Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

More documents

Recommendations

Info

allow their errors to obtain His approval, but warned the people publiclyand plainly against them. The cooperative evangelist on the other handdiffers completely from the Lord by his silence before error and hisfailure to warn the flock against the Christ-denying modernists. Hisapproval of the errorists has no parallel in Christ’s visits to the house ofworship in Israel.The fifth argument avers on the grounds of Christ engaging incontact and conversation with the religious rejects of His day that theconservative Christian preacher can engage in cooperation with thereligious rejects of this age. However, it was observed that Christ alwaysdealt with the errors of the religious rejects whom He went among, andnever gave the impression that He was cooperating with them or seekingtheir aid to accomplish His divine purposes. In contrast to this the neoevangelicalevangelist gives approval to and seeks aid from themodernists with whom he cooperates. Thus Christ’s conduct in this areacannot be used logically to justify the behavior of the orthodox preacherwho is sponsored by modernists, for Christ went to the rejects with newsof salvation, He did not come with them to others.The sixth argument declares that the Lord specifically forbadeChristians from sitting in judgment concerning which of those who wishto sponsor his campaigns are sound and which are not. Upon a study ofMatthew 7:1 in its context which commands, “Judge not, that ye be notjudged,” and an examination of the entire subject of “judging” as it isfound in the Scripture and as it has been understood by commentators, itwas discovered that the judging which Christ forbade was the censorioushyper-criticalness which characterized the hypocrites who saw the smallfaults of others but who overlooked their own unmercifulness. Thejudging of the doctrinal orthodoxy of others was not only seen not to beprohibited, but was observed to be the clear duty of a Christian in orderfor him to carry out the commands of Christ among which is theimperative to “Beware of false prophets” (Matt. 7:15).The seventh and eighth arguments concern the alleged stress of theLord’s ministry. The seventh affirms that the ministry of the Savioremphasized the evil of hypocrisy rather than the error of incorrecttheology. However, it was noted through a study of the New Testamentusage of “hypocrisy” that the Pharisees were the target of this94
denunciation by Christ, and that their hypocrisy was inextricably woventogether with their unbelief in Christ, so that in the Savior’sdenunciation of the “hypocrites” of His day, He was also condemningthe Christ-rejecting unbelievers. It was also noted that His denunciationof the Pharisee’s hypocrisy does not conflict with, but coincides withHis denunciation of unbelief in His Messiahship, which is thecornerstone of false doctrine. The using of these facts to defend silencein the face of Christ-rejecting hypocritical liberals, who justifythemselves on the basis of ethical achievement and a non-substitutionaryatonement, was seen to be a non sequitur.The eighth argument which avered that the Lord’s ministry stressedfellowship rather than separation was rejected as a defense forcooperative evangelism after it was observed that the fellowshipemphasized by Christ was that of brethren with brethren, in contrast tothat of brethren with unbeliever. Between brethren and unbelieverseparation is the New Testament stress as well as the stress of Christ’syears upon earth.The ninth argument stated that the Lord’s method of dealing witherror was largely to ignore it, and therefore the method of cooperativeevangelism which overlooks the errors of the liberals was correct incontrast to the separatist method of rebuking and warning. Here it wasnoted that Christ dealt with various errors in different ways. He waiteduntil the propitious time to correct certain misunderstandings of Hisdisciples which had to await His resurrection to be understood. WhileHe was gentle and longsuffering in correcting the errors of His ownflock, He rebuked publicly the false teachers. In no ease can it besubstantiated with certainty that Christ dealt with error by ignoring it;for Christ’s correction sometimes is too subtle for mortal eyes to viewand sometimes it may be delayed, but who can with certainty maintainthe negative, that in such-and-such a case it did not come? Thus in viewof this, and in view of Christ’s public and unceasing struggle with theerrors of the unbelieving religious leaders of His era, the ignoring of theerrors of the modernists at the expense of the little lambs who get nofood and who are led astray cannot be defended.The tenth and final argument maintains that sponsorship should beno concern of the conservative of today because it was no concern to95
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 and 92: fundamentalists’ adherents; and (
Page 93 and 94: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONDr. Ferm’s
Page 95: and its alleged or implied applicat
show all

Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?