ARGUMENT VI“Judge Not, that Ye Be Not Judged”The Argument Advanced by Dr. FermThe sixth New Evangelical contention is that the Lord specificallyhas forbidden us against sitting in judgment against other Christians. Inaddition to this it is said that, “In city-wide meetings . . . it would beimpossible [italics mine] to set up a local committee that would agree onwhich churches are worthy and which are not”; and the judging ofhuman associations to whom the one who makes a decision will bedirected is not here necessary since the “Holy Spirit must be trusted toperfect the work which he has begun.” 1Dr. Ferm feels that the issue resides “in the realm of Christianethics.” 2 He boldly asserts that,Any minister or church that willingly enters into acooperative effort, where the Gospel is to be preached withoutrestrictions of any kind, is certainly deserving of having convertswho so desire to join in the fellowship of that particular church.If later any are led astray, or spiritually starved, the responsibilityrests squarely on those churches, not the evangelist. To take anyother course is to sit in judgment on other Christians, somethingagainst which our Lord specifically warns us. 3An Examination of Dr. Ferm’s ConclusionsDr. Ferm has concluded that the Lord has specifically forbidden usto sit in judgment of another Christian’s doctrinal soundness, but sincehe does not state his Scriptural grounds for this, it will be impossible to52
state positively upon what verse or verses he has arrived at hisconclusion; however, Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged,”and its immediate context is most likely the bulwark upon which hiscase rests. This verse during recent years has been the one cast into theteeth of countless separatists as the verse which condemns them fordenouncing the modernists for their unbelief.Despite Dr. Ferm’s remark concerning proof texts used by theseparatists, in which he declares, “It is evident that such verses are not tobe found in great abundance, for the same few are used repeatedly,” 4 itis realized by the writer of this study that if this single text, or any singletext, stands upon a sound textual basis and teaches a doctrine,admonition, or fact clearly and plainly in the light of sound historicalgrammatical and contextual exegetical interpretation, then that teachingmust stand regardless if no other verse in the <strong>Bible</strong> reiterates its preciseemphasis.Dr. Ferm’s words, “. . . to sit in judgment on other Christians[italics mine],” would indicate that he has concluded the known andoutspoken liberals, who are the target of the judging of which he speaks,to be in the company of those called “Christians.” 5 Their being such inname cannot be denied, but their unbelief in the essential historicdoctrines would remove them from the category of “other,” i.e., fellow,“Christians,” and more accurately place them in an ethical societywhich, while rejecting the historic truths of Scripture, claims to acceptmany of its moral admonitions.Dr. Ferm has also obviously concluded that a local committeecannot possibly decide which churches desiring to participate in a largecrusade are sound and which are unsound; and that the evangelist canwith good conscience send those who have come forward to anyparticipating church, even if it be liberal, depending on the Holy Spiritto take care of the one who inquired about his soul.Thus Dr. Ferm has concluded that judging the doctrinal orthodoxyof men and churches is forbidden, impossible under city-wide crusadecircumstances, and unnecessary!He has also concluded that any minister, including a known liberalwho teaches unbelief from his pulpit, by the mere virtue of his53
- 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 and 36: whether is greater, the gold, or th
- Page 37 and 38: Dr. Ferm’s satirical remark, “H
- 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: GROUP THREEARGUMENTS ADVOCATING THA
- 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