Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

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