesus and Paul.

Indeed, if you read the whole of Matthew chapters 5 to 7, they read like a systematic demolition of Exclusive Brethrenism, and all in the words of Jesus himself.

Of course, a perverse sect can always devise some ad-hoc way of getting ground these teachings. They can always say these teachings only apply in Palestine, not in Australia, or they only apply before the crucifixion, not after, or they only apply when there is a Z in the month.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:11 pm
Posts: 36
Quote: " Now what we've asserted, that I think will stand the light of the truth, is that if the unrighteous person would sign the legal separation, the document, it would be one mark in their favour in view of reconciliation, ...."

Haven't we seen that this is a lie, the brethren saying that if the one (usually the man) would sign the legal separation document, it would be one mark in their favour in view of reconciliation. How many husbands who were in trouble with the brethren signed the separation document and then they took his children, house, employment and then demanded financial maintenance for his family.

I know of ex brethren who allowed their children to stay with the brethren, when the parents were excommunicated, thinking mistakenly that it would make it easier for them to get back. They were never allowed back, they lost their children and lost the power to make any decisions regarding their children. They had to contribute financially for their children's living expenses but effectively lost their parental rights.

In my view this practice in pursuit of separation, legal, physical, moral, absolute, is one of the Hales Brethren's most wicked rules, which they carry out with a cold determination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:10 pm
Posts: 222
It's mostly a lie since so many or most are never reconciled. It is not the first step toward reconciliation but an additional step in the brethren's prescribed order of disobedience to Paul's ministry. Interesting that they are so quick to say the world doesn't accept Paul's ministry.

It seems to me that JHS is getting the principles of Judaism and Christianity mixed up. Maybe he never understood the sanctifying effect of having a believer in the house. He seems to think that the assembly needs some sort of protection.

In Ezra apparently to do with maintaining the Holy seed, the Jewish men had to send away their non Jewish wives and children, they being rejected as unclean and not worthy of Jewish privileges. In Corinthians, the presence of one believing partner is counted as sanctifying the unbelieving one, and making the children considered holy. The opposite of what we read in Ezra, and the opposite of what we know to be practiced by the brethren.

If household holiness is by separation, then Christ has died for nothing. O senseless Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, who has bewitched you? Are ye so senseless? having begun in Spirit, are ye going to be made perfect in flesh?


Quote:
JHS Vol. 8 page 135 (Plainfield, 16 September 1972)
Quote:
B.G.B. Is it ever right to withdraw from a person without a moral issue against them? I am thinking of a case where a husband might have to be dealt with, disciplined, and the wife cannot get free from that—from the house.
J.H.S. Well, the assembly would be protected if she was shut up, and God can change these things. There is nothing impossible with God. God can change these matters if He elects to.
B.G.B. The same would apply, would it, for young children that have to be kept in the home?
J.H.S. Well, you see, that is what I was referring to. There are these complex matters especially where young children are involved. Our beloved said that separation would have to be physical and moral and legal. Well, if that can be established so that there is protection, I think that settles it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:10 pm
Posts: 222
Ian McKay wrote:
See also the equally explicit ministry of Jesus in Matthew 5:32. The Brethren seem to think they know better than Jesus and Paul.


Thanks for this and other comments Ian. It seems the leaders in the things you have quoted are concerned about "conditions", "unclean conditions in the house", "iniquitous position", and the like. Do you know when the brethren started teaching that "we go from a clean place to a holy place"? I am thinking that that little cliche feeds on or into their invention that married couples should separate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:04 am
Posts: 1347
Jim Taylor in the early 1960s promoted the idea that a house is “unclean” if there is a non-EB living in it, or if there are non-EB people living in a flat above it or below it. In fact, he thought anyone outside his own little sect was unclean. He promoted a particularly nasty form of sectarianism.

It was also Jim Taylor who first spread the idea that husbands and wives should separate if only one of them was an EB member. That was a gross contradiction of the very explicit ministry of Jesus and Paul.

I think the saying about going from a clean place to a holy place came much later, possibly from John Hales, meaning that you must go home from work before going to the meeting. John Hales would say, “A clean place is our houses, you see, but the holy place is the assembly;” (New Series Vol. 23 page 155). In January 2005 BDH referred to earlier ministry about going home before going to the meeting (Vol. 35 page 12).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 2504
The brethren seem to like to trot out these nice little cliches ( 'he was as a pure man' ) but the reality belies their claims...and whenever they are confronted with examples of their hypocrisy they cannot answer other than trot out with another cliche...('the lord would never let his servent down')

I suggest this is the REAL reason for 'total, absolute ' separation - so they are never confronted with people who tell the truth that knocks the props out from under their claims ,they can sit around in their small cloistered circles and repeat their little sayings secure in the knowlege they will never be called on it,and anyone who DOES confront them is labelled an 'opposer'( which I take as a personal complement) standard cult tactics are to shoot the messenger when they can't face the truth.When I was a 'defender of the faith'( now much to my chagrin) I well remember the smear tactics that would immediately kick in to discredit anybody daring to defy the 'official ' story...and later I felt so ashamed I had fallen for it

EB 'reasoning' is like Swiss cheese that's been around too long....it stinks, its riddled with holes and it's only good for baiting traps


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group