practices, unbelief, or persons. Herein lies the reason for the lack ofconfusion: the Lord’s preaching the whole counsel of God and rebukingsin and sinners wherever He found it, and especially in the leaders whofrequented the Temple! With these facts in mind, it cannot besuccessfully defended that the Lord “cooperated” with the ruling partiesof the Temple in any sense of “giving approval” to their erroneouspractices, doctrines, or unbelief. In fact, in view of the New Testament’saccount of the continual increasing mutual antagonism and hostilitybetween Christ and the leaders of Jewry, it is seen that the Temple wasmerely the common sacred arena in which a “holy war” was fought, andit cannot be honestly said that Jesus “cooperated” with the Templeleaders at all. Therefore, Dr. Ferm’s statement concerning Christ that,“Attendance did not imply approval of their [the Temple leaders’]conduct or beliefs,” is true because Christ’s banner always flew high andHe continually rebuked the sins of the leaders. 8 While He alsoproclaimed His message of life, He deliberately made it impossible foranyone to misinterpret His Temple attendance as any sign of favor uponthe errors in life or doctrine of the wicked rulers.On the Lord’s attitude toward Jewry’s leaders, Dr. Cornelius Van Tilmakes the following penetrating observation:Ferm’s appeal to Jesus’ earthly ministry for support ofcooperative evangelism is singularly unfortunate. The only realparallel between the situation of our day and that of Jesuspertains to the religious leaders of the time. However much theydisagreed among themselves on other matters they agreed on theidea of salvation by works or character. And they ruled in the oneorganization on earth raised up for the dissemination of the ideaof salvation by grace. So, as they did not invite Jesus tocooperate in preaching their gospel with them so Jesus did notinvite them to preach his gospel with them. Jesus made provisionfor their removal from their position of leadership among thepeople. The establishment of his kingdom was predicted on thedestruction of theirs. Their house would be left desolate to them.“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for yecompass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he ismade, ye make him twofold more the child of hell thanyourselves” (Matt. 23:15). 934
Dr. Ferm’s satirical remark, “Had Jesus acted upon the generalprinciple of separation as interpreted by the present-day separatist, hewould not have visited the Temple, not even to cleanse it,” 10 reflects acomplete misapprehension of the principle of separation. The very pointto be understood is the fact that separatists do approve of Jesus’visitation to the Temple because of the fact that He did cleanse it! Whatseparatists would not have approved of, which the Lord by nature wouldnever have done, would have been the Lord’s asking one of theSadducees who did not believe in the resurrection (Matt. 22:23) to leadin a word of prayer before He, the Lord, began to teach in the Temple.Instead of that, the Lord condemned the Sadducean error with the words,“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matt.22:29). The separatists would have objected if the Lord had asked one ofthe Pharisees, who erred by making the Law of God an instrument ofspiritless formalism and works, to be chairman of the committee incharge of dealing with those who desire to make a decision. The Lorddid not do this, however, for He could not congratulate unrighteousnesseven if it cost Him publicity, popularity, and opportunity to preach theWord. Instead the Lord called the Pharisee a “child of hell” (Matt.23:15) and warned the lambs against him. The separatists would havecried out if the Lord, who could not have done such, had turned overnew converts to some of the churches of the chief priests. Instead theLord placed such a value on His little ones that He said, It were betterfor him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into thesea, than he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2); andChrist declared plainly to the chief priests that, “The publicans andharlots go into the Kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31). Thus theseparatists do not object per se to a cooperative evangelist’s entranceinto a particular church or meeting hall which contains modernists in it.They object to the approval given to the modernists and to modernismby the conservative’s calling upon the modernist to lead in prayer, headup committees, take part in counseling those making a decision, and theconservative’s directing converts into known liberal churches, inaddition to the conservative’s complete silence on the question ofmodernism. This type of action gives a real note of approval to theliberals, it makes liberalism seem to be only a mere theological variantamong intellectuals instead of the wicked sin and heresy that it is. This35
- Page 3 and 4: BIBLICAL SEPARATIONDEFENDEDA Biblic
- Page 5 and 6: A Word from the FEBC PressThe doctr
- Page 7 and 8: GROUP THREEARGUMENTS ADVOCATING THA
- Page 9 and 10: makes in his widely circulated book
- Page 11 and 12: four of these areas are biblically
- Page 13 and 14: then both good and evil are produce
- Page 15 and 16: ARGUMENT I“Christ Instructed the
- Page 17 and 18: that there was a profiteer in the t
- Page 19 and 20: Matthew 10:11, the verse just quote
- Page 21 and 22: liberals, and therefore, Dr. Ferm h
- Page 23 and 24: ARGUMENT II“The Lord Accepted the
- Page 25 and 26: not to forbid the man who had been
- Page 27 and 28: acknowledge Him as an extremely goo
- Page 29 and 30: particular sin! There are too many
- Page 31 and 32: ARGUMENT III“The Lord Attended th
- Page 33 and 34: c. Tenor : Christ at twelve discuss
- Page 35: whether is greater, the gold, or th
- Page 39 and 40: ARGUMENT IV“The Lord Attended the
- Page 41 and 42: TABLE 2OUR LORD’S SYNAGOGUE VISIT
- Page 43 and 44: Thus it is observed that Christ hab
- Page 45 and 46: in turn rejected by the Church. Thu
- Page 47 and 48: errorists was one of righteous indi
- Page 49 and 50: An Examination of Dr. Ferm’s Conc
- Page 51 and 52: there are grave differences in the
- Page 53 and 54: GROUP THREEARGUMENTS ADVOCATING THA
- Page 55 and 56: state positively upon what verse or
- Page 57 and 58: himself a prophet, or a brother. Ti
- Page 59 and 60: eing saved will not be in the area
- Page 61 and 62: impossible to set up a local commit
- Page 63 and 64: The impossibility and the unnecessa
- Page 65 and 66: Ferm seems to have applied his alle
- Page 67 and 68: that the Lord in His humanity, that
- Page 69 and 70: from the Holy Spirit working in the
- Page 71 and 72: to despise others, and to hate Chri
- Page 73 and 74: ConclusionsThus it has been seen in
- Page 75 and 76: advocates are not delineated by a c
- Page 77 and 78: of aid towards those who are hereti
- Page 79 and 80: criterion of action, and in this ca
- Page 81 and 82: ARGUMENT IX“The Lord’s Method W
- Page 83 and 84: case readily be substantiated by a
- Page 85 and 86: Another point which needs to be not
- Page 87 and 88:
ARGUMENT X“The Lord Was Never Con
- Page 89 and 90:
was impossible for anyone to think
- Page 91 and 92:
fundamentalists’ adherents; and (
- Page 93 and 94:
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONDr. Ferm’s
- Page 95 and 96:
and its alleged or implied applicat
- Page 97 and 98:
denunciation by Christ, and that th