Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

engaged in contact and conversation with the religious rejects,” 5 but thiswas to cure them as sick people and not to get their help. Thus it is thatDr. Graham is not criticized for “contact and conversation with thereligious rejects,” but for placing in positions of trust and leadership notthe “religious rejects” but the “blind leaders,” and for his contact andconversation with them not as ill people, but as whole physicians.ConclusionsIt has been seen that Dr. Ferm’s analogy between Christ’s “contactand conversation with the religious rejects” and cooperativeevangelism’s cooperation with modernists in bringing to the public theWord of God, is a false analogy on two points. 6 It has been shown thatChrist dealt with the religious rejects as ill people who needed aphysician while cooperative evangelism deals with them as wholepeople capable of helping to cure others, thus negating the point ofcomparison. It has also been shown that Dr. Ferm makes the liberalleaders of today analogous to the Publicans and sinners, and that thisanalogy cannot be sustained because the liberals primarily are falseleaders who would better be compared to the false leaders of Christ’stime, while the Publicans and sinners being sick sinners who occupy noposition of leadership would better be compared to the unsaved sinnerswho sit in the pews. Thus, the fifth argument has been shown to bebased on analogies that cannot truly be substantiated, and therefore, itmust be regarded as invalid.Endnotes1Ibid., 39.2Ibid.3Ibid.4Of course, conservatives also cooperate with the evangelist, and sit on theplatform, but that is not the subject at issue.5Ferm, 39.6Ibid.50