fcm newsletter 2007_v4 (oct-dec 07)

8/8/2019 FCM Newsletter 2007_V4 (Oct-Dec 07)

1/20

1

THE PRACTICE OF

SEPARATION(Chapter 4 of Biblical Separation:

Doctrine of Church Purification &Preservation)

By Rev (Dr) Jeffrey Khoo

What the Practice of Separation is

Not

It is Not IsolationBiblical separation is not ascetism. J Oliver

Buswell wrote, The separation of the churchfrom sin and false religion is by no means theseparation of ascetism or monasticism. Nowheredoes the Scripture teach that Christians asindividuals or as churches are to withdraw fromordinary secular responsibilities and live in thedesert apart from the affairs of men (Theology,1:423-4).There are fundamentalists who go to an extremein practising separation. They separate not onlyfrom liberal institutions, but also fundamental.The usual remark we hear from these extremists

is, they are not separate enough. They existvery much on their own. Usually, the separationis due to some minor doctrinal differences likethe mode of water baptism; should more or less

water be used?We have to bevery carefulwhere we drawthe line, lestinstead of beingseparatists, we

becomeisolationists.

It is Not InfiltrationEcclesiastical infiltration is a neo-evangelicaldistinctive. Neoevangelicals have no qualmsassociating and cooperating with modernists,Roman Catholics, and charismatics inevangelistic campaigns. They say that as long asthe gospel is preached and people get saved, it isalright to have joint political and religiousactivities. In other words, the end justifies the

means. They do not believe that Gods workmust be done Gods way. Infiltration waspopularised by Fuller Theological Seminary asthe method to win over those outside theevangelical camp. But infiltration has never

been Gods way of convicting the world ofsin, and convincing unbelievers of the truth.Having taken this slippery slope of infiltration,it is no surprise that Fuller today ismodernistic, ecumenical, and charismatic.The neo-evangelicals use Jude 22-23 as their

proof text for infiltration: And of some havecompassion, making a difference; and otherssave with fear, pulling them out of the fire,hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Jude must have had Amos 4:11 in mind whenhe wrote this verse. In Amos 4:11, we read, Ihave overthrown some of you, as Godoverthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye werelike a firebrand plucked out of the burning.

The historical context of Amos 4:11 is foundin Gen 19:1-29 where Lot and his family weredelivered from the destruction of those twowicked cities. In light of this, the immediateand the historical contexts of Jude 23 revealtwo significant points. First, it concernswho? Who were the people that were pulledout of the fire? Did Jude mean the reprobates?The answer is No. Jude in verses 4-19warned the church against these ungodly menand declared that God has reserved them for afiery punishment on that day of judgment.From verses 20-25, Jude addressed theChristians calling them beloved. So, thosewhom Jude said are to be saved, pulling themout of the fire must refer to believers. Calvincommented that in verses 22-23, Jude wasshewing how the faithful ought to act inreproving their brethren, in order to restorethem to the Lord (John Calvin,

Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, transand ed by John Owen [Grand Rapids: BakerBook House, 1984], 448). Moreover, it wasnot the unbelievers in Sodom and Gomorrahwho were delivered but Lot the just (2 Pet2:7). Jude is thus telling Christians to pullfellowbelievers out of apostate churches.Therefore, verses 22-23 refer to rescuingbelievers, and not unbelievers. Second, itconcerns how? How should we go about


2/20

2

pulling believers out of the fire? In Gen 19, wenotice that the two angels sent to rescue Lot didnot stay in the city longer than was necessary.They arrived in the evening, and left in themorning (Gen 19:1,15). This indicates that itwas with a great sense of urgency that they

pulled Lot out. We read in Gen 19:15-16, Andwhen the morning arose, then the angelshastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, andthy two daughters, which are here; lest thou beconsumed in the iniquity of the city. And whilehe lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand,and upon the hand of his wife, and upon thehand of his two daughters, the LORD beingmerciful unto him: and they brought him forth,and set him outside the city. The angels did not

mingle with the Sodomites. They did not evenspeak to them. What we do read is that they

struck the people of the city with blindness (Gen19:11). Theycould not wait toget out of the citywith Lot. Lot wasliterally plucked

out of the fire.We are to dolikewise. We arenot told tobefriend Christ-

deniers, shake their hands, and pat them on the

back. We are told to waste no time in warningfellow-believers and persuading them to leavefalse churches immediately.Non-separatists contend that in order to pullthem out, one must first go in. This is a case ofreading into the text. The text does not say, Go

in! The instruction given is Get out! Thestress is in the word out. We are to pull themout from without, and not from within. In anycase, the thing foremost in the mind of a firemanwhen he is in a rescue operation is BE QUICKAND BE OUT! He wants to accomplish the

rescue speedily, and be completely out ofdanger.Jude 22-23 does not teach infiltration. Rather itsupports separation, and is consistent with thegeneral tenor of this doctrine taught throughoutScripture.

What the Practice of Separation Is

It Involves ExcommunicationThe practice of separation invariably involvestaking disciplinary measures against

disobedient brethren or errant churches. TheWestminster Confession states, Churchcensures are necessary for the reclaiming andgaining of offending brethren; for deterring ofothers from like offences; for purging out ofthat leaven which might infect the wholelump; for vindicating the honour of Christ, andholy profession of the gospel; and forpresenting the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they shouldallow his covenant, and the seals thereof, to beprofaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.For the better attaining of these ends, theofficers of the church are to proceed byadmonition, suspension from the sacrament ofthe Lords Supper for a season, and byexcommunication from the church, accordingto the nature of the crime, and demerit of the

person (XXX.3,4).

Church discipline is onepractice which is sorelylacking in much of thevisible church today. Theusual excuse for notpractising church disciplineis that Christians ought not

to be judgmental. Admittedly, churchdiscipline is something difficult to mete outand unpleasant to enforce; but we shouldrealise that it is the Lord who had commandedHis church to do so, and that it is for thegeneral good of the Christian community.As stated in the Westminster Confession,church discipline is needed and is done for thegood of the church and her members. It is notdone so that people might be condemned, butthat they might be instructed. It is a means ofgrace whereby the errant party can be restoredto the fellowship of the church when herealises his sin and repents. How do we goabout exercising church discipline? Churchdiscipline can be exercised at two levels: theindividual and the ecclesiastical. First, churchdiscipline at the individual level. Jesus hadlaid down the steps the Christian should


3/20

3

progressively take in disciplining a disobedientbrother in Matt 18:15-20.

The first step to betaken is to approachhim personally andprivately and tell him

frankly and gentlywhat he has donewrong (v15). If he seeshis error and resolvesto correct himself, thenone has won him to theLord. However, if after

this private admonishment, he still insists that heis not wrong, the next step is to get one or twobrothers to confirm that he is indeed in error.Note that these witnesses have to beindependent, objective witnesses. There should

be no conspiracy.If he still refuses to listen, the final step is tobring the matter publicly to the church. Thechurch here refers primarily to the spiritualleaders the pastor and the session (consistingof elders and deacons). And if he refuses even tolisten to the church, Jesus said, Let him be untothee as an heathen man and a tax collector(v17). In other words, have nothing to do withhim.The Apostle Paul himself excommunicated theCorinthian Christian who committed incest (1

Cor 5:13). This severe disciplinary action did alot of good for that individual for we read inPauls next epistle to the Corinthians that he wasextremely sorry for his sin. Paul told the churchto forgive him and welcome him back to thefellowship of church (2 Cor 2:5-8). Churchdiscipline, therefore, is an act of love andconcern. The purpose of which is to rescue theerring believer from falling any further into sin.

Second, church discipline at the ecclesiasticallevel. Today, we are seeing many churches

veering away from the historic Christian faith.Paul had already warned, Now the Spiritspeaketh expressly that in the latter times, someshall depart from the faith, giving heed toseducing spirits,and doctrines of demons (1 Tim 4:1). Inanother place, he cautioned, Let no mandeceive you by any means; for that day shall not

come, except there come a falling away first(2 Thess 2:3).Christendom today is experiencing rampantapostasy and unbelief. What should be theresponse of Bible-believing churches? Theonly right course of action is to earnestly

contend for the faith (Jude 3) and come outfrom among them and be ye separate (2 Cor6:17). The question is: how do we know thata church has reached the point of no return?When must the believer come out of her andbe separate, declaring her apostate? This is asolemn question and one that must beanswered with care. The Belgic Confession(Art. xxix) is of some assistance. The marksby which the true Church is known are these:If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preachedtherein; if it maintains the pure administration

of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; ifchurch discipline is exercised in punishing ofsin; in short, if all things are managedaccording to the pure word of God, all thingscontrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christacknowledged as the only Head of the Church.Hereby the true Church may certainly beknown, from which no man has a right toseparate himself. The article further states thatthe false church ... ascribes more power andauthority to itself and its ordinances than tothe Word of God, and will not submit itself to

the yoke of Christ. Clearly, there are churchesthat manifest the requisite fidelity to the Bibleso plainly that there can be no doubt, andothers quite obviously fail to do so, and ofthese there is no doubt either. No church isperfectly pure. But some have sufficient purityof Word, sacraments, and discipline that therecan be no legitimate question that they are truevisible churches. Again, there is probably nochurch in which there is not some faintelement of these things remaining, and yet thelack of fidelity to the Bible is so plain that

there can be no reasonable question that suchare not true visible churches. However, nochurch is without imperfection, and everychurchis (humanly speaking) liable to apostasy. If abeliever were to separate from a churchbecause of any and every imperfection hecould belong to no visible church at all. Butthere may come a time when the departure of a


4/20

4

visible church from the truth is such as to eitherrequire or justify separation. And we believe thatthe precise point of no return comes when sucha church imposes upon its members theunavoidable necessity of participation in sin.When this point is reached, the Scripture is

clear: Come out of her, my people, and ye benot partakers of her sins, and that ye receive nother plagues (Rev. 18:3,4). It is sometimesargued that one should never leave a particulardenomination (or visible church) as long as it ispossible to remain in it.We would rather say that one should never leavea particular denomination as long as it ispossible to remain without compromisingobedience to Christ. The conditions necessary tosuch uncompromised obedience are these: (1)the denomination as a whole must still profess

the true religion in its essential integrity, (2)there must be an unrestricted right to contend forthe truth against such errors as are present, and(3) there must be an active engagement todefend the truth and to seek the purity of theChurch. There are those who have remained infalse churches on the grounds that they are in aconservative congregation orpresbytery, whileadmitting that the denomination as a whole isapostate. This violates the biblical doctrine ofthe unity of the churches and the scripturalconcept of corporate responsibility (I Cor.

11:14-27). Others have remained in falsechurches on the grounds that they still have theright to preach the fundamentals of the faith.They admit that they are not any longerpermitted to preach the whole counsel of God,especially not the condemnation of the particularerrors that prevail in their church.This contradicts the scriptural duty to preach thewhole counsel of God, and the special duty toexpose error, and therefore sinful (II Tim.2:25,25, 4:2-5, etc). Finally, there are those whoremain in a false church because they hope

someday to reform it. But they never actually doanything because they realise that such effortshave not been, and will not be, tolerated. This isthe least excusable of all. In conclusion, webelieve that in a case of uncertain diagnosis,where there is opportunity to become a memberof a church concerning which there is no doubtthat it is a true church, a believer should separatewith a clear statement of the reasons which have

made him doubt that the church he is leavingis a true church(G I Williamson, The

Westminster Confession of Faith for Study

Classes [Philadelphia: Presbyterian andReformed Publishing Co., 1964], 190-2).

It Involves IdentificationThe practice of separation entails identifyingthose who are propagating error and exposingtheir wrong teachings. In the Bible, we findthe Apostle setting such a precedent. In Rom16:17, Paul said, mark them who causedivisions and offences contrary to the doctrinewhich ye have learned; and avoid them. Andin 2 Tim2:17-18, hepractisedthis by

identifying2 hereticsby name,HymenaeusandPhiletus. Inanother place, he mentioned Demas who hadforsaken him (2 Tim 4:10).In identifying and exposing errorists, one mustbe very sure that one has just grounds to do so.There is no place for assumptions. Dr ArthurSteele in his lectures on Contemporary

Theology at FEBC in 1988, advised studentsto firstly get the evidence and then back it upwith Scripture before publicly exposing error.One ought not to rely on hearsay but havereliable proof before any allegation is madeagainst false teachers.

It is an Act of LoveThe often sounded ecumenical slogan is Loveunites, doctrine divides. Edward J Carnell,former professor of Fuller Seminary said,

While we must be solicitous about doctrine,Scripture says that our primary business islove (The Case for Orthodox Theology, quotedin Ernest Pickering,Biblical Separation, 198).Carnell claims Scripture says but where? Onthe contrary, we find that the Bible says thatlove rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth inthe truth (1 Cor 13:6) . What is the truth? The


5/20

5

articular aletheia in 1 Cor 13:6 speaks especiallyof the content of Christianity as the absolutetruth (BAGD, 35). In other words, it is the HolyBiblethe Word of Truth (Eph 1:13, Col 1:5, 2Tim 2:15, Jas 1:18). What is done against orcontrary to this Word of truth is not love, but

hatred. The act of separation is not incompatiblewith Christian love. Pickering says, It ispossible to love those with whom I cannot havepractical fellowship because of a disagreementover doctrine and practice. The Lord Jesusstrongly denounced the scribes and

pharisees of His day, yet one would hesitate tostate that the Lord did not love them. Love hasmuscle. Love expresses itself in loyalty to Godand His Word. God is love, but He is also aconsuming fire (Heb. 12:29). He has bothaspects to His character, and they are held in

perfect balance (Separation, 198).

Rev (Dr) Jeffrey Khoo is the Academic

Dean of FEBC and Elder of True Life BP

Church.

Honour Thy Lord(Message delivered by Rev Tan KS at the

True Life YPF Meeting, 21 April 2007)

Text: Honour the LORD with thysubstance, and with the firstfruits of all thineincrease: So shall thy barns be filled withplenty, and thy presses shall burst out withnew wine (Proverbs 3:9-10).

Honor the Lord. It means to regardGod with importance, to glorify Him, to putHim first. How important is God to you?

With thy substance. The wordsubstance here and in many places has themeaning of wealth, goods, possessions,

things valuable. It points to capital (whatthat we have for a start), whereas the wordincrease points to revenue (the gains made

from using the capital sum).

Note that the word substance used hereis not the same word that is used in Psalm139:15 which says, My substance was not

hid from thee, when I was made in secret,and curiously wrought in the lowest parts ofthe earth. The substance in Psalm 139:15

refers to our body and strength.So in context, Proverbs 3:9-10 is about

how to use our wealth, sufficiency, ourpossessions, and the result of it if we were touse it to honor the Lord. God wants us toimprove or enjoy blessings in our riches andpossessions, if we would honour Him withour substance.

One may boast of honoring the Lordwith his mouth, and he may go on talkingabout it but without any action. Forexample, it may be easy to keep saying howwe love the Lord, how we seek to glorify

Get a copy of BiblicalSeparation by Rev (Dr) JeffreyKhoo at the FEBC Bookroom inFEBC, 9A Gilstead Road.


6/20

6

Him, how important He is in our lives, butwhen it comes to giving what we have orwhat that is valuable to us, how do weperform in honoring the Lord with oursubstance?

Think of the rich young man in Mark10:17-22. He said somuch about lovingGod, but when theLord asked him togive of hispossessions to thepoor, he could notbecause he hadmuch.

To show true

honour, you shouldput your money and whatever that is worthywhere your mouth is. And the Lordpromises, So shall thy barns be filled with

plenty, and thy presses shall burst out withnew wine.

With the firstfruits of thine increase.Now, it is not just giving of our substance(the capital) that will honour the Lord, butwe have to give of our firstfruits of ourincrease (the revenue).

Now, what are the firstfruits of ourincrease?

Fruit is return on investment or labor,that is, the increase. So your fruits (in thefinancial sense) are your salaries or whatmonies that you receive or gain.

The word increase means produce,

crop, harvest (in particular in Biblical timewhen the people were mainly farmers). Intodays context, we may apply it to therevenue, income, gain, profits which wereceive.

And the word firstfruits means first,

best, chief, choice (or choicest or topchoice), finest.

So firstfruits of our increase are the firstor top or best of our increase, that is, the first

or best of our salaries or any financial gainor revenue.

Do we give of our firstfruits of ourincrease? Or do we give of our leftovers orour excess or that which we do not need or

want? Giving Him leftovers or that whichwe do not want, whether great or small, isnot honoring to the Lord.

Now if you offer your firstfruits of yourincrease unto the Lord, you are giving yourrewards to God first, meaning, you aregiving God before anyone else, includingyourself.

Many violate this rule by giving a fewbits of all they make or receive. Is thishonor? Others violate it by giving from what

is left after their expenses. Is this honor? Isthis firstfruits? Many give only a percentageof their take home pay (nett income), thoughthey always quote their salary in terms ofgross pay. Is this firstfruits? What abouwhen we round up to the nearest? Do weround up to the higher value or to the lowervalue?

Wouldyou give ofthe firstsalary to theLord?Would yougive of thefirstincrease insalary fromyour promotion? The psalmist in Psalm 75:6reminds us, For promotion cometh neither

from the east, nor from the west, nor fromthe south. But God is the judge: he puttethdown one, and setteth up another.

What about when we give of our tithesare we calculative about it? Say when we aregetting $2000, we maybe prepared to give$200, but when we are getting $20,000, arewe prepared to give $2,000?


7/20

7

How about taking tithes in place ofofferings? Some people may satisfy theirconscience by giving tithes and using themas offerings. Tithes and offerings are twodifferent forms of giving. In Malachi 3:8 we

read, Will a man rob God? Yet ye haverobbed me. But ye say, Wherein have werobbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Notethe distinction between both.

Not onlywould we be nothonoring the Lordif we do not givefaithfully of ourtithes andofferings, we

would be robbingGod, breaking the8th commandmentby stealing fromGod. Instead ofstealing fromGod, let us bringin our tithes and offerings and wait to seethe Lord pouring down His blessings(Malachi 3:10Bring ye all the tithes intothe storehouse, that there may be meat inmine house, and prove me now herewith,saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not openyou the windows of heaven, and pour youout a blessing, that there shall not be roomenough to receive it.)

Yes, the more we give, the more theLord will bless us. He is waiting to do that.In the same way, we cannot expect greaterblessings from God if we are not liberal inour giving unto the Lord (Proverbs 11:24 There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth;

and there is that withholdeth more than ismeet, but it tendeth to poverty. Also

Proverbs 11:25 The liberal soul shall bemade fat: and he that watereth shall bewatered also himself.)

But some may say that they are poor andcannot afford to give much. In the eyes ofthe Lord, truly, it is not a matter of giving

much, but giving with the right attitude andwith the heart.

Learn from the story of the poor widowin Mark 12:41-44. It is not a matter of givingmuch, but how much we keep for ourselves

The rich gave of part of their abundance, butthe poor widow gave of her all, she keptnothing for herself. Though her giving inabsolute terms might be so much lesser than

the much given by the richbut in terms of the spirit ofgiving, the Lord says she hadgiven more than the rich.

She gave of her best, herfinest, her choicest, she gaveof her firstfruits of her

increase. Perhaps that washer days or months pay, andshe gave them as herfirstfruits to the Lord.

At times we see one centcoins offered into the offeringbags. Are these one cent

coins any value to the giver? Not at all, Ibelieve. I do not think that the people whoput them in did it in the spirit of the poorwidow. They just simply want to get rid ofthem and they thought of no better way thanto throw them into the offering bag. TheLord says, Your money shall perish with

you. God does not deserve to be treated inthis manner. He deserves all our best. Havewe given our best to the master? The songgoes Give of your best to the Master, give

all the best that you can. Have you givenyour best?

The Lord is also teaching us how the richought to give. A story was told concerning asuccessful Christian businessman who hadthe clear concept of honoring God. Hewould give 90% and keep only 10% forhimself, no matter his financial situationAnd the Lord blessed him greatly. He became one of Americas g

industrialists. The question he said, is not

how much of my money I give to God, but


8/20

8

rather how much of Gods money I keep for

myself.Learn from the rich men of the Bible:

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. Theywere blessed with wealth, and yet they knew

how to give, they loved to give, becausethey loved and honored the Lord. And inturn they were financially blessed withgreater abundance.

Take for example thecase of David who did notkeep this blessing forhimself. He helped thepeople of God to have agood grasp of the conceptof giving to the Lord in

honor of Him (1 Chron29:1-17). See how he ledthe people to give liberally(v. 5). And they all gavewith great joy to thebuilding of the temple.And, in his prayer, Davidattributed to the Lord forenabling the people to give (v. 14-16). Allthat they gave were not from themselves butwhat they could give really came from theGods hand.

Let us realize that we are not owners ofanything. Acknowledge that God is theGiver of all things (James 1:17 Everygood gift and every perfect gift is fromabove, and cometh down from the Father oflights.) We are just stewards of the

possessions that we have. Note that asteward does not own, he takes care ofsomeones possession, and a good steward

does his best with the possessions, like inthe case of Joseph who was a good stewardfor Potiphar.

We must realize that our substance orpossessions and our increase do not belongto us. Always remember Deuteronomy 8:18which God wanted Moses to remind theIsraelites before they forgot the goodness ofthe Lord: But thou shalt remember the

LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth theepower to get wealth.

God does not want us to hold on to ourwealth with clenched fists. Note that onemay hold tightly while he is alive, but when

a man dies his fist is unclenched. Job saidNaked came I out of my mother's womband naked shall I return thither: the LORD

gave, and the LORD hath takenaway; blessed be the name ofthe LORD. We cannot bring

our substance with us when weleave this world. Truly, theyare not ours to keep foreternity.

God wants us therefore to

hold things given to us withopen hand. This way He canput in and take out as He seesfit. So loosen our grip of thesubstance that God has puunder our charge as stewardsby returning them unto Himand sharing with others

especially those who are of the household offaith.

So whether we have much or little, it isthe same, we are but stewards, and we are tomake the best of them and give or returnthem unto our Master.

It is not the quantity of our giving, butthe quality. What is our attitude? How yougive counts more with our blessed God thanhow much you give! Remember that theLord loves a cheerful giver.

Now let us look at the promise in verse10 which says, So shall thy barns be filled

with plenty, and thy presses shall burst outwith new wine.

Barns filled with plenty? Pressesbursting with wine? Here are descriptivephrases of financial blessing and economicprosperity.

Here is Gods promised reward to those

who honor Him with their assets and thefirst portion of their income. It is like the


9/20

9

challenge in Malachi 3:10 Bring ye allthe tithes into the storehouse, that there maybe meat in mine house, and prove me nowherewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I willnot open you the windows of heaven, and

pour you out a blessing, that there shall notbe room enough to receive it.Proverbs 19:17He that hath pity upon

the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and thatwhich he hath given will he pay him again.God says, Remember the poor (Gal 2:10).

If we give to the poor, we are lending toGod, and we can be assured of Gods

bountiful blessing. But it must be done withthe right attitude, otherwise the Lord will notbless. Remember the case of Judas Iscariot?

God knows our hearts.Note that the reward here is obtained byobeying the previous verse in verse 9. Wemust do so with attitude of honoring God.

Putting a fewbucks in theoffering box just tofollow what othersare doing or toconform withformality is nothonouring God. Doyou give sinceothers are giving,or giving for ashow, or to satisfyones conscience;

or giving what is left over after yourexpenses or what that you do not want?Again giving of your nett income is notfirstfruits giving. If such is the attitude, thenit is not firstfruits giving.

Also some may say they promise to giveif God will bless them. This is also nothonouring God (we give first, and God willbless us, not the other round). Let usexamine our hearts.

Now, the text is about honoring God bygiving of our substance. And in the contextthe word substance is about possession.

But by way of application, let us alsoacknowledge that God expects to be honoredwith our best, not only with our substance,but also with whatever that we can give untoHimin terms of what that God has blessed

us with, for example, even with someonewho is so dear and precious to us.Read Malachi 1:1-14. What do we offer

unto the Lord, if we say that we honor Him?Do we give of our best, like Abrahamspreparedness to offer Issac, his onlybegotten son; like Hannah readiness to offerSamuel unto the Lord for service (but theLord blessed her with more children)?

Or would we give of our worst? A storywas told of a man who had four sons. Three

of them were very smart, but the fourth wasnot so clever. The man therefore sent thefirst to Cambridge that he might study tobecome a doctor, the second to Harvard tobe trained to become a lawyer, and the thirdto Germany to study and to become anengineer. But when he came to the fourthchild, since he was not so good in hisstudies, the man decided that he should sendthat youngest son to a Bible College inSingapore to study theology and to end upbeing a preacher.

Dear brethren, the Lord wants us tohonour Him, not for His own sake. But it ismore so that He would bless us. 1 Samuel2:30 says, Wherefore the LORD God of

Israel saith, for them that honour me I wil

honour, and they that despise me shall belightly esteemed.

So let us remember Proverbs 3:9-10 andkeep the words of the Lord in our hearts, doit, and you will be blessed. Honour theLORD with thy substance,

and with the firstfruits of all thineincrease: So shall thy barns be filled withplenty, and thy presses shall burst out withnew wine. May God help us.

Rev Tan Kian Sing is Pastor of Berean

BPC and Lecturer of FEBC.


10/20

10

WHERE THERE IS NOVISION

(Chapter 5 of Will our Sons Defend the

Faith?)

By Rev Daniel J. Ebert III

Where there is no vision, the people perish

(Proverbs 29:18).

In the Old Testament, God spoke to menthrough His prophets, and in these last daysHe has spoken to us through His Son (Heb1:1,2). This revelation of God to man isrecorded in the Holy Scripture (2 Tim 3:16).When man rejects this revelation, he is lostbecause there is no hope of reaching God onthe basis of his own wisdom (1 Cor 1:21). Inthis chapter we will study a few types ofliberal theology which show how distortedmans thinking concerning spiritual things

becomes when he rejects the Gospel.

Liberalism is not a united group of scholarsor theologians. To the contrary, it is a bodyof disagreeing, self-contradictingindividuals. They have different systems andmethods for arriving at the truth. The truth

that each arrives at is often far different from

that of his colleagues. But despite thediversity, there are underlying fallacies thatall liberal theologies have in common.

Liberalism always prides itself in humanintellect. Like Immanuel Kant, the liberalsees human reason as supreme. Even whenliberals speak of supernatural revelationhuman reason is used to determine when thisrevelation takes place. The liberal, like alwho glorify human reason, holds a very lowview of inspiration. To them, the Bible iseither a good book, or a book through whichGod may choose to speak at times. But it isnever the inerrant, fully inspired Word ofGod.

Another common tendency among liberals isthe deceitful manner in which they expresstheir beliefs. This is a most important pointwhich we will call to mind over and overagain in our study of liberalism. The liberaltheologians have taken words which forcenturies have expressed the true Christianfaith and stripped them of all meaning. Theyuse them only as symbols. This enablesthem to use a term such as cross without

believing in a historic cross on which Christdied. This is possible because, to them, theword cross has become a blank symbol


11/20

11

which can take on whatever significanceeach individual gives it. This allows liberaltheologians to speak of salvation, hell,heaven, the saviour, sin, etc., even when hedoes not believe in their historic Christian

sense. By using these words the liberaltheologians sound like sincere Christianswhen, in fact, theydo not believe any of the tenets of the faith.

For instance, Paul VanBuren, in his book TheSecular Meaningof the

Gospel, says thepresent day problem isthat the word God is

dead. But this is alright,because we have all weneed in the man JesusChrist. But to VanBuren, Jesus Christ is

an undefined symbol. Jesus is a spiritualconcept to which you can give any meaningyou wish, or whatever meaning would meet

a particular need. Thus, the believer mustalways say of the liberal, it is not what hesays, but what he means that is important.

The middle-of-the-road believer falls intothe liberals trap when he says we willfellowship around Jesus Christ rather thanaround the Scripture. The liberal loves thisapproach, for without the Scripture Jesusbecomes an undefined symbol. The liberal isglad to fellowship around the Lordship ofChrist since, without the Scripture to definethe term, he can make it mean whatever hewants, and the Fundamentalist can do thesame. When this happens, the message maysound alright to the Fundamentalist, butoften means something very different to theliberal speaker. We will see this truth clearlyas we study modern trends in theology andremind ourselves again and again that it isnot what they say, but what they mean that isimportant. And we must remember that

terms not defined by the Scripture becomeblank symbols to be filled in by the mind ofman. We will see this more clearly when welook at Karl Barths Neo- Orthodoxy.

The Social GospelThe theology of the Social Gospel becamepopular in European seminaries during themiddle 1800s. By the early 1900s, menholding this view controlled most of theschools and seminaries, not only in Europe,but also in America. In America the leadingexponent of this idea was WalterRauschenbush, a teacher at RochesterSeminary. He wrote two books and joinedwith Washington Gladden and Charles

Sheldon in preaching the ideas of the SocialGospel.1 The Modernists, during theModernist- Fundamentalist controversy inAmerica, were followers of the SocialGospel. The main concepts of thisunscriptural theology are the Fatherhood ofGod and the Brotherhood of man. Thefollowing are the basic ideas behind thisheresy.

1. The Fatherhood of God and

Brotherhood of Man

The Social Gospel teaches that God is theFather of all men and therefore all men arebrothers. BUT THE BIBLE SAYS: All men are sinners, Rom 3:23. Therefore man outside of Christ is under

Gods condemnation, Jn 3:16-18. Those who reject Christ are children of thedevil, Jn 8:44; Acts 13:10.2. Man is Slowly Getting Better and

Better

The Social Gospel teaches that mankind isslowly getting better and better. BUT THEBIBLE SAYS: Mankind is slowly getting worse andworse as the end of this age draws to a close2 Tim 3:1-5,13; 4:2-4.3. There are Many Ways That Lead to

God


12/20

12

The Social Gospel teaches that all religionsare of equal value. They are just differentways by which man can reach God. BUTTHE BIBLE SAYS: Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation,

Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12.4. Man will make a perfect civilization onearth

The Social Gospel teaches that man willform a perfect civilization on this earththrough social programs aimed ateradicating evil. BUT THE BIBLE SAYS: This world will become worse and worse,

2 Tim 3:13. God will call His people from this earth in

the last days, 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:51-

57. God will make a new heaven and a newearth for His people, 2 Pet 3:10-13.

Conclusion

The Social Gospel, like all liberal theology,rejects a literal interpretation of theScripture. It, therefore, has only the thoughtsof men to guide it. World War I causedmany leading theologians to leave theteachings of the Social Gospel. But othershung on, calling World War I The War toend all wars. However, with the start of the

second world war, the Social Gospel wasshattered as a popular teaching. Many liberalpastors still hold to this idea, not realizingthat the theological world has passed on toother things. However, the thoughts of theSocial Gospel can still be clearly seen innewer forms of liberal theology.

Neo-OrthodoxyThe prefix neo- means: new, modern,recent, or, a modified form of. In the case ofNeo-Orthodoxy, the latter definition appliesas liberal thinkers devised what appeared tobe a modified form of the true faith. Theteachings of Neo-Orthodoxy may sound liketrue Christianity, but it is as far from the

truth as was the Social Gospel of the early1900s.

Karl Barth

Karl Barth, a German theologian, is the

father of Neo-Orthodoxy. He had studiedtheology with some of the greatest liberalsof his day. However, Barth was among thefollowers of the Social Gospel whosedreams of a man-made perfect society wereshattered by World War I. At that time, heseems tohaverealizedthatman,

withoutGod washopeless.So hemodified his thinking and saw the need tobring man back to God and His Word. Thissounds very orthodox but, as with all liberalscholars, we must examine Barths teaching

to find out what he actually means bystatements like, we need to bring men back

to God and His Word.

The Bible And Neo-Orthodoxy

The teaching of Karl Barth concerning theScripture sounds very conservative, but it isactually quite liberal. Barth declared that theBible is indeed the Word of God but onlywhen, by a special act of God, the Biblereaches out to us and becomes a revelationHe said, We have seen that, as so muchprinted matter, the Bible is not identical withGods Word. But at any moment God canmake it identical.2 According to Barth, theBible becomes Gods Word when man turns

to the Scripture in a time of great need andGod chooses to speak to him. For thainstant the Scripture becomes the Word ofGod to that individual. This may sound veryinspirational. But the question arises, How

does man know when God is doing this


13/20

13

from time to time revelation? One way,

according to Neo-Orthodoxy, is to leavebehind the historic positions of the Christianfaith. The way to escape from a doctrinaireand static view of the Word of God is at

each point to recollect that the Word of Godis Jesus Christ...God is the Lord of theWord. He is not bound to it, but it is boundto Him. He thus has free disposal of theverbal character of the Holy Scripture, Hecan use it or not, He can use it in one way oranother.The teachings of Karl Barth, and the Neo-Orthodox theologians in general, are veryhard to understand. But since Karl Barth isoften presented as truly Christian, it is good

for us to be familiar with at least four majorpoints involved in Neo-Orthodox thought.

1. The Bible is SOMETIMES the Word

of God

The Neo-Orthodox theologians speak of theinspired Word of God, but they do not viewinspiration in the historic Christian manner.To the Neo-Orthodox, the Bible becomesGods Word only when man in his needreads it and God suddenly speaks to himthrough

some portion of it. BUT THE BIBLESAYS: All Scripture is inspired by God and isprofitable for man, 2 Tim 3:16,172. Mans Reason is Supreme

Although he andhis followerswould vehementlydeny it, Barth, forall his theological jargon, still clings

to Kants idea thatmans reason is

supreme. Barthscrisis revelationmakes humanreason supremebecause manthrough his own

feelings or rationale, is nowgoing to have to decide, not only when Godis speaking, but also what God means whenHe does speak. BUT THE BIBLE SAYS: Man cannot by his own reason learn of

God and the salvation He offers, 1 Cor 1:21;2:4,5.3. Neo-Orthodoxy Presents Christianity

as Complex and Difficult

It has been stylish in recent years to be verykind to Karl Barths theological thoughts

and many claims are heard that he wasmisinterpreted. This allows the evangelicalto seem intellectual without appearing tomove from his own position. Only by afailure to enter sympathetically into Barths

convoluted thought can we take these wordsto mean what they say on the surface. This isa common type of comment in useconcerning Barth today. The thoughts ofKarl Barth, then, are not easy. To thecontrary, they are complicated because heconstantly changed them. He said, To live

is to change, and to be perfect is to havelived often... And Barth has changed hisdetails often enough to leave most of us indoubt as to what he really meant, as well aswhat he really said.Karl Barth and his Neo-Orthodox followersseemed to feel that, because life wascomplicated, Christianity could not besimple and at the same time meet mans

need. BUT THE BIBLE SAYS: That it takes the faith of a child to accept

the truth of the Scripture, Matt 18:3. Faith, not wisdom, is the basis by which

man must meet a Holy God, Heb 11:6. Faith makes real to us the spiritual truthswe cannot grasp in any other way, Heb 11:1.4. Neo-Orthodoxy presents Biblical terms

as meaningless symbols

The Neo-Orthodox view sets the moderntrend of dressing up liberal thought inorthodox language. The idea that God hasfree disposal of the verbal character of theHoly Scripture really means that until God


14/20

14

chooses to speak, thewritten Word has no realspiritual meaning.Therefore, one cannotequate the words of the

Bible with the Word ofGod in a true sense. Inorder to retain the languageof orthodoxy, the Neo-Orthodox theologian re-interprets Bible terms,attaching non-biblicalmeaning to them.The Neo-Orthodox theologian can speak ofthe resurrection when he believes Christ isstill in the grave because he sees this not as

an event but as symbolism. Barth says, theresurrection is the non-historical relating of thewhole historical life of Jesus to its origin inGod...The resurrection is no historical

occurrence. So the followers of Neo-Orthodoxy speak of Original Sin,Adam, The Fall, The Second Coming,

and Redemption in Christ. But on

examination, we find they do not acceptthese things as facts. And so it goes withevery basic truth of the Christian faith. Noneis to be taken in the literal sense, but all are

symbolic to the reality of sin and pride inhuman life. So we are faced with the

constant need to remember thatit is not what the liberaltheologian says, but what hemeans that is important. Thesemen sound like believing

Christians, when in reality theydeny almost every fundamentalof the Christian Faith.

ConclusionWith the teaching of Karl Barththe modern trends in theology

burst into full bloom. We see these systemswandering back and forth between the two-world idea of Kant and the nothing-is-sacred, continual changes of Hegel. We find

the personal God, Creator of the universebeing pronounced dead. We find the Biblebeing pronounced spiritually true, buthistorically and factually false. In effect, wefind that the new theologies, like the oldhave left man without hope because theycannot accept in simple faith the Gospelwhich gives men hope in Christ (Eph 2:11-13).

Rev Daniel J. Ebert III has been serving th

Lord as American Missionary to the

Philippines.

Get a copy of Will Our Sons

Defend the Faith? by Rev DanielJ. Ebert III at the FEBCBookroom in FEBC, 9A GilsteadRoad.


15/20

15

It is with deep retrospection that I amwriting of how God saved me from mymiserable state. My heart has not failed yetto be deeply indebted and grateful to Him

and I pray that I will never ever treat my

salvation cheaply nor take it for granted.

Though it was that definite day that I wastotally convicted of my sins and calledupon Him as my Father, God had alreadybegun working in my life before I wasconceived in my mothers womb. It wassurely the hand of providence that put me

Bible Baffle !!Who are these men of the Bible??

1.They were cast into the burning fury furnaceby Nebuchadnezzar.

2. He was also known as Jerubbaal and was ofthe family of Abiezer? (in the book of Joshua)

3.These 2 men are above 20 years old and didntperish in the wilderness. They entered thePromised Land.

4. He preached for 120 years.5.The great grandson of Abraham and the elder

of two sons of Jacob by Rachel.6. He was the first Christian martyr.7. He was originally named Abram.8. He wrote epistles to the Corinthians and

Philippians.

9. He was the youngest son of Jesse.10.He rebutted David for his sin of adultery.

Salvation


16/20

16

Testimonies

of Eileen

Chee!

in a family where He will bestow Hisfavour on. My eldest sister was the firstChristian and with a godly love for ourfamily, she began to share the gospel withall of us. As her little 5-year-old sister, I

listened to her withgreat interest and lether bring me tochurch. I thank Godthat at that age, Heimpressed upon methat He is the Creatorof the world I am inand that there is noother gods besidesHim. However, such

knowledge neverbrought about anevangelical faith inme. Slowly, I droppedout of church, beingdrawn away by themany televisionprogrammes onSunday.

But God never dropped me. As I lookedback, I am just so amazed that He was everwith me. There were various smallincidents and events which constantlyreminded me of my dire need to have apurpose and meaning in my life. I recalledmyself reading a special Readers Digest

encyclopaedia in primary school that theearth will eventually vanish because theSun will one day be depleted of its energy.I was immensely gripped with fear andhorror because that meant that all humanlives would go, as if there never was anyof us, or any of me. Yet I refused tobelieve that individuals who have eachtheir own special identity and personalitycould simply materialise into thin air.There must be more to life, I thought butas I was still quite young, I quickly forgotabout it.

Then, a couple of years later, a pair ofJehovahs Witnesses turned up at my place

for they were doing door-to-doorevangelism. I allowed them to share withme what I thought was the same as I used

to hear. Theybegan to followup on me everyweek but soon Iwas weary ofthem that I neveropened the doorfor them anymore.As trivial as itmay sound, thisincident reminded

me of God,somehow. Still,there was noearnest seeking onmy part. To me, itwas just enough toknow that Godexists and there

was a Jesus who died for man. However, Inever internalised the full significance ofsuch a deed and left it as it was.

Come the secondary school days and I waspropelled into many activities that Ithought could help me find out who I was.For a while, it worked. Then I got reallytired and began to ask myself manyquestions. So what if I was a studentleader? So what if I had many friends?This time round, the reflection was moreserious. I confided in a good friend whoalso wanted to know more about God.Together, we approached my Geographyteacher and she gave us bible study on theBeatitudes. Since I needed to know moreabout God, I requested to attend churchwith my sister. All these were meaningfulto me but it seemed to be limited and stillcould not be compared with the


17/20

17

satisfaction I derived from being active inschool.

One night, I felt like reading the Bible. Icame to the part when Jesus Christ

suffered on the way to the cross and on thecross. Suddenly, I could not hold my tears.My heart ached and broke. No I was notfeeling sorry for Jesus Christ, I wascompletely overwhelmed. It dawned onme why He had to be born as man andwhy He had to die. Most of all, why didHe have to die for me? I had no ideawhen I stopped crying but I knew fromthen on, I have a Saviour who gaveHimself for me and I knew I was nobody

but an absolutely sinful creature whocaused His grief and pain. I also knew thenthat right from the start, He has never letgo of me. It was all of His unboundedgrace, and with the same words will I singwith St Bernard,What language shall I borrow to thank

Thee dearest Friend,

For this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity

without end.

O make me Thine forever and should I

fainting be,

Lord let me never, never outlive my love to

Thee.

As with deep retrospection I shared aboutmy salvation, it is also with a heavy andfearful heart that I am writing this. Heavybecause there are struggles to face; fearfulbecause I feel so small.

God is just so good. He saved me. Whatmore can I ask for? And because He loved

me so bountifully, I want to love Him backwith all my heart and with all my life.When I do sin against Him and love Himso weakly, I hate myself very much forbeing like that. How can I ever ever prove

to God that I really do love Him and wishthat my heart can be more perfect, moreupright and purer? Ever since I was saved,it has been my longing and desire to serveHim whenever I can. Yet I fail so manytimes it is really by His mercy that I amnot consumed and I just had to not give upon myself. I also took special interest in biographies of missionaries and Godsservants. Perhaps I just enjoy dreaming butmany of my favourite imaginations were

of me doing the same things as I had readin their lives and ministries. Thus, I hadalways wanted to visit a real missionaryand see the work myself.

End of year 2005, I took a trip to NorthThailand to visit a missionary couple.Ironically, it was not the work that touchedme but the sharings and testimony of adear sister over there that got me to thinkvery deeply about things, in particularlymy life and God. Her testimony struck thesame chord in me as the people whom Ihad loved to read in books. It was a chordborne out of a love for God and an intensecraving to be His servant. Simply becauseGod is good.

When I came back to Singapore, I beganto be quite troubled and as usual,questioned the path I was on. What wasGods will for me? Did it have anything todo with taking care of the financial andphysical demands of people in need?Where can I serve God better? Inevitably,my mind drifted to studying in FEBC but Idid not dare to take it as a considerationbecause of the problems I know willsurface. I sought hard, prayed hard thatGod will show me His way. Yet deep in

Calling


18/20

18

my heart, I really want to serve God, notman. But whose desire it is, Gods or

mine?

This was the greater struggle. Throughout

the year of searching, it was aboutknowing Gods will. It was never about anunwillingness to go anywhere He wouldcall me. I was very afraid of myself, that itwas only an impulse and that it may justbe a 3-minute warmth. I was also afraidthat I would fall out should I really studyfull-time because I have heard of studentswho went in and gave it up all together.Therefore, it was really important to methat I must know Gods will, for when my

strength and my heart faileth, it is He whowill sustain me and restore me again tostand in His plan.

All these intensified as time went by.Slowly, I knew that social work was notthe place for me, having done myattachment and gone through muchvexation of the spirit during the course oflearning man-centered, God-censoredtheories. As exciting as the prospect was tomeet people from all walks of life with somany kinds of problems, I was alreadyvery disillusioned with the extent of aidthat can be rendered to people who justneeded God, and not money or boost ofego. On top of that, the caseload that asocial worker can have can just drownhim/her and me. At the end of the day, willI have the very precious time and energyto serve God and to study His word? Assuch, I no longer see myself going into thisvocation in my heart.

This time of seeking had caused me tolove Gods word very much. Each QuietTime was replete with nourishment for mysoul. It was a joy to be able to meditate onHis word and let the Spirit lead me in mydevotion. There is just so much to dig!! Of

course, I was not successful always, as Ihad to deal with an active wandering mind.Paul told Timothy to meditate upon these

things; give thyself wholly to themThis same injunction is also for all

believers to give themselves wholly to thestudy of Gods word. This is somethingwhich I cannot ignore.

By November, I was already so convincedthat if God does not want me to serve Him,I am no different from a dead person. Yet,there is this constant fear in me that I ameither being stubborn or dramatic. Besides,it was already November and how comethings were not clear yet? I guessed that

perhaps I might have been too general inmy asking. So I prayed that by 31st

December 2359hours, God would answerme.

The date drew near. I prayed still but I alsogot more anxious and worried. What if

what if there is no answer? What if theanswer is a no? What am I going to do? Itis already no more an option for me to setfoot into social work. I really have nopeace. I cried. I really want to give my lifeto Him but why isnt God saying

anything??

Someone wrote to me simply as way ofencouragement on 23rd Dec, If Jesus iscalling, trust and obey, for theres no other

way. It struck me quite hard. I just had totrust and obey because there really was noother way. Yet I was not satisfied. Icontinued to search. 30

thDec morning, I

read from 1 Kings 19 in which Elijah wasso desperate and depressed. God sent awind, an earthquake and even a great firebut in all these God was not in there.Lastly, God spoke to Elijah in a still small

voice (v11-12). Another strike but thistime right through me. That is because allthis while, I expected something big to


19/20

19

11.Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego12.Gideon13.Caleb & Joshua14.Noah15.Joseph16.Stephen17.Abraham18.Paul

19.David20.Nathan

shake me up, but I had limited God to myown thinking. I was beginning to cave in.Then 31

st Dec came. The chorus in a A

Passion for Thee stunned me. Thats thegreatest service I can give to God and what

way to love God but with my life He hasredeemed? Yet, were the whole realm ofnature mine it would still be a tribute fartoo small. Such love demands my soul mylife and all. Then, Dr Tow reminded us ofthe Lords coming. He said that if we were

to look to the Lords coming day by day,

we would not be living the way we hadlived our lives. It must be with sobriety,pure for the Lords use.

In a sense, I have gotten all my answers.But I was faithless. I was only 80%decided but that was not what God wanted.He wanted 100%. 1st Jan, He brought meto Deut 8:2 where it revealed the purposeof Israels wandering in the wilderness,

and alludes to my wandering in thewilderness. It was to humble me, to proveme and to knowwhat was in myheart, that I mayobey or not. Igave in. Godknew how much

Abraham loved Him but Abraham neededto know how much he loved God bychoosing between Isaac and obeying God.Not that I loved God as much as Abrahambut I needed to know what was in my

heart. And so I did.

This whole time was in no way spectacularbut in a still, small voice. I know I havemany obstacles ahead but I just have totrust that when God calls, He provides. Imay have to lead a harder life but whatthings were gain to me, those I countedloss for Christ but for Him, to win Himand to know Him.

Eileen Chee (aka 107)FCM NUS Coordinator

Truth BP Church

Eileen Chee is currently a student of

FEBC.

BibleBaffle Answers


20/20

Contact Information & Bible Study Groups

Overall FCM Coordinator Eld Boaz Boon (Calvary Tengah BPC)

9824 7681 [email protected]

Assistant Advisor Dn Peter Phoa (Calvary Tengah BPC)

9758 1469

[email protected] Student Coordinator Low Boon Siang (Gethsemane BPC)


FCM NUS

Comprising students in all the faculties of the National University of Singapore

Bible Study Leader : Ko Ling Kang (Youth Leader, Calvary Pandan BPC)

[email protected]

Student Coordinator : Eileen Chee


Meeting Place : NUS, Science Block S13, Level 5, Room 03/04, 3 Science Drive 2, S117543 (Tutorial Room)

Meeting Time : Every Wednesday, 5.15pm

FCM NTU/NIE

Comprising students in all the faculties of the National Technological University & National Institute of Education

Bible Study Leader : Rev Wee Eng Moh (Pastor, Berith BPC)

[email protected]

Student Coordinator : Low Boon Siang


Meeting Place : NTU, Hall of Residence 13, Blk 63, #03-1255, 32 Nanyang Crescent, S637658 (Eld Sims Home)

Meeting Time : Every Wednesday. Dinner at 5.30pm in Canteen 13 and Bible Study at 6.30pm

FCM SMU/UniSIMComprising students in all the faculties of the Singapore Management University & SIM University

Bible Study Leader : Eld Boaz Boon (Elder, Calvary Tengah BPC)

[email protected]

Student Coordinator : Jonathan Ng


Meeting Place : 1 Liang Seah Street, #05-01 Liang Seah Place, S189022 (Take Lift Up Behind 7-Eleven)

Meeting Time : Alternate Wednesdays, 6.30pm

FCM Poly

Comprising students in Singapore, Ngee Ann, Temasek, Nanyang & Republic Polytechnics

Bible Study Leaders : Bro Lim Jun Sheng & Bro James Tan (Calvary Tengah BPC)

[email protected] / [email protected]

Student Coordinator : Luke Tan


Meeting Place : Dinner at Ngee Ann Poly and Bible Study at SIM

Meeting Time : Every Monday. Dinner at 6.15pm and Bible Study at 7.00pm

fcm newsletter 2007_v4 (oct-dec 07)

Documents