Thus it appears that while Christians are to love one another sosincerely that all men shall know by beholding their mutual love thatthey are the disciples of Christ (John 13:34,35), and while they are alsoto love even their enemies who curse them (Matt. 6:44), they are on theother hand commanded to manifest a conduct of separation toward thosewho are in the group of false prophets, heretics, causers of divisionscontrary to the received doctrine, unbelievers, and advocates of anothergospel or of another Christ. This separation is to manifest itself towardthese by such actions as avoidance, rejection, severing yokes, severingrelationships, non-fellowship, non-reception into the house, a wary andcautious posture toward them and a sincere inner hope that the purposesof such false believers and teachers as well as the parties themselves willmeet with their just end (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 2 John10,11; Matt: 7:15; and Gal. 1:8,9).Although Christians ought to love each other for many reasons, theyare to especially love each other because they know that God, who is thesupreme object of their love, Himself loves their fellow disciples (1 John4:11). This love they are to manifest outwardly in every possible way.Likewise, because the Holy God hateth “all workers of iniquity.” [Lit.“You have hated . . .”] (Psa. 5: 5), Christians must also be set against sin,its advocates, and prophets – notwithstanding their constant hope andprayer that these might repent and change their allegiance. Christians forthis reason are in a true sense the enemies of all ungodly purposes andteachings and are bound never to aid anyone in a work for Satan. ThusJehu rebuked Jehoshaphat, who was basically a man of God, for aidingungodly Ahab by an alliance (2 Chron. 19:2,3). So it can be seen that thepeople of God are to express universal love, especially for each other,but as they truly love God’s holiness, goodness, and righteousness, theirlove for these must also manifest itself in abhorrence and hatred for sin,sinful deeds and purposes, and the advocating of evil schemes!Applying these truths to the subject at hand, it is seen that the NewTestament calls for the manifesting by Christians of the utmost infellowship and cooperation toward those who profess Christ and whoare not holding or bringing pernicious doctrine and error, nor living inimmorality or other open sin; while it on the other hand calls for adistinct separation from fellowship, approval, cooperation and the giving74
of aid towards those who are heretical, because, “. . . he that biddeth him[the heretic who abideth not in the doctrine of Christ] God speed ispartaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 11). The Lord’s ministry exhibitedthis duality of conduct for which the Scriptures call! To the disciples andthe children of God, the Lord showed approval and love, but to thosewho were the false teachers who in unbelief rejected Him, Christmanifested open rebuke and scorn (Matt. 23). The commands withregard to each of the two groups are absolutely unflagging in theirposture and emphasis, so that anyone who treats one group as he oughtto have treated the other makes a grave and serious mistake, and ifanyone does this intentionally it is wicked direct disobedience to God’sWord in the most profligate way. Therefore, it behooves each Christianwhen he comes into contact with a heretic to beware of, avoid, and rejecthim, 5 and not to cooperate with, approve of, and aid him! Now tocompare this with Dr. Ferm’s words. He writes:This being the case [i.e., the assertion that the <strong>Bible</strong> stressesfellowship more than separation], it is safer, as a rule, to seek tocooperate unless cooperation affords no open door. Therefore themissionary or evangelist takes no risk in practicing a cooperativepolicy. 6In the face of the New Testament’s emphatic demands for anextremely different conduct from the Christian toward the brethren andtoward the heretics, Dr. Ferm sidesteps the issue which centers aroundthe friendly and cooperative treatment given to liberal heretics by thechampions of cooperative evangelism, and says that “It is safer, as arule, to seek to cooperate”! This would be a good rule if there were noidentifying marks to the heretic, and if Christians were to look squarelyin the eye of each religious leader who wished to participate in acampaign and on the basis of this deep gaze were to guess whether thiswas a true brother or a heretic. However, this is not the case! Christianscannot search hearts and are not commanded to do so; and therefore, allwho profess to be true and who do not deny this by word or deed are tobe presumed as true Christians and brethren.However, those who by their preaching or writing, publicly displayunbelief in the fundamentals of the faith such as the bodily resurrection,the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, etc., which is the unbelief75
- 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 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: advocates are not delineated by a c
- 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