Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

confuses the public, especially God’s children who have confidence inthe conservative evangelist. It harms the new converts which Jesusloves, it violates Christ’s commands to beware of false prophets (Matt.7:15), and it displays a friendliness to unbelief quite the opposite ofJesus’ continual hatred and vexation at it.ConclusionsThus the analogy between our Lord’s attendance in the Temple andcooperation with known liberals is seen to be completely invalid. This isbecause the Lord continually rebuked the sins of the leaders of theTemple and warned the people against them, while New Evangelicalsdeal with the modernists as friends, as righteous men, and as properstewards of the souls of others, without rebuking their sin of unbeliefand false shepherding. This sinful befriending and approving of thewicked on the grounds of securing additional opportunity to preach theGospel is using the ends to justify the means, which is an evil practice.Thus, this third argument is based upon a false analogy, and must beunderstood to be completely invalid.Endnotes1Ibid., 36-7.2Ibid.3Ibid.4Ibid.5Ibid.6Ibid., italics mine.7A.T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life ofChrist (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1922), secs. 13, 18, 31, 96, 98, 99, 111,129, 132-38.8Ferm, 36.9Cornelius Van Til, The New Evangelicalism (Philadelphia: WestminsterTheological Seminary, 1962) mimeographed, 26-7.10Ferm, 37.36