THE PRACTICE OF means.
They do not believe that God‘s work
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 Isolation
Biblical separation is not ascetism. J Oliver
Buswell wrote, ―The ‗separation‘ of the church
from sin and false religion is by no means the
separation of ascetism or monasticism. Nowhere
does the Scripture teach that Christians as
individuals or as churches are to withdraw from
ordinary secular responsibilities and live in the
desert apart from the affairs of men‖ (Theology,
1:423-4).
There are fundamentalists who go to an extreme
in practising separation. They separate not only
from liberal institutions, but also fundamental.
The usual remark we hear from these extremists
is, ―they are not separate enough.‖ They exist
very much on their own. Usually, the separation
is due to some minor doctrinal differences like
the mode of water baptism; should more or less
water be used?
We have to be
very careful
where we draw
the line, lest
instead of being
separatists, we
become
isolationists.
It is Not Infiltration
Ecclesiastical infiltration is a neo-evangelical
distinctive. Neoevangelicals have no qualms
associating and cooperating with modernists,
Roman Catholics, and charismatics in
evangelistic campaigns. They say that as long as
the gospel is preached and people get saved, it is
alright to have joint political and religious
activities. In other words, the end justifies the
must be done God‘s way. Infiltration was
popularised by Fuller Theological Seminary as
the method to win over those outside the
evangelical camp. But infiltration has never
been God‘s way of convicting the world of
sin, and convincing unbelievers of the truth.
Having taken this slippery slope of infiltration,
it is no surprise that Fuller today is
modernistic, ecumenical, and charismatic.
The neo-evangelicals use Jude 22-23 as their
proof text for infiltration: ―And of some have
compassion, making a difference; and others
save 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 when
he wrote this verse. In Amos 4:11, we read, ―I
have overthrown some of you, as God
overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were
like a firebrand plucked out of the burning.‖
The historical context of Amos 4:11 is found
in Gen 19:1-29 where Lot and his family were
delivered from the destruction of those two
wicked cities. In light of this, the immediate
and the historical contexts of Jude 23 reveal
two significant points. First, it concerns
―who?‖ Who were the people that were pulled
out of the fire? Did Jude mean the reprobates?
The answer is ―No.‖ Jude in verses 4-19
warned the church against these ungodly men
and declared that God has reserved them for a
fiery punishment on that day of judgment.
From verses 20-25, Jude addressed the
Christians calling them ―beloved.‖ So, those
whom Jude said are to be saved, pulling them
out of the fire must refer to believers. Calvin
commented that in verses 22-23, Jude was
―shewing how the faithful ought to act in
reproving their brethren, in order to restore
them to the Lord‖ (John Calvin,
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans
and ed by John Owen [Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1984], 448). Moreover, it was
not the unbelievers in Sodom and Gomorrah
who were delivered but Lot the ―just‖ (2 Pet
2:7). Jude is thus telling Christians to pull
fellowbelievers out of apostate churches.
Therefore, verses 22-23 refer to rescuing
believers, and not unbelievers. Second, it
concerns ―how?‖ How should we go about
1
pulling believers out of the fire? In Gen 19, we What the Practice of Separation Is
notice that the two angels sent to rescue Lot did
not stay in the city longer than was necessary.
It Involves Excommunication
They arrived in the evening, and left in the
The practice of separation invariably involves
morning (Gen 19:1,15). This indicates that it
taking disciplinary measures against
was with a great sense of urgency that they
disobedient brethren or errant churches. The
pulled Lot out. We read in Gen 19:15-16, ―And
Westminster Confession states, ―Church
when the morning arose, then the angels
censures are necessary for the reclaiming and
hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and
gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of
thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be
others from like offences; for purging out of
consumed in the iniquity of the city. And while
that leaven which might infect the whole
he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand,
lump; for vindicating the honour of Christ, and
and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the
holy profession of the gospel; and for
hand of his two daughters, the LORD being
presenting the wrath of God, which might
merciful unto him: and they brought him forth,
justly fall upon the church, if they should
and set him outside the city.‖ The angels did not
allow his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be
mingle with the Sodomites. They did not even
profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.
speak to them. What we do read is that they
―For the better attaining of these ends, the
struck the people of the city with blindness (Gen
officers of the church are to proceed by
19:11). They
admonition, suspension from the sacrament of
could not wait to
the Lord‘s Supper for a season, and by
get out of the city
excommunication from the church, according
with Lot. Lot was
to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the
literally ―plucked
person‖ (XXX.3,4).
out of the fire.‖
Church discipline is one
We are to do
practice which is sorely
likewise. We are
lacking in much of the
not told to
visible church today. The
befriend Christ-
usual excuse for not
deniers, shake their hands, and pat them on the
practising church discipline
back. We are told to waste no time in warning
is that Christians ought not
fellow-believers and persuading them to leave
to be judgmental. Admittedly, church
false churches immediately.
discipline is something difficult to mete out
Non-separatists contend that in order to pull
and unpleasant to enforce; but we should
them out, one must first go in. This is a case of
realise that it is the Lord who had commanded
reading into the text. The text does not say, ―Go
His church to do so, and that it is for the
in!‖ The instruction given is ―Get out!‖ The
general good of the Christian community.
stress is in the word ―out.‖ We are to pull them
As stated in the Westminster Confession,
out from without, and not from within. In any
church discipline is needed and is done for the
case, the thing foremost in the mind of a fireman
good of the church and her members. It is not
when he is in a rescue operation is BE QUICK
done so that people might be condemned, but
AND BE OUT! He wants to accomplish the
that they might be instructed. It is a means of
rescue speedily, and be completely out of
grace whereby the errant party can be restored
danger.
to the fellowship of the church when he
Jude 22-23 does not teach infiltration. Rather it
realises his sin and repents. How do we go
supports separation, and is consistent with the
about exercising church discipline? Church
general tenor of this doctrine taught throughout
discipline can be exercised at two levels: the
Scripture.
individual and the ecclesiastical. First, church
discipline at the individual level. Jesus had
laid down the steps the Christian should

2
progressively take in disciplining a disobedient
brother in Matt 18:15-20.
The first step to be
taken is to approach
him personally and
privately and tell him
frankly and gently
what he has done
wrong (v15). If he sees
his error and resolves
to correct himself, then
one has won him to the
Lord. However, if after
this private admonishment, he still insists that he
is not wrong, the next step is to get one or two
brothers to confirm that he is indeed in error.
Note that these witnesses have to be
independent, objective witnesses. There should
be no conspiracy.
If he still refuses to listen, the final step is to
bring the matter publicly to the church. The
―church‖ here refers primarily to the spiritual
leaders— the pastor and the session (consisting
of elders and deacons). And if he refuses even to
listen to the church, Jesus said, ―Let him be unto
thee as an heathen man and a tax collector‖
(v17). In other words, have nothing to do with
him.
The Apostle Paul himself excommunicated the
Corinthian Christian who committed incest (1
Cor 5:13). This severe disciplinary action did a
lot of good for that individual for we read in
Paul‘s next epistle to the Corinthians that he was
extremely sorry for his sin. Paul told the church
to forgive him and welcome him back to the
fellowship of church (2 Cor 2:5-8). Church
discipline, therefore, is an act of love and
concern. The purpose of which is to rescue the
erring believer from falling any further into sin.
Second, church discipline at the ecclesiastical
level. Today, we are seeing many churches
veering away from the historic Christian faith.
Paul had already warned, ―Now the Spirit
speaketh expressly that in the latter times, some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits,
and doctrines of demons‖ (1 Tim 4:1). In
another place, he cautioned, ―Let no man
deceive 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 rampant
apostasy and unbelief. What should be the
response of Bible-believing churches? The
only right course of action is ―to earnestly
contend for the faith‖ (Jude 3) and ―come out
from among them and be ye separate‖ (2 Cor
6:17). ―The question is: how do we know that
a church has reached the ‗point of no return‘?
When must the believer come out of her and
be separate, declaring her apostate? This is a
solemn question and one that must be
answered with care. The Belgic Confession
(Art. xxix) is of some assistance. ‗The marks
by which the true Church is known are these:
If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached
therein; if it maintains the pure administration
of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if
church discipline is exercised in punishing of
sin; in short, if all things are managed
according to the pure word of God, all things
contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ
acknowledged as the only Head of the Church.
Hereby the true Church may certainly be
known, from which no man has a right to
separate himself. The article further states that
‗the false church ... ascribes more power and
authority to itself and its ordinances than to
the Word of God, and will not submit itself to
the yoke of Christ.‘ Clearly, there are churches
that manifest the requisite fidelity to the Bible
so plainly that there can be no doubt, and
others quite obviously fail to do so, and of
these there is no doubt either. No church is
perfectly pure. But some have sufficient purity
of Word, sacraments, and discipline that there
can be no legitimate question that they are true
visible churches. Again, there is probably no
church in which there is not some faint
element of these things remaining, and yet the
lack of fidelity to the Bible is so plain that
there can be no reasonable question that such
are not true visible churches. However, no
church is without imperfection, and every
church
is (humanly speaking) liable to apostasy. If a
believer were to separate from a church
because of any and every imperfection he
could belong to no visible church at all. But
there may come a time when the departure of a
3
visible church from the truth is such as to either
require or justify separation. And we believe that
the precise ‗point of no return‘ comes when such
a church imposes upon its members the
unavoidable necessity of participation in sin.
When this point is reached, the Scripture is
clear: ‗Come out of her, my people, and ye be
not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not
her plagues‘ (Rev. 18:3,4). ―It is sometimes
argued that one should never leave a particular
denomination (or visible church) as long as it is
possible to remain in it.
We would rather say that one should never leave
a particular denomination as long as it is
possible to remain without compromising
obedience to Christ. The conditions necessary to
such 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 for
the truth against such errors as are present, and
(3) there must be an active engagement to
defend the truth and to seek the purity of the
Church. There are those who have remained in
false churches on the grounds that they are in a
‗conservative‘ congregation or presbytery, while
admitting that the denomination as a whole is
apostate. This violates the biblical doctrine of
the unity of the churches and the scriptural
concept of corporate responsibility (I Cor.
11:14-27). Others have remained in false
churches on the grounds that ‗they still have the
right to preach the fundamentals of the faith.‘
They admit that they are not any longer
permitted to preach the whole counsel of God,
especially not the condemnation of the particular
errors that prevail in their church.
This contradicts the scriptural duty to preach the
whole counsel of God, and the special duty to
expose error, and therefore sinful (II Tim.
2:25,25, 4:2-5, etc). Finally, there are those who
remain in a false church because they hope
someday to reform it. But they never actually do
anything because they realise that such efforts
have not been, and will not be, tolerated. This is
the least excusable of all. In conclusion, we
believe that in a case of uncertain diagnosis,
where there is opportunity to become a member
of a church concerning which there is no doubt
that it is a true church, a believer should separate
with a clear statement of the reasons which have
made him doubt that the church he is leaving
is a true church‖(G I Williamson, The
Westminster Confession of Faith for Study
Classes [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1964], 190-2).
It Involves Identification
The practice of separation entails identifying
those who are propagating error and exposing
their wrong teachings. In the Bible, we find
the Apostle setting such a precedent. In Rom
16:17, Paul said, ―mark them who cause
divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned; and avoid them.‖ And
in 2 Tim
2:17-18, he
practised
this by
identifying
2 heretics
by name,
Hymenaeus
and
Philetus. In
another place, he mentioned Demas who had
forsaken him (2 Tim 4:10).
In identifying and exposing errorists, one must
be very sure that one has just grounds to do so.
There is no place for assumptions. Dr Arthur
Steele in his lectures on ―Contemporary
Theology‖ at FEBC in 1988, advised students
to firstly get the evidence and then back it up
with Scripture before publicly exposing error.
One ought not to rely on ―hearsay‖ but have
reliable proof before any allegation is made
against false teachers.
It is an Act of Love
The often sounded ecumenical slogan is ―Love
unites, doctrine divides.‖ Edward J Carnell,
former professor of Fuller Seminary said,
―While we must be solicitous about doctrine,
Scripture says that our primary business is
love (The Case for Orthodox Theology, quoted
in Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation, 198).
Carnell claims ―Scripture says‖ but where? On
the contrary, we find that the Bible says that
love ―rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in
the truth‖ (1 Cor 13:6) . What is the truth? The
4
articular aletheia in 1 Cor 13:6 speaks especially
of the content of Christianity as the absolute
truth (BAGD, 35). In other words, it is the Holy
Bible—the Word of Truth (Eph 1:13, Col 1:5, 2
Tim 2:15, Jas 1:18). What is done against or
contrary to this ―Word of truth‖ is not love, but
hatred. The act of separation is not incompatible
with Christian love. Pickering says, ―It is
possible to love those with whom I cannot have
practical fellowship because of a disagreement
over doctrine and practice. The Lord Jesus
strongly denounced the scribes and
Honour Thy Lord
(Message delivered by Rev Tan KS at the
True Life YPF Meeting, 21 April 2007)
Text: ―Honour the LORD with thy
substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine
increase: So shall thy barns be filled with
plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with
new wine‖ (Proverbs 3:9-10).
“Honor the Lord.” It means to regard
God with importance, to glorify Him, to put
Him first. How important is God to you?
“With thy substance.” The word
―substance‖ here and in many places has the
meaning of wealth, goods, possessions,
things valuable. It points to capital (what
that we have for a start), whereas the word
―increase‖ points to revenue (the gains made
from using the capital sum).
pharisees of His day, yet one would hesitate to
state that the Lord did not love them. Love has
muscle. Love expresses itself in loyalty to God
and His Word. God is love, but He is also a
‗consuming fire‘ (Heb. 12:29). He has both
aspects 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.
Get a copy of ―Biblical
Separation” by Rev (Dr) Jeffrey
Khoo at the FEBC Bookroom in
FEBC, 9A Gilstead Road.
Note that the word ―substance‖ used here
is not the same word that is used in Psalm
139:15 which says, ―My substance was not
hid from thee, when I was made in secret,
and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of
the 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, our
possessions, and the result of it if we were to
use it to honor the Lord. God wants us to
improve or enjoy blessings in our riches and
possessions, if we would honour Him with
our substance.
One may boast of honoring the Lord
with his mouth, and he may go on talking
about it but without any action. For
example, it may be easy to keep saying how
we love the Lord, how we seek to glorify
5
Him, how important He is in our lives, but
when it comes to giving what we have or
what that is valuable to us, how do we
perform in honoring the Lord with our
substance?
Think of the rich young man in Mark
10:17-22. He said so
much about loving
God, but when the
Lord asked him to
give of his
possessions to the
poor, he could not
because he had
much.
To show true
honour, you should
put your money and whatever that is worthy
where your mouth is. And the Lord
promises, ―So shall thy barns be filled with
plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with
new wine.‖
“With the firstfruits of thine increase.”
Now, it is not just giving of our substance
(the capital) that will honour the Lord, but
we have to give of our firstfruits of our
increase (the revenue).
Now, what are the firstfruits of our
increase?
Fruit is return on investment or labor,
that is, the increase. So your fruits (in the
financial sense) are your salaries or what
monies that you receive or gain.
The word ―increase‖ means produce,
crop, harvest (in particular in Biblical time
when the people were mainly farmers). In
today‘s context, we may apply it to the
revenue, income, gain, profits which we
receive.
And the word ―firstfruits‖ means first,
best, chief, choice (or choicest or top
choice), finest.
So firstfruits of our increase are the first
or top or best of our increase, that is, the first
or best of our salaries or any financial gain
or revenue.
Do we give of our firstfruits of our
increase? Or do we give of our leftovers or
our excess or that which we do not need or
want? Giving Him leftovers or that which
we do not want, whether great or small, is
not honoring to the Lord.
Now if you offer your firstfruits of your
increase unto the Lord, you are giving your
rewards to God first, meaning, you are
giving God before anyone else, including
yourself.
Many violate this rule by giving a few
bits of all they make or receive. Is this
honor? Others violate it by giving from what
is left after their expenses. Is this honor? Is
this firstfruits? Many give only a percentage
of their take home pay (nett income), though
they always quote their salary in terms of
gross pay. Is this firstfruits? What about
when we round up to the nearest? Do we
round up to the higher value or to the lower
value?
Would
you give of
the first
salary to the
Lord?
Would you
give of the
first
increase in
salary from
your promotion? The psalmist in Psalm 75:6
reminds us, ―For promotion cometh neither
from the east, nor from the west, nor from
the south. But God is the judge: he putteth
down one, and setteth up another.‖
What about when we give of our tithes,
are we calculative about it? Say when we are
getting $2000, we maybe prepared to give
$200, but when we are getting $20,000, are
we prepared to give $2,000?
6
 How about taking tithes in place of
offerings? Some people may satisfy their
conscience by giving tithes and using them
as offerings. Tithes and offerings are two
different forms of giving. In Malachi 3:8 we
read, ―Will a man rob God? Yet ye have
robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we
robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.‖ Note
the distinction between both.
Not only
would we be not
honoring the Lord
if we do not give
faithfully of our
tithes and
offerings, we
would be robbing
God, breaking the
8th commandment
by stealing from
God. Instead of
stealing from
God, let us bring
in our tithes and offerings and wait to see
the Lord pouring down His blessings
(Malachi 3:10 – ―Bring ye all the tithes into
the storehouse, that there may be meat in
mine house, and prove me now herewith,
saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open
you the windows of heaven, and pour you
out a blessing, that there shall not be room
enough to receive it.‖)
Yes, the more we give, the more the
Lord will bless us. He is waiting to do that.
In the same way, we cannot expect greater
blessings from God if we are not liberal in
our giving unto the Lord (Proverbs 11:24 –
―There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth;
and there is that withholdeth more than is
meet, but it tendeth to poverty.‖ Also
Proverbs 11:25 – ―The liberal soul shall be
made fat: and he that watereth shall be
watered also himself.‖)
But some may say that they are poor and
cannot afford to give much. In the eyes of
the Lord, truly, it is not a matter of giving
much, but giving with the right attitude and
with the heart.
Learn from the story of the poor widow
in Mark 12:41-44. It is not a matter of giving
much, but how much we keep for ourselves.
The rich gave of part of their abundance, but
the poor widow gave of her all, she kept
nothing for herself. Though her giving in
absolute terms might be so much lesser than
the much given by the rich,
but in terms of the spirit of
giving, the Lord says she had
given more than the rich.
She gave of her best, her
finest, her choicest, she gave
of her firstfruits of her
increase. Perhaps that was
her day‘s or month‘s pay, and
she gave them as her
firstfruits to the Lord.
At times we see one cent
coins offered into the offering
bags. Are these one cent
coins any value to the giver? Not at all, I
believe. I do not think that the people who
put them in did it in the spirit of the poor
widow. They just simply want to get rid of
them and they thought of no better way than
to throw them into the offering bag. The
Lord says, ―Your money shall perish with
you.‖ God does not deserve to be treated in
this manner. He deserves all our best. Have
we given our best to the master? The song
goes ―Give of your best to the Master, give
all the best that you can….‖ Have you given
your best?
The Lord is also teaching us how the rich
ought to give. A story was told concerning a
successful Christian businessman who had
the clear concept of honoring God. He
would give 90% and keep only 10% for
himself, no matter his financial situation!
And the Lord blessed him greatly. He
became one of America‘s great
industrialists. ―The question‖ he said, ―is not
how much of my money I give to God, but
7
rather how much of God‘s money I keep for
myself.‖
Learn from the rich men of the Bible:
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. They
were blessed with wealth, and yet they knew
how to give, they loved to give, because
they loved and honored the Lord. And in
turn they were financially blessed with
greater abundance.
Take for example the
case of David who did not
keep this blessing for
himself. He helped the
people of God to have a
good grasp of the concept
of giving to the Lord in
honor of Him (1 Chron
29:1-17). See how he led
the people to give liberally
(v. 5). And they all gave
with great joy to the
building of the temple.
And, in his prayer, David
attributed to the Lord for
enabling the people to give (v. 14-16). All
that they gave were not from themselves but
what they could give really came from the
God‘s hand.
Let us realize that we are not owners of
anything. Acknowledge that God is the
Giver of all things (James 1:17 – ―Every
good gift and every perfect gift is from
above, and cometh down from the Father of
lights.‖) We are just stewards of the
possessions that we have. Note that a
steward does not own, he takes care of
someone‘s possession, and a good steward
does his best with the possessions, like in
the case of Joseph who was a good steward
for Potiphar.
We must realize that our substance or
possessions and our increase do not belong
to us. Always remember Deuteronomy 8:18
which God wanted Moses to remind the
Israelites before they forgot the goodness of
the Lord: ―But thou shalt remember the
LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee
power to get wealth.‖
God does not want us to hold on to our
wealth with clenched fists. Note that one
may hold tightly while he is alive, but when
a man dies his fist is unclenched. Job said,
―Naked came I out of my mother's womb,
and naked shall I return thither: the LORD
gave, and the LORD hath taken
away; blessed be the name of
the LORD.‖ We cannot bring
our substance with us when we
leave this world. Truly, they
are not ours to keep for
eternity.
God wants us therefore to
hold things given to us with
open hand. This way He can
put in and take out as He sees
fit. So loosen our grip of the
substance that God has put
under our charge as stewards
by returning them unto Him
and sharing with others,
especially those who are of the household of
faith.
So whether we have much or little, it is
the same, we are but stewards, and we are to
make the best of them and give or return
them unto our Master.
It is not the quantity of our giving, but
the quality. What is our attitude? How you
give counts more with our blessed God than
how much you give! Remember that the
Lord loves a cheerful giver.
Now let us look at the promise in verse
10 which says, ―So shall thy barns be filled
with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out
with new wine.‖
“Barns filled with plenty? Presses
bursting with wine?” Here are descriptive
phrases of financial blessing and economic
prosperity.
Here is God‘s promised reward to those
who honor Him with their assets and the
first portion of their income. It is like the
8
challenge in Malachi 3:10 – ―Bring ye all
the tithes into the storehouse, that there may
be meat in mine house, and prove me now
herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will
not open you the windows of heaven, and
pour you out a blessing, that there shall not
be room enough to receive it.‖
Proverbs 19:17 – ―He that hath pity upon
the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that
which 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 to
God, and we can be assured of God‘s
bountiful blessing. But it must be done with
the right attitude, otherwise the Lord will not
bless. Remember the case of Judas Iscariot?
God knows our hearts.
Note that the reward here is obtained by
obeying the previous verse in verse 9. We
must do so with attitude of honoring God.
Putting a few
bucks in the
offering box just to
follow what others
are doing or to
conform with
formality is not
honouring God. Do
you give since
others are giving,
or giving for a
show, or to satisfy
one‘s conscience;
or giving what is left over after your
expenses or what that you do not want?
Again giving of your nett income is not
firstfruits giving. If such is the attitude, then
it is not firstfruits giving.
Also some may say they promise to give
if God will bless them. This is also not
honouring God (we give first, and God will
bless us, not the other round). Let us
examine our hearts.
Now, the text is about honoring God by
giving of our substance. And in the context
the word ―substance‖ is about possession.
But by way of application, let us also
acknowledge that God expects to be honored
with our best, not only with our substance,
but also with whatever that we can give unto
Him – in terms of what that God has blessed
us with, for example, even with someone
who 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 Abraham‘s
preparedness to offer Issac, his only
begotten son; like Hannah readiness to offer
Samuel unto the Lord for service (but the
Lord blessed her with more children)?
Or would we give of our worst? A story
was told of a man who had four sons. Three
of them were very smart, but the fourth was
not so clever. The man therefore sent the
first to Cambridge that he might study to
become a doctor, the second to Harvard to
be trained to become a lawyer, and the third
to Germany to study and to become an
engineer. But when he came to the fourth
child, since he was not so good in his
studies, the man decided that he should send
that youngest son to a Bible College in
Singapore to study theology and to end up
being a preacher.
Dear brethren, the Lord wants us to
honour Him, not for His own sake. But it is
more so that He would bless us. 1 Samuel
2:30 says, ―Wherefore the LORD God of
Israel saith, …for them that honour me I will
honour, and they that despise me shall be
lightly esteemed.‖
So let us remember Proverbs 3:9-10 and
keep the words of the Lord in our hearts, do
it, and you will be blessed. ―Honour the
LORD with thy substance,
and with the firstfruits of all thine
increase: So shall thy barns be filled with
plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with
new wine.‖ May God help us.
Rev Tan Kian Sing is Pastor of Berean
BPC and Lecturer of FEBC.
9
 WHERE THERE IS NO
VISION
(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 men
through His prophets, and in these last days
He has spoken to us through His Son (Heb
1:1,2). This revelation of God to man is
recorded in the Holy Scripture (2 Tim 3:16).
When man rejects this revelation, he is lost
because there is no hope of reaching God on
the basis of his own wisdom (1 Cor 1:21). In
this chapter we will study a few types of
liberal theology which show how distorted
man‘s thinking concerning spiritual things
becomes when he rejects the Gospel.
Liberalism is not a united group of scholars
or theologians. To the contrary, it is a body
of disagreeing, self-contradicting
individuals. They have different systems and
methods for arriving at ―the truth.‖ The truth
that each arrives at is often far different from
that of his colleagues. But despite the
diversity, there are underlying fallacies that
all liberal theologies have in common.
Liberalism always prides itself in human
intellect. Like Immanuel Kant, the liberal
sees human reason as supreme. Even when
liberals speak of supernatural revelation,
human reason is used to determine when this
revelation takes place. The liberal, like all
who glorify human reason, holds a very low
view of inspiration. To them, the Bible is
either a good book, or a book through which
God may choose to speak at times. But it is
never the inerrant, fully inspired Word of
God.
Another common tendency among liberals is
the deceitful manner in which they express
their beliefs. This is a most important point
which we will call to mind over and over
again in our study of liberalism. The liberal
theologians have taken words which for
centuries have expressed the true Christian
faith and stripped them of all meaning. They
use them only as symbols. This enables
them to use a term such as ―cross‖ without
believing in a historic cross on which Christ
died. This is possible because, to them, the
word ―cross‖ has become a blank symbol
10
which can take on whatever significance
each individual gives it. This allows liberal
theologians to speak of salvation, hell,
heaven, the saviour, sin, etc., even when he
does not believe in their historic Christian
sense. By using these words the liberal
theologians sound like sincere Christians
when, in fact, they
do not believe any of the tenets of the faith.
For instance, Paul Van
Buren, in his book The
Secular Meaningof the
Gospel, says the
present day problem is
that the word ―God‖ is
dead. But this is alright,
because we have all we
need in the man Jesus
Christ. But to Van
Buren, Jesus Christ is
an undefined symbol. Jesus is a spiritual
concept to which you can give any meaning
you wish, or whatever meaning would meet
a particular need. Thus, the believer must
always say of the liberal, it is not what he
says, but what he means that is important.
The middle-of-the-road believer falls into
the liberal‘s trap when he says we will
fellowship around Jesus Christ rather than
around the Scripture. The liberal loves this
approach, for without the Scripture Jesus
becomes an undefined symbol. The liberal is
glad to fellowship around the Lordship of
Christ since, without the Scripture to define
the term, he can make it mean whatever he
wants, and the Fundamentalist can do the
same. When this happens, the message may
sound alright to the Fundamentalist, but
often means something very different to the
liberal speaker. We will see this truth clearly
as we study modern trends in theology and
remind ourselves again and again that it is
not what they say, but what they mean that is
important. And we must remember that
terms not defined by the Scripture become
blank symbols to be filled in by the mind of
man. We will see this more clearly when we
look at Karl Barth‘s Neo- Orthodoxy.
The Social Gospel
The theology of the Social Gospel became
popular in European seminaries during the
middle 1800‘s. By the early 1900‘s, men
holding this view controlled most of the
schools and seminaries, not only in Europe,
but also in America. In America the leading
exponent of this idea was Walter
Rauschenbush, a teacher at Rochester
Seminary. He wrote two books and joined
with Washington Gladden and Charles
Sheldon in preaching the ideas of the Social
Gospel.1 The Modernists, during the
Modernist- Fundamentalist controversy in
America, were followers of the Social
Gospel. The main concepts of this
unscriptural theology are the Fatherhood of
God and the Brotherhood of man. The
following are the basic ideas behind this
heresy.
1. The Fatherhood of God and
Brotherhood of Man
The Social Gospel teaches that God is the
Father of all men and therefore all men are
brothers. BUT THE BIBLE SAYS:
• All men are sinners, Rom 3:23.
• Therefore man outside of Christ is under
God‘s condemnation, Jn 3:16-18.
• Those who reject Christ are children of the
devil, Jn 8:44; Acts 13:10.
2. Man is Slowly Getting Better and
Better
The Social Gospel teaches that mankind is
slowly getting better and better. BUT THE
BIBLE SAYS:
• Mankind is slowly getting worse and
worse as the end of this age draws to a close,
2 Tim 3:1-5,13; 4:2-4.
3. There are Many Ways That Lead to
God
11
The Social Gospel teaches that all religions
are of equal value. They are just different
ways by which man can reach God. BUT
THE BIBLE SAYS:
• Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation,
Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12.
4. Man will make a perfect civilization on
earth
The Social Gospel teaches that man will
form a perfect civilization on this earth
through social programs aimed at
eradicating 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 new
earth for His people, 2 Pet 3:10-13.
Conclusion
The Social Gospel, like all liberal theology,
rejects a literal interpretation of the
Scripture. It, therefore, has only the thoughts
of men to guide it. World War I caused
many leading theologians to leave the
teachings of the Social Gospel. But others
hung on, calling World War I ―The War to
end all wars.‖ However, with the start of the
second world war, the Social Gospel was
shattered as a popular teaching. Many liberal
pastors still hold to this idea, not realizing
that the theological world has passed on to
other things. However, the thoughts of the
Social Gospel can still be clearly seen in
newer forms of liberal theology.
Neo-Orthodoxy
The prefix ―neo-‖ means: new, modern,
recent, or, a modified form of. In the case of
Neo-Orthodoxy, the latter definition applies
as liberal thinkers devised what appeared to
be a modified form of the true faith. The
teachings of Neo-Orthodoxy may sound like
true Christianity, but it is as far from the
truth as was the Social Gospel of the early
1900‘s.
Karl Barth
Karl Barth, a German theologian, is the
father of Neo-Orthodoxy. He had studied
theology with some of the greatest liberals
of his day. However, Barth was among the
followers of the Social Gospel whose
dreams of a man-made perfect society were
shattered by World War I. At that time, he
seems to
have
realized
that
man,
without
God was
hopeless.
So he
modified his thinking and saw the need to
bring man back to God and His Word. This
sounds very orthodox but, as with all liberal
scholars, we must examine Barth‘s teaching
to find out what he actually means by
statements like, ―we need to bring men back
to God and His Word.‖
The Bible And Neo-Orthodoxy
The teaching of Karl Barth concerning the
Scripture sounds very conservative, but it is
actually quite liberal. Barth declared that the
Bible is indeed the Word of God but only
when, by a special act of God, the Bible
reaches out to us and becomes a revelation.
He said, ―We have seen that, as so much
printed matter, the Bible is not identical with
God‘s Word. But at any moment God can
make it identical.‖2 According to Barth, the
Bible becomes God‘s Word when man turns
to the Scripture in a time of great need and
God chooses to speak to him. For that
instant the Scripture becomes the Word of
God to that individual. This may sound very
inspirational. But the question arises, ―How
does man know when God is doing this
12
‗from time to time‘ revelation?‖ One way,
according to Neo-Orthodoxy, is to leave
behind the historic positions of the Christian
faith. The way to escape from a doctrinaire
and static view of the Word of God is at
each point to recollect that the Word of God
is Jesus Christ...God is the Lord of the
Word. He is not bound to it, but it is bound
to Him. He thus has free disposal of the
verbal character of the Holy Scripture, He
can use it or not, He can use it in one way or
another.
The teachings of Karl Barth, and the Neo-
Orthodox theologians in general, are very
hard to understand. But since Karl Barth is
often presented as truly Christian, it is good
for us to be familiar with at least four major
points involved in Neo-Orthodox thought.
1. The Bible is SOMETIMES the Word
of God
The Neo-Orthodox theologians speak of the
inspired Word of God, but they do not view
inspiration in the historic Christian manner.
To the Neo-Orthodox, the Bible becomes
God‘s Word only when man in his need
reads it and God suddenly speaks to him
through
some portion of it. BUT THE BIBLE
SAYS:
• All Scripture is inspired by God and is
profitable for man, 2 Tim 3:16,17
2. Man’s Reason is Supreme
Although he and
his followers
would vehemently
deny it, Barth, for
all his theological
jargon, still clings
to Kant‘s idea that
man‘s reason is
supreme. Barth‘s
crisis revelation
makes human
reason supreme
because man
through his own
feelings or rationale, is now
going to have to decide, not only when God
is speaking, but also what God means when
He 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 very
kind to Karl Barth‘s theological thoughts
and many claims are heard that he was
misinterpreted. This allows the evangelical
to seem intellectual without appearing to
move from his own position. Only by a
failure to enter sympathetically into Barth‘s
convoluted thought can we take these words
to mean what they say on the surface. This is
a common type of comment in use
concerning Barth today. The thoughts of
Karl Barth, then, are not easy. To the
contrary, they are complicated because he
constantly changed them. He said, ―To live
is to change, and to be perfect is to have
lived often...‖ And Barth has changed his
details often enough to leave most of us in
doubt as to what he really meant, as well as
what he really said.
Karl Barth and his Neo-Orthodox followers
seemed to feel that, because life was
complicated, Christianity could not be
simple and at the same time meet man‘s
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 truths
we cannot grasp in any other way, Heb 11:1.
4. Neo-Orthodoxy presents Biblical terms
as meaningless symbols
The Neo-Orthodox view sets the modern
trend of dressing up liberal thought in
orthodox language. The idea that God has
―free disposal of the verbal character of the
Holy Scripture‖ really means that until God
13
chooses to speak, the
written Word has no real
spiritual meaning.
Therefore, one cannot
equate the words of the
Bible with the Word of
God in a true sense. In
order to retain the language
of orthodoxy, the Neo-
Orthodox theologian re-
interprets Bible terms,
attaching non-biblical
meaning to them.
The Neo-Orthodox theologian can speak of
the resurrection when he believes Christ is
still in the grave because he sees this not as
an event but as symbolism. Barth says, the
resurrection is the non-historical relating of the
whole historical life of Jesus to its origin in
God...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 accept
these things as facts. And so it goes with
every basic truth of the Christian faith. None
is to be taken in the literal sense, but all are
symbolic to the reality of sin and pride in
human life. So we are faced with the
constant need to remember that
it is not what the liberal
theologian says, but what he
means that is important. These
men sound like believing
Christians, when in reality they
deny almost every fundamental
of the Christian Faith.
Conclusion
With the teaching of Karl Barth,
the modern trends in theology
burst into full bloom. We see these systems
wandering 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 universe,
being pronounced dead. We find the Bible
being pronounced spiritually true, but
historically and factually false. In effect, we
find that the new theologies, like the old,
have left man without hope because they
cannot accept in simple faith the Gospel
which gives men hope in Christ (Eph 2:11-
13).
Rev Daniel J. Ebert III has been serving the
Lord as American Missionary to the
Philippines.
Get a copy of ―Will Our Sons
Defend the Faith?” by Rev Daniel
J. Ebert III at the FEBC
Bookroom in FEBC, 9A Gilstead
Road.
14
 Bible Baffle !!
Who are these men of the Bible??

1. They were cast into the burning fury furnace

by Nebuchadnezzar.
2. He was also known as Jerubbaal and was of
the family of Abiezer? (in the book of Joshua)
3. These 2 men are above 20 years old and didn’t
perish in the wilderness. They entered the
Promised 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 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 was

It is with deep retrospection that I am
writing of how God saved me from my
miserable state. My heart has not failed yet
to be deeply indebted and grateful to Him
totally convicted of my sins and called
upon Him as my Father, God had already
begun working in my life before I was
conceived in my mother‘s womb. It was
surely the hand of providence that put me

15
in a family where He will bestow His
favour on. My eldest sister was the first
Christian and with a godly love for our
family, she began to share the gospel with
all of us. As her little 5-year-old sister, I
listened to her with
great interest and let
her bring me to
church. I thank God
that at that age, He
impressed upon me
that He is the Creator
of the world I am in
and that there is no Testimonies
other gods besides of Eileen
Him. However, such
knowledge never
brought about an
evangelical faith in
me. Slowly, I dropped
out of church, being
drawn away by the
many television
programmes on
Sunday.
But God never dropped me. As I looked
back, I am just so amazed that He was ever
with me. There were various small
incidents and events which constantly
reminded me of my dire need to have a
purpose and meaning in my life. I recalled
myself reading a special Readers‘ Digest
encyclopaedia in primary school that the
earth will eventually vanish because the
Sun will one day be depleted of its energy.
I was immensely gripped with fear and
horror because that meant that all human
lives would go, as if there never was any
of us, or any of me. Yet I refused to
believe that individuals who have each
their own special identity and personality
could simply materialise into thin air.
There must be more to life, I thought but
as I was still quite young, I quickly forgot
about it.
Then, a couple of years later, a pair of
Jehovah‘s Witnesses turned up at my place
for they were doing door-to-door
evangelism. I allowed them to share with
me what I thought was the same as I used
to hear. They
began to follow
up on me every
week but soon I
was weary of
them that I never
opened the door
for them anymore.
As trivial as it
may sound, this
Chee! incident reminded
me of God,
somehow. Still,
there was no
earnest seeking on
my part. To me, it
was just enough to
know that God
exists and there
was a Jesus who died for man. However, I
never internalised the full significance of
such a deed and left it as it was.
Come the secondary school days and I was
propelled into many activities that I
thought could help me find out who I was.
For a while, it worked. Then I got really
tired and began to ask myself many
questions. So what if I was a student
leader? So what if I had many friends?
This time round, the reflection was more
serious. I confided in a good friend who
also wanted to know more about God.
Together, we approached my Geography
teacher and she gave us bible study on the
Beatitudes. Since I needed to know more
about God, I requested to attend church
with my sister. All these were meaningful
to me but it seemed to be limited and still
could not be compared with the
16
satisfaction I derived from being active in
school.
One night, I felt like reading the Bible. I
came to the part when Jesus Christ
suffered on the way to the cross and on the
cross. Suddenly, I could not hold my tears.
My heart ached and broke. No I was not
feeling sorry for Jesus Christ, I was
completely overwhelmed. It dawned on
me why He had to be born as man and
why He had to die. Most of all, why did
He have to die… for me? I had no idea
when I stopped crying but I knew from
then on, I have a Saviour who gave
Himself for me and I knew I was nobody
but an absolutely sinful creature who
caused His grief and pain. I also knew then
that right from the start, He has never let
go of me. It was all of His unbounded
grace, and with the same words will I sing
with 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.”
Calling
As with deep retrospection I shared about
my salvation, it is also with a heavy and
fearful heart that I am writing this. Heavy
because there are struggles to face; fearful
because I feel so small.
God is just so good. He saved me. What
more can I ask for? And because He loved
me so bountifully, I want to love Him back
with all my heart and with all my life.
When I do sin against Him and love Him
so weakly, I hate myself very much for
being like that. How can I ever ever prove
to God that I really do love Him and wish
that my heart can be more perfect, more
upright and purer? Ever since I was saved,
it has been my longing and desire to serve
Him whenever I can. Yet I fail so many
times it is really by His mercy that I am
not consumed and I just had to not give up
on myself. I also took special interest in
biographies of missionaries and God‘s
servants. Perhaps I just enjoy dreaming but
many of my favourite imaginations were
of me doing the same things as I had read
in their lives and ministries. Thus, I had
always wanted to visit a real missionary
and see the work myself.
End of year 2005, I took a trip to North
Thailand to visit a missionary couple.
Ironically, it was not the work that touched
me but the sharings and testimony of a
dear sister over there that got me to think
very deeply about things, in particularly
my life and God. Her testimony struck the
same chord in me as the people whom I
had loved to read in books. It was a chord
borne out of a love for God and an intense
craving to be His servant. Simply because
God is good.
When I came back to Singapore, I began
to be quite troubled and as usual,
questioned the path I was on. What was
God‘s will for me? Did it have anything to
do with taking care of the financial and
physical demands of people in need?
Where can I serve God better? Inevitably,
my mind drifted to studying in FEBC but I
did not dare to take it as a consideration
because of the problems I know will
surface. I sought hard, prayed hard that
God will show me His way. Yet deep in
17
my heart, I really want to serve God, not
man. But whose desire it is, God‘s or
mine?
This was the greater struggle. Throughout
the year of searching, it was about
knowing God‘s will. It was never about an
unwillingness to go anywhere He would
call me. I was very afraid of myself, that it
was only an impulse and that it may just
be a ‗3-minute warmth‘. I was also afraid
that I would fall out should I really study
full-time because I have heard of students
who went in and gave it up all together.
Therefore, it was really important to me
that I must know God‘s will, for when my
strength and my heart faileth, it is He who
will sustain me and restore me again to
stand in His plan.
All these intensified as time went by.
Slowly, I knew that social work was not
the place for me, having done my
attachment and gone through much
vexation of the spirit during the course of
learning man-centered, God-censored
theories. As exciting as the prospect was to
meet people from all walks of life with so
many kinds of problems, I was already
very disillusioned with the extent of aid
that can be rendered to people who just
needed God, and not money or boost of
ego. On top of that, the caseload that a
social worker can have can just drown
him/her and me. At the end of the day, will
I have the very precious time and energy
to serve God and to study His word? As
such, I no longer see myself going into this
vocation in my heart.
This time of seeking had caused me to
love God‘s word very much. Each Quiet
Time was replete with nourishment for my
soul. It was a joy to be able to meditate on
His word and let the Spirit lead me in my
devotion. There is just so much to dig!! Of
course, I was not successful always, as I
had to deal with an active wandering mind.
Paul told Timothy to ‗meditate upon these
things; give thyself wholly to them…‘
This same injunction is also for all
believers to give themselves wholly to the
study of God‘s word. This is something
which I cannot ignore.
By November, I was already so convinced
that 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 am
either being stubborn or dramatic. Besides,
it was already November and how come
things were not clear yet? I guessed that
perhaps I might have been too general in
my asking. So I prayed that by 31st
December 2359hours, God would answer
me.
The date drew near. I prayed still but I also
got more anxious and worried. What if…
what if there is no answer? What if the
answer is a no? What am I going to do? It
is already no more an option for me to set
foot into social work. I really have no
peace. I cried. I really want to give my life
to Him but why isn‘t God saying
anything??
Someone wrote to me simply as way of
encouragement on 23rd Dec, ―If Jesus is
calling, trust and obey, for there‘s no other
way‖. It struck me quite hard. I just had to
trust and obey because there really was no
other way. Yet I was not satisfied. I
continued to search. 30th Dec morning, I
read from 1 Kings 19 in which Elijah was
so desperate and depressed. God sent a
wind, an earthquake and even a great fire
but in all these God was not in there.
Lastly, God spoke to Elijah ‗in a still small
voice‘ (v11-12). Another strike but this
time right through me. That is because all
this while, I expected something big to
18
shake me up, but I had limited God to my
own thinking. I was beginning to cave in.
Then 31st Dec came. The chorus in a ―A
Passion for Thee‖ stunned me. That‘s the
greatest service I can give to God and what
way to love God but with my life He has
redeemed? Yet, were the whole realm of
nature mine it would still be a tribute far
too small. Such love demands my soul my
life and all. Then, Dr Tow reminded us of
the Lord‘s coming. He said that if we were
to look to the Lord‘s coming day by day,
we would not be living the way we had
lived our lives. It must be with sobriety,
pure for the Lord‘s use.
Abraham loved Him but Abraham needed
to know how much he loved God by
choosing between Isaac and obeying God.
Not that I loved God as much as Abraham
but I needed to know what was in my
heart. And so I did.
This whole time was in no way spectacular
but in a still, small voice. I know I have
many obstacles ahead but I just have to
trust that when God calls, He provides. I
may have to lead a harder life but what
things were gain to me, those I counted
loss for Christ but for Him, to win Him
and to know Him.

In a sense, I have gotten all my answers. Eileen Chee (aka 107)

But I was faithless. I was only 80% FCM NUS Coordinator
decided but that was not what God wanted. Truth BP Church
He wanted 100%. 1st Jan, He brought me
to Deut 8:2 where it revealed the purpose Eileen Chee is currently a student of
of Israel‘s wandering in the wilderness, FEBC.
and alludes to my wandering in the
wilderness. It was to humble me, to prove
me and to know
what was in my
heart, that I may
obey or not. I Bible
Baffle Answers
gave in. God
knew how much
11. Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego
12. Gideon
13. Caleb & Joshua
14. Noah
15. Joseph
16. Stephen
17. Abraham
18. Paul
19. David
20. Nathan

19
 Contact Information & Bible Study Groups
Overall FCM Coordinator Eld Boaz Boon (Calvary Tengah BPC)
 9824 7681  boazboon@mytengah.com
Assistant Advisor Dn Peter Phoa (Calvary Tengah BPC)
 9758 1469  peterphoa@mytengah.com
Overall Student Coordinator Low Boon Siang (Gethsemane BPC)
 9183 1750  lbs83@yahoo.com

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)
 kolingkang@gmail.com
Student Coordinator : Eileen Chee
 9438 6620  bigbigspace@gmail.com
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)
 emwee@singnet.com.sg
Student Coordinator : Low Boon Siang
 9183 1750  lbs83@yahoo.com
Meeting Place : NTU, Hall of Residence 13, Blk 63, #03-1255, 32 Nanyang Crescent, S637658 (Eld Sim’s Home)
Meeting Time : Every Wednesday. Dinner at 5.30pm in Canteen 13 and Bible Study at 6.30pm

FCM SMU/UniSIM
Comprising students in all the faculties of the Singapore Management University & SIM University
Bible Study Leader : Eld Boaz Boon (Elder, Calvary Tengah BPC)
 boazboon@mytengah.com
Student Coordinator : Jonathan Ng
 9190 0473  jonathanng.2006@business.smu.edu.sg
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)

 sa_jurong@hotmail.com / jamestty@gmail.com
Student Coordinator : Luke Tan
 9487 4322  unknown_ko@hotmail.com
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

20