Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In view of the evidence, the tenth proposition which affirms thatChrist is not now concerned with the question of sponsorship must beregarded as untrue.1Ferm, 31.2Ibid.3Van Til, op. cit., 26-7.4Ferm, 31.Endnotes90
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONDr. Ferm’s Interpretation ErrsDr. Ferm’s volume, Cooperative Evangelism: Is Billy Graham Rightor Wrong? defends the inclusivist policy on the grounds of the <strong>Bible</strong> andthe ministries of the successful evangelists of the last two and one-halfcenturies. The defense of his views based on the ministry of the Lordwas the only area analyzed in this thesis, but the same arguments may beseen to pervade all of Dr. Ferm’s biblical interpretation, and if hisarguments based on the Savior’s ministry are sound, the case will nodoubt also carry in his other biblically based sections; however, if thereasoning and conclusions here are spurious, the same verdict will haveto be rendered over his other thrusts. This is true because Dr. Ferm isarguing over a trend in Scripture which concerns the treatment of agroup of God’s enemies—those who claim to be prophets of Jehovah,but who reject the Jehovah of the Prophets, i.e., the modernists.The verdict of this study in view of our analysis of Dr. Ferm’s bookin the light of the <strong>Bible</strong>, is that he has erred in interpreting the basicattitude of Christ toward God’s enemies. Thus his conclusions andreasonings, although sincerely made in an effort to serve God, areincorrect. It is the opinion of the writer that Dr. Ferm’s key assertion,“Jesus himself affords us the best example of cooperation [i.e., witherrorists],” 1 has not been established in his book. Such a view cannot besustained on the basis of the New Testament, and cannot be rightlyapplied to cooperative evangelists in order to justify their cooperationwith liberal elements. In fact, it is the conclusion of this study that theLord’s ministry argues for the exact opposite of cooperative evangelismby virtue of Christ’s unceasing acrimonious struggle with theunbelieving false religious leaders of His day whom He continually91
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 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: fundamentalists’ adherents; and (
Page 95 and 96: and its alleged or implied applicat
Page 97 and 98: denunciation by Christ, and that th
show all

Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?