MARK
THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS
Paul Ferguson
I refer to the paper "Mark Them Which Cause Divisions" written by
the Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church,
Singapore, published in January 2008.1
It is with great sadness that we are witnessing the splintering
of Singapore Fundamentalism and the unedifying spectacle of brethren
resorting to naming godly men, like Dr Timothy Tow, Dr Tow Siang Hwa,
and Dr Tow Siang Yeow who have stood for the Faith for more than
half a century as "heretics." It is deeply grieving to many
believers around the world that the Board of Elders of Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church (hereafter referred to as "Life BPC")
should resort to such public statements in a legitimate disagreement
over which brethren have a right to follow their own conscience
concerning.
The word "heresy" is, as Life BPC state, derived from the Greek
verb haireomai which means to "choose." They go on to define
it as "a chosen course of thought or action which is held
dogmatically but varies from the true exposition of the Christian
faith as prescribed by the Word of God." I shall examine the
dogmatic implication of this in respect of the Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP) position of FEBC in a moment, but it is first
worth also considering other biblical principles that balance the
use of such expressions in a public context.
It is clear that the mark of a godly spiritual church and
leadership is that they are always innately cautious in using such
loaded and volatile terms about fellow brethren and publish them on
a website for the pagan world to gloat over. Life BPC would be
advised to heed the consequences of the example of even a godly
leader like Moses who, "spake unadvisedly with his lips" (Ps
106:33). The Apostle Peter also dares to say that Christians, like
Life BPC, should speak as the "oracles of God" (1 Pet 4:11), when
defending the faith before the public. Our Lord Jesus warned, "Every
idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in
the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and
by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt 12:36, 37).
The expression "heretic" is commonly associated in most
believers’ minds as meaning what Harold O J Brown in his book
Heresies states as "someone whose teachings or beliefs extends
beyond legitimate doctrinal difference to undercut the very basis
for Christian existence."2 It is not good
enough for Life BPC to hide behind Greek definitions to justify
using a "loaded term" that creates the impression in the minds of
their members that their founding pastor has started a new cult,
like the Mormons, or has denied the doctrine of the Trinity. For
Life BPC to irresponsibly label their founding pastor a heretic and
a promulgator of "heresy" surely cannot be an acceptable, balanced,
or a legitimate response. Their manifest inconsistency in this area
can be clearly seen in that they stated on 8 November 2005,
However, for the sake of brotherly love and harmony, we do
not want to discriminate against any persons who, on grounds of
their own personal conviction, would choose to believe that the
texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the
original autographs. We believe "there are truths and forms with
respect to which men of good character and principles may
differ. And in all these, we think it the duty both of private
Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward
each other." (Article 5.5, Constitution of the Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church).
If Life BPC truly believes that the VPP view is a "heresy," one
must ask why would they exercise forbearance for over two years to
their members to believe in a "heretical doctrine" and claim to be
content that their pastor, Dr Timothy Tow, would continue to
shepherd them when he believes and espouses "heresy." The question
must also now be asked: Does Life BPC permit any other heresies to
be practised by their members and pastors? According to Titus 3:10,
which they offer as a proof text for their statement to prove their
claims they are to "reject" such a person as he "is subverted and
sinneth" (v11) yet incredibly they are happy to have "open heretical
sinners" in their leadership and membership!
John Owen comments on this passage that a heretic is one "that
there is no hopes of a restoration or recovery; he is in a desperate
condition, having opposed the person, or office, or sacrifice of
Christ; having either trodden the Son of God underfoot, or counted
his blood common, or done despite unto the spirit of grace; in
either of which cases there is no more sacrifice for sin." Is this
how Life BPC now describe the Board of FEBC including their founding
pastor? With a huge degree of irony, Life BPC state on their website
that those who, "forcibly impose the new view on others (e.g. by
name-calling or intimating that they lack saving faith) brings no
glory to God, and will only discredit the Church of God."3
Life BPC’s wholly inconsistent and unbiblical position only
delineates their muddled up thinking on this issue. In addition, a
clear exegetical understanding of Titus 3:10 delineates that this is
a passage dealing with the discipline of an adherent of a local
church by the members of that local church. As Life BPC admit
in their statement4 of 25 January 2008: "The
Board of Directors of the College now consists of members who are no
longer in the Church," what Scriptural mandate do they have for
labelling the views of FEBC as "heresy" based on Titus 3:10?
Life BPC seek to justify their outlandish claim by defending it
on three grounds that the VPP position of FEBC is "new," "divisive"
and "infectious." It is true that Spurgeon, rightly said, "There is
nothing new in theology save that which is false." However, the
fallacy of Life BPC’s position can be seen if we reverse the
question on them and ask can they show a doctrinal formulated
statement before the twentieth century that states that God had not
and would not perfectly preserve all of His Words for His people in
any Greek manuscript or printed text? It is clear that Spurgeon was
not referring to doctrines such as VPP that have a legitimate
Biblical interpretative base but false doctrines that have no
possible Scriptural foundation. We can be confident that even
Spurgeon would acknowledge that many of the doctrinal statements he
placed in his Church Constitution were only formulated in "written
form" during the second millennium after Christ, such as
"independent church governance" and "immersion only baptism."
Naturally, he would argue that these were not heresies, but
doctrines that had been practised by the church and believed
throughout the centuries and based upon his understanding of the
Word of God. Notwithstanding, the fact remains that such a doctrinal
formulation was not seen until post-Reformation times.
In a similar vein, we can also be confident that Life BPC would
not claim that the Body of Christ is so narrow that it only
encompasses believers from the Reformed Premillennial Presbyterian
background that they base their Church Constitution either. Does
that make them "schismatic" and "heretical," according to their
definition? We challenge Life BPC to show a Church Constitution that
is exclusively based on their distinctives that has existed from the
time of the Apostles until the nineteenth century. We could cite
many other examples of "new," but not heretical doctrinal
formulations, by, for example, simply asking Life BPC to show us a
Church Creed that expressly deals with the doctrine of inerrancy
before the 1800s. Indeed, the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS)
expressly state that they have had to tighten up their doctrinal
formulations as recently as 2005 because,
These paragraphs refer to the copies of the Holy Scriptures
to be circulated by the Society and the beliefs of the Society’s
members. However, they do not explicitly state the Doctrine of
Holy Scripture. This was probably because in 1831, when the
Constitution was drawn up, the humble, God-fearing supporters of
the Society generally understood the historic Protestant
doctrine of Holy Scripture and there was no need to express more
than that which is contained in the wording of the Constitution.
The history of the decline of orthodox Christianity over the
last two centuries is only a reflection of the decline in
spirituality of the Lord’s people.5
The consistency of Life BPC is shown to be hollow and merely
empty rhetoric when we look at their current stands on this issue.
For instance, Life BPC’s Church Constitutional position on
Preservation is clearly different from that of BJU whose faculty
openly state "that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts
is, as a whole, superior to the text based upon manuscripts of the
Middle Ages."6 Certainly, BJU’s view is
"infectious" as seen by their proselyting attempts in their Greek
classes and at the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1999 with
their book, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,
which Dr Bob Jones III stated from the platform was the, "most
significant book for fundamentalism in this century." The Rev Tan
Eng Boo of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church who, ironically, has
signed a statement, "A Statement on the Theory of Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP)," on the Life BPC website, has publicly stated,
"Many newer manuscripts have been discovered since the days of
Erasmus who used the Greek text which underlines the KJV… There are
many good Bible versions today, like the New King James Version
(NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version
(ESV) etc."7
So, let me clarify the problem for Life BPC. They currently
fellowship and allow speakers who believe the following to use their
sanctuary:
(1) Dr Bob Jones III whose university officially teaches,
"Therefore, along with the great majority of conservative
scholars, that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts
is, as a whole, superior to the text based upon manuscripts of
the Middle Ages." One of their staff members, Dr Samuel
Schnaiter, in his 1980 PhD dissertation has even stated, "With
regard to preservation, however, no Scripture explicitly
declares anything of this sort of guidance to apply to the
manuscript copyists as far as the precise wording of the text is
concerned. Some have deduced such supernatural guidance from
Scripture. They note passages that promise God’s Word shall
never perish or be lost. However, such promises of preservation
in view of the wording variations must apply only to the message
of God’s Word, not its precise wording."8
(2) The writers of One Bible Only? from Central
Baptist Theological Seminary who state "the doctrine of
preservation was not a doctrine of the ancient church," and "we
might have lost a few words through negligence," and "not only
is Scripture without a verse to explain how God will preserve
His Word, but no statement in Scripture teaches that God did
preserve perfectly the original text of Scripture."9
(3) The Rev Tan Eng Boo of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church
who argues, "Many newer manuscripts have been discovered since
the days of Erasmus who used the Greek text which underlines the
KJV.… There are many good Bible versions today, like the New
King James Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB),
English Standard Version (ESV) etc."
(4) The Rev Colin Wong stated in his message, "Did God Write
Only One Bible?" at Life BPC sanctuary on 28 October 2007,
"Since the translation of the KJV or the Authorized Version of
1611 there has been more concrete manuscripts evidence that is
available today, which is far superior to that which was
available to the King James Version translators in 1611."
However, Life BPC officially state that, "we believe that God has
fully preserved His Word in the body of manuscripts (or texts or
copies) after the original autographs were lost" and "We uphold the
use of the KJV Bible, which is the best English translation of the
Scriptures made by godly translators from the best Greek and
Hebrew texts, which are the closest to the original texts."10
This position, for instance, is clearly different
from the positions of BJU, Central Baptist, Revs Tan and Wong who
believe that there are "better" extant Greek texts than these "best"
Greek texts underlying the KJV. It seems that the Board of Elders of
Life BPC are in total confusion as to any discernible and objective
position on this issue. They want to live and preach as if they have
a perfect Bible, but they refuse to admit it. Life BPC state that
the words of God have indeed been perfectly preserved, yet they
impliedly teach that no one can find them all at one time, and place
them in one Book! It therefore follows, according to this view, that
God’s words are not preserved in any real sense. They are not
preserved enough to read in one Book. Life BPC does not believe a
person can read, from Genesis to Revelation, every perfect word of
God that was found in the originals today. How then can they call
this "preservation?" Nevertheless, let them prove their view of
preservation. How will they do it? Will they use a Bible that they
claim is no longer 100% perfect?
It is clear to any reader who has a modicum of discernment that
the above distinct positions cannot be reconciled no matter what
"spin" is placed upon it. Each discerning member of the BPC Movement
surely has a right now to ask Life BPC – which one of the above
views are, "the true exposition of the Christian faith as prescribed
by the Word of God?" Could Life BPC give us all a framework for
judging whether all of these views are congruent with and Biblically
prescribed by the Word of God? They clearly believe that they have
discerned this in their condemnation of VPP, so it should be an easy
task for them to share with us. Again, from their previous
definition of "heresy," we can only assume that the others must
surely be a "new" invention, "divisive" and, at least, potentially
"infectious."
Dr Bob Jones III clearly has no problems apparently in being
"divisive" and pouring scorn on Life BPC’s official view of
preservation as "schismatic" and "confusing" as he said on the back
cover of God’s Word in Our Hands, "Like a clean-edged sword,
God’s Word in Our Hands cuts through the current confused and
schismatic clatter on the subject of biblical preservation."11
The members of Life BPC surely have a right to especially demand
that their Board of Elders issue a public rebuke against these
persons and ban them from the sanctuary of the church forthwith as
"heretics." If they refuse to do so, then we can only conclude that
they are not acting on principle after all, but are in reality
engaged in a semantic exercise deliberately targeting FEBC.
A simple test to establish the integrity of the position that
Life BPC has adopted would be for them to issue an agreed statement
cataloguing the mistakes in the underlying text of the KJV (that
they are so confident is there!). This must include testable,
objective, and tangible evidence that makes it clear to all
objective readers that (1) these mistakes are there and (2) they
have a Scriptural framework for doing this. If Life BPC will not or
cannot provide the evidence, then every congregational member has a
right to surely question the validity of their statements and
conclude they are being economical with the facts. The Rev Charles
Seet publicly stated in Life BPC sanctuary in a sermon12
on 28 October 2007 that, "the correct reading can be easily
determined by comparing scripture with scripture" so I assume this
should be a relatively easy task. Indeed, Life BPC would be doing
the church at large the greatest possible service by releasing Rev
Seet on a Sabbatical to produce this perfect text for us all – it
would be the talk of the Millennium!
Life BPC wholly misrepresents the VPP position as a "new" concept
when they say,
The new view became prominent only in the last 30 years in
America and is held only by a small number of writers and
institutions, e.g. Dr Donald A Waite. It is NOT held by the
majority of fundamental, Bible-believing institutions, churches
and writers (e.g. Trinitarian Bible Society, and G I Williamson,
author of The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study
Classes). The first to propound this view was a Seventh-day
Adventist, Benjamin G Wilkinson (1872 – 1968) with his book
Our Authorised Bible Vindicated (1930). Wilkinson was also
the first person to misapply Psalm 12:6-7 as though it were a
promise of the preservation of the KJV. Notably, others
such as James Jay Ray, David Otis Fuller and Peter S Ruckman
have continued to use Wilkinson’s interpretation of this
passage.13
This statement shows the poor scholarship and research of Life
BPC who are clearly plagiarising the views of anti-KJV and
anti-Preservation writers. A number of glaring inaccuracies are
evident in this statement.
(1) It is not true that VPP is a "new" concept. William
Aberhart (1878-1943), for instance, was a pastor, Bible school dean,
radio Bible teacher, the principal of one of the most prestigious
high schools in Canada, and a greatly beloved political leader—the
Premier of Alberta from 1935-43—and he wrote in 1925,
I can still believe the Lord Jesus Christ, when he said: ‘For
verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled’ (Matt. 5:18). ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
my words shall not pass away’ (Matt. 24:35). If these words mean
anything, they inform us that the Lord Jesus intended to see to
it that the Bible, His Word, would be preserved for us in a
perfect, infallible state.14
I hope Life BPC will immediately retract this manifest error.
(2) Life BPC claim that "Wilkinson was also the first person to
misapply Psalm 12:6-7 as though it were a promise of the
preservation of the KJV" and misrepresent the weight of evidence
upon which this was based, "The vast majority of Bible commentaries
do not interpret this as a passage on preservation of God’s Word."15
However, many noted Christian writers believe it is referring to the
"Words of God" such as John Wesley in his notes which were first
published on June 5, 1765 says,
V. 6. Pure—Without the least mixture of falsehood; and
therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.
V.7. Thou shalt keep them—Thy words or promises: these thou
wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this
generation for ever.16
John Calvin implied that "some" in his day believed it when he
said "Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them,
namely, thy words; ....." Matthew Poole accepts it as a valid
interpretation as he says it includes "Thy words or promises last
mentioned." Others, including Henry Martyn, G Campbell Morgan, and
Kidner also take the same view.17
(3) Life BPC18 and others19
have been arguing, in a most misleading manner, that the Trinitarian
Bible Society (TBS) position is in contradistinction/opposed to the
position of VPP of FEBC. Notwithstanding, that the TBS has issued no
public statement to this effect, let us compare the TBS official
position with both Life BPC and FEBC. All of the following
quotations have been drawn from "The Statement of Doctrine of Holy
Scripture"20 issued by "all the Members of the
General Committee, the Vice-Presidents and the General Secretary" in
2005. The TBS state very clearly that:
In conformity to God’s purpose, promise, and command,
faithful and accurate copies were made (Deuteronomy 17:18;
Proverbs 25:1) and, through God’s special providential care, His
Word has been preserved in all generations (Psalm
119:152; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:17; 1 Peter 1:25).21
The TBS also state in the Preface that they hold to,
The Reformation Confessions such as the Westminster (1647),
the Savoy (1658), and the London Baptist (1689), state regarding
Scripture that, ‘The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the
native language of the people of God of old,) and the New
Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it, was
most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired
by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure
in all ages, are therefore authentical… (WCF 1:8).
So we can conclude from these statements that the TBS believe all
the Words of God have been providentially preserved "pure" and "in
all ages." Also, the preserving of these Words has been done by God
and not man so we cannot believe that this would be done carelessly
or by accident. We cannot play semantics and say that "pure" only
means really 99.9% as it can only rationally mean 100% and perfect
as the WCF state that it was done by God, who cannot err as any
impurity as "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." The question
now is: where does the TBS state the "pure Words of God are?" They
say,
The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles received the preserved
and standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament as Scripture
(Luke 4:16-19, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16). This serves as our
pattern for accepting the historically received text of the New
Testament also as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 cf. Luke
10:7; 2 Peter 3:15-16)… These texts of Scripture reflect the
qualities of God-breathed Scripture, including being authentic,
holy, pure, true, infallible, trustworthy, excellent,
self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous,
self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9,
Psalm 119). They are consequently to be received as the Word of
God (Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the
correct reading at any point is to be sought within
these texts.22
So, these "texts" are to be received the same way Christ and the
apostles received them i.e. as the perfectly preserved and inspired
Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), as they are "pure, true, infallible,
trustworthy, excellent, self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient,
perspicuous, self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant."
Therefore, we can safely conclude that the TBS believe that these
"texts" can be said to be the perfect 100% inspired Words of God.
Now, which "texts" are they referring to? The TBS state,
The Trinitarian Bible Society maintains that the
providentially preserved true and authentic text is to be found
in the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts. In so
doing, it follows the historic, orthodox Protestant position of
acknowledging as Holy Scripture the Hebrew and Greek texts
consistently accessible to and preserved among the people of God
in all ages. These texts had remained in common use in
different parts of the world for more than fifteen centuries and
they faithfully represent the texts used in New Testament
times.23
So, the TBS state very clearly that the "true and authentic text"
is "found in the Masoretic and Received Texts," but only those from
the Received text family. It adds a further limb of proof here which
is important as it must only be in those texts that are
"consistently accessible to and preserved among the people of God in
all ages." This would appear to expressly rule out any such concept
of a "Majority Text" position that "preservation is throughout the
ages in all the extant manuscripts, versions and the citations by
the Church fathers." However, how does the TBS define as the,
"Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts?"
The Society accepts as the best edition of the Hebrew
Masoretic text the one prepared in 1524-25 by Jacob ben Chayyim
and known, after David Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg
text. The Greek Received Text is the name given to a group of
printed texts, the first of which was published by Desiderius
Erasmus in 1516. The Society uses for the purposes of
translation the text reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in
1894.24
It should be noted carefully that the "Greek Received Text" is
defined by the TBS as "the name given to a group of printed texts,
the first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516."
This clearly does not include any other so-called "Majority Text"
from any other Byzantine Family manuscripts that are extant today
that differ from any of the "printed texts." We can only logically
conclude that the TBS only accept these "printed texts" as having
the "true and authentic text" of the "pure" Providentially Preserved
Word of God.
Life BPC have tried to argue that the TBS statement does not mean
this and that the TBS allow latitude of interpretation in that they
believe all of the "Words of God" are preserved somewhere in the
extant manuscripts within the "Byzantine Text" family. However, the
TBS clearly state they only view the "printed texts" not the extant
manuscripts as the "Greek Received Text," which they also state is
"definitive and the final point of reference in all the Society’s
work." However, in a final and surely decisive blow to the Life BPC
position, the TBS also, in their definition of the "Majority Text,"
expressly and definitively rule out any such view as Biblically
valid,
Majority Text: A text based on the majority of manuscript
witnesses. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority
Text, edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (1982),
is a modern example of the Majority Text. Although close to the
Received Text, there are a number of differences and some of
these are significant (e.g. John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:36,37).
Furthermore, as no detailed collation of all surviving
manuscripts has taken place, the exact majority text cannot yet
be determined; and even if one day that became possible, the
resultant text could only be provisional and tentative, because
the discovery of further manuscripts might change minority
readings to majority readings, or vice versa. The doctrine of
providential preservation, however, teaches that the Church
is—and always has been—in possession of the true text of
Scripture.25
In other words, the TBS have adopted a faith-based test
for determining the exact words of Holy Scripture which is "the
doctrine of providential preservation, however, teaches that the
Church is—and always has been—in possession of the true text
of Scripture." What the TBS are stating here is that there is no
further examination needed of extant texts within any of the textual
families as we already have the exact words of the autographs in the
"printed texts" of the "Greek Received Text." In simple terms, it is
crystal clear to anyone who reads with an open mind, that the TBS
believe in VPP in the various editions of the printed Greek Texts of
the Textus Receptus! This is very different from the Life BPC
position that only holds to a nebulous and undefined view that "God
has fully preserved His Word in the body of manuscripts (or texts or
copies) after the original autographs were lost."26
By contrast, FEBC state that:
The infallible and inerrant words of Scripture are found in
the faithfully preserved Traditional/Majority manuscripts
and fully represented in the Printed and Received Text...that
underlies the Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV.27
The TBS position, from the deductive and logical analysis above
can only differ from FEBC in one marginal aspect; that they would
change this statement to "fully represented in the Printed and
Received Texts," as they state "the scope of the Society’s
Constitution does not extend to considering the minor variations
between the printed editions of the Textus Receptus." It
would also seem logical that the TBS would probably lean more to the
view of FEBC as no doubt it makes more sense to assume that the KJV
translators made the right choices with the greater evidence before
them in determining the true text when comparing what the TBS say
are "variations" that are "not of great significance and rarely
affect the sense"28 in the various printed
editions of the Received Text.29
Despite Life BPC accusations that FEBC is "divisive" on this
issue, the reality is that FEBC readily embraces the TBS position as
a legitimate interpretation and state,
FEBC concedes that others can differ with them "over the
absolute certainty as regards the underlying texts or words" but
as long as other VPP and KJV defenders "...maintain VPP in the
lineage of Byzantine/Majority manuscripts and the Textus
Receptus..." and deny the Westcott-Hort Text and also deny the
existence of scribal errors, "...slight differences of opinion
over the verbally preserved texts/words among KJV defenders
should remain as non issues...."30
(4) Life BPC claim that the conviction of VPP, "is not held by
the majority of fundamental, Bible-believing institutions, churches
and writers." Notwithstanding, that their distinctives of Reformed
Premillennial Presbyterianism is in a relative minority in these
categories and they do not consider that a problem, a quick survey
around the "Fundamentalist world" will show how worthless such an
observation is. For instance, in the USA, it is reckoned that the
number of independent Baptist churches is roughly 10,000 and most of
these are pro-KJV and VPP. We will list just a few examples:
(i) Crown College of the Bible and Temple Baptist Church is an
Independent Fundamental Baptist Bible College and Seminary in
Powell, Tennessee with more than 1,000 students. The founder and
President, Dr Clarence Sexton has spoken at many Free Presbyterian
Churches in Northern Ireland and is a close friend of Dr Ian Paisley
and have exchanged pulpits many times.31 The
Reformers’ portraits line the halls of Temple Baptist Church. In
2007, Dr Sexton gave the opening address to the Fundamental Baptist
Fellowship International (FBFI) Annual Fellowship.32
His Church, Bible College and Seminary use the KJV exclusively and
clearly state in their "Statement of Faith" on the Scriptures that,
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to be the Bible, "as it is in truth, the Word of God..." (I
Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration
in the original writings, and God’s preservation of His pure
words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). The
Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the
New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original
languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible
is the only English version we accept and use.33
(ii) Pensacola Christian College has 4,500 undergraduate students
and has recently appointed Dr Lloyd Streeter as co-pastor of the
Campus Church34 who has published a book fully
endorsing VPP in which he says,
We have no original language manuscripts for the book of Job
except those copied in A.D. 900 by Massorite scribes. That is a
gap of approximately 3000 years. Actually, we do not even know
the language in which Job was originally written. Think of it,
dear reader – 3,000 years with no manuscripts? How would you
know that Job is God’s Word if you had to depend on ‘early
manuscripts’? There is ONE way to know and that is by faith. God
said He would preserve His Word and He kept His promise. … So it
means absolutely nothing that there is a "scarcity" of Greek
manuscript evidence in the first several centuries of church
history. Our confidence is in the God of the Bible Who said that
He would not allow His words to fall by the wayside never to be
known to man again. Early copies were worn out and destroyed
(especially the best ones!) but the Word of God is
indestructible and unalterable. God always saw to it that the
best copies were copied. The Holy Spirit taught God’s people to
know and keep the words of God. … Furthermore, ...
trustworthiness of the King James Bible should be looked upon as
a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through
1769. God used such men as Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Tyndale,
the translators of the English versions which preceded the KJV,
the translators of the KJV itself, and those who corrected
printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769.35
(iii) David Cloud runs the Way of Life website ministry
which has the largest list of subscribers and viewers of any
Fundamentalist ministry. Cloud receives 2,500 and more personal
letters and e-mails each month. Hundreds of Independent Baptist
Churches are associated with him and listed in his Directory of
Churches.
(iv) Singapore has a number of Independent Baptist Churches,
listed in David Cloud’s Directory that are clearly VPP.36
For instance, Shalom Baptist Church states, "We believe that God
preserved His Word in the Traditional Masoretic and Traditional
Greek Text (the Textus Receptus) and we hold the King James Version
which is based on these texts as the best English translation of the
Bible." 37
(v) The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland clearly embrace the
TBS’ position that all the "Words of God" have been preserved in the
Received Text of the Textus Receptus editions. Speaking of the WCF,
they disagree with the Life BPC interpretation and state,
Note how the Confession emphasises "in all ages." The claim
of biblical criticism is that manuscripts discovered over the
past 150 years which were not used or available to the Church in
the preceding 1500 years are more authentic than the standard
text (often called the Received Text) which form the vast
majority of available manuscripts which the Westminster Assembly
spoke of as having been kept pure in all ages. This text is
witnessed to by the general consensus of the Church in each
generation. God has preserved the Scriptures down through the
ages for the salvation of men and the edification and comfort of
His church, not buried away secretly but publicly in the
usage of His Church. It is significant that Isaiah 59:21
speaks of the Church’s continuous possession of the Word, this
verse is, as John Owen, put it, "the great charter of the
Church’s preservation of truth." Any close consideration of
the following verses will show that the providential
preservation taught in relation to the Word of God extends
beyond its doctrines to all of its words. Every word of the
Scriptures as originally given was fully inspired of God and in
the same way every word preserved by God is also fully inspired
(See Matt. 5:18; Matt. 24:35; Matt 28:20; Mark 13:31; Luke
16:17; Luke 21:33; 1 Cor 11:23; 1 Pet 1:25; Rev 22:18-19).
Any Church that holds fully to the teaching of the
Westminster Confession must recognise that the Bible teaches the
full providential preservation of the text of Scripture. Not
least because various parts of the wording and teaching of the
Westminster Standards depend on verses that are only in the
Received Text and have therefore been omitted in most modern
versions (e.g. Matt. 6:13, 1 John 5:7).38
(vi) Dr Ian Paisley is the Joint Chairman of the World Congress
of Fundamentalists and Founder of the Free Presbyterian Church of
Ulster. The Rev Dr Ian Paisley MP, in his book My Plea for the
Old Sword (KJV), wrote:
Divine Revelation plus Divine Inspiration plus Divine
Preservation equals the Divine Bible. These all, without
exception, cover the whole field of every Word of God. There is
no such thing as verbal Revelation without verbal Inspiration
and there is no such thing as verbal Inspiration without
verbal Preservation. In all cases it is not partial but
plenary i.e. full, complete, perfect. …
The Divine Revelation, put into writing the verbally
Infallible Scriptures through Divine Inspiration, must have
Divine Preservation in order to be available to all generations.
The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures demands the verbal
Preservation of the Scriptures. Those who would deny the need
for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as being really
committed to verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word
of God today then the work of Divine Revelation and Divine
Inspiration has perished.
In such a case any Bible is as good as any other. Hence the
multiplication and continuing changes of perverted English
versions of the Bible on the market today.
Those who believe in a partial preservation are not much
better. To say that God has preserved most of the Original
Scriptures but not them all, robs us of every Word of God.
Therefore we cannot live [by His every word, Matt 4:4]. This is
but another way to pen-knife God’s every Word.
Those who do not believe that God preserved His Word are
really going down the path of final rejection of that Book of
which the Lord Jesus Christ said, ‘The Word of God cannot be
broken.’ Thank God, no potency can disintegrate this Rock.39
Dr Paisley went on to defend the VPP of Scripture in the original
languages and the KJV from Psalm 12:6-7:
Surely here we have the Doctrine of Divine Preservation
divinely revealed. The preserved Scriptures cannot be lost or
caused in any way to perish. As of the God who uttered them, so
we can say, ‘Thou remainest!’
It is interesting to note that the new Bibles vary the words
of Psalm 12:6-7 and so eliminate the testimony of that verse to
the Divine Preservation of the Scriptures. They insist that the
‘them’ of verse seven is not a reference to God’s words but to
God’s people … and destroy the text’s testimony to the
Preservation of God’s Word.
God’s providential preservation of His own Word ensured that
the true Scriptures were not hidden away in the library of the
Antichrist nor in a monastery of ‘Greek Catholic’ idolatry at
the time when Tyndale prepared his Bible. Faithful and true
copies of the originals were at hand for the Divine Bombshell
(Tyndale’s translation of God’s Holy Word into English) which
would smash the Roman Antichrist. He translated into English the
Preserved Word of God, not the Perverted Word of God.
A return to the Apostolic Gospel comes as a result of
Tyndale’s work. A return to the Apostate Gospel comes as a
result of the translation of Rome’s long hidden, perverted text
and other such perverted texts in the Modern Perversions of the
Scriptures.
The Authorised Version translated into English the Preserved
Word of God and so preserved for the English speaking peoples of
the World, the Word of the Living God, the only infallible Rule
of Faith and Practice.40
It is clear from these quotes that Dr Ian Paisley believes that
the "true Scriptures" were only preserved in a "full, complete,
perfect" manner in the "true copies of the originals … at hand"
which gave us Tyndale’s Version and eventually the Authorised
Version. Will Life BPC denounce now the Joint Chairman of the World
Congress of Fundamentalists, Dr Ian Paisley as a "heretic?" Will
they do this also for the TBS, Crown College, Dr Clarence Sexton,
Way of Life, hundreds (if not thousands) of KJV-defending churches
across the world, and Dr Lloyd Streeter, co-pastor of the Campus
Church at Pensacola Christian College? Will they issue a statement
banning all of these groups from the premises of Life BPC for their
"heresy?" In accordance with Titus 3:10 and their claim to practise
in their Constitution "Ecclesiastical separation from all churches
or groups of churches who are doctrinally impure," will Life BPC
"reject" and separate from the TBS, Dr Ian Paisley, the Free
Presbyterians of Ulster and Scotland, Crown College, Pensacola
Christian College, and the World Congress of Fundamentalists for
promoting "heresy" and allowing "heretics" into leadership.
It is axiomatic, from all of the evidence presented above, that a
"new formulation" of an historic doctrine is not necessarily
characteristic of "heresy." It is also clear that Life BPC have not
even carried out the basic steps of collating the evidence properly
and analysing it objectively. This was the very evidence that they
used to act in a discriminatory, inconsistent and unbiblical manner
in their inflammatory and unjust action. Unless they retract we can
only conclude that they are simply willing to tolerate any view on
preservation, save that of FEBC.
In light of the above evidence, we can only plead that Life BPC
formally retract their visceral and clearly unfounded and unbiblical
accusations against their founding pastor, Dr Timothy Tow and the
Board of Directors of FEBC. Further delays will only compound the
great wrong of these terrible slurs and slanders, which as they
themselves stated, "brings no glory to God, and will only discredit
the Church of God"41 for the infallible and
perfect Scripture warns, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall
be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again" (Matt 7:2).
Questions for Life BPC
These questions which I have modified for the Life BPC context
are based partly on some suggestions raised by Independent Baptist
author, Kent Brandenberg.42
(1) Do you believe it is possible that the underlying text
of the KJV in Hebrew and Greek is an exact 100% copy of the
autographs? If not, do you have a Scriptural framework and any
objective textual critical framework for rejecting so that we all
can "test" your bold assertions?
(2) How can you add or take away from something that isn’t
settled? In other words, what difference does Revelation 22:18, 19
make?
(3) How is the Bible considered perfect if there are errors in
it? If the errors aren’t related to the words, then what difference
does verbal inspiration make? What is the Scriptural basis for
errors in the Bible?
(4) Where does the Bible say there would be sixty-six books? If
it doesn’t say, then how do we know there are not more or less? What
are the reasons that Christianity rejected the Apocrypha and
accepted the book of Revelation?
(5) What is the pre-19th century historic
basis for the doctrine of the errancy of Scripture, that is, the
history of assuming that we don’t know what the Words are or that
there are errors in Scripture?
(6) What is the historic position on the preservation of
Scripture?
(7) What is your developed Scriptural position on the doctrine of
preservation that you have believed and believed before you began
examining textual criticism?
(8) What was Paul telling Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 that was
profitable for doctrine, correction, etc.? If every Word and all of
them was necessary for thoroughly furnishing us to every good work,
then how could we do that without all of them?
(9) When Jesus told us that man shall live by every Word in
Matthew 4:4, should we assume that He meant that we would not have
every Word?
(10) When something passes away like heaven and earth will pass
away, does that mean that it will disappear? If God’s Words are not
going to pass away or jots and tittles are not going to pass away,
does that mean that we are still going to possess them?
(11) Was the Critical Text available for believers from
c.1525-1825? If someone, like BJU believes that this "new" text is
closer to the autographs are they believing in "heresy" as their
view is also "infectious" and "divisive?"
(12) Does Scripture teach anywhere that man was responsible for
restoring a lost text?
(13) Can you show me physical, tangible evidence that the Ben
Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic and the Scrivener TR are not the same words
as the original manuscripts?
(14) How can a member of Life BPC be confident that prophecies
are being fulfilled literally today, if he does not have all the
words of the Bible available to him?
(15) Where does Scripture say that a miracle is a greater and
more thorough act of God than providence? Is something that God does
providentially less God than it is when God does something
miraculously?
(16) Can you prove that all the words of the autographs were not
available to the translators of the KJV as they were consolidated
into a printed edition?
(17) In light of Matthew 5:18, can you provide any evidence
that prior to Erasmus there was no agreement among the true remnant
church as to the "preserved text" to the degree of "jots and
tittles" having been preserved? Can you prove that all of the period
of time before 1611 all of the "words" were not in one place at one
time?
(18) Which of the following positions reflect your view?
(i) Every Word of God was inspired and has been preserved and is
available today.
(ii) Every Word of God was inspired, but we’re not sure that
every Word has been preserved.
(iii) Every Word of God was inspired and has been perfectly
preserved, but we’re not sure that every Word is available.
(iv) We don’t have every Word of God today, and we may never have
had it.
(19) What fundamental doctrine of Scripture and what dangers to
the Church is there from the consequences of believing that God has
perfectly preserved His Words today? Do you believe that doubt in a
perfect Bible is the less dangerous position? How would you prove to
a cult member or a non-believer that you have an infallible,
inerrant Bible?
(20) In light of Isaiah 59:21, "As for me, this is my
covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and
my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy
mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy
seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever," what
words have departed from the mouth of believers in 2008? When did
"for ever" end? Do you agree with John Owen who said on his
commentary on this passage that it means the "Words" of God, "shall
always continue with the church and her spiritual seed, such as are
born in her, and brought up by her, throughout all successive ages,
and to the end of time; and it may be observed, that after the
conversion of the Jews, to which this prophecy has a special regard,
they shall no more apostatise?" Do you agree with The Pulpit
Commentary edited by H D M Spence and Joseph S Exell whose
exposition on this section says, "The Spirit will be accompanied
with certain "words" which will be put into the Church’s mouth; and
these words will remain unchanged and pass on from mouth to mouth,
age after age, for ever. The "words" intended are probably those of
the entire Bible—"all God’s revelations" (Cheyne)—which the Church
will maintain as inspired truth through all ages."
(21) Where are all the extant manuscripts of the New Testament?
How does one look at every single one of them? Has Life BPC elders
ever studied any of them – if so, how many?
(22) Do you agree with Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones’ book, God the
Father, God the Son, when he says that miracles are a
sub-category of providence?
(23) Do Life BPC agree with Rev Tan Eng Boo of Grace
Bible-Presbyterian Church that "We have in our hands the perfect
Word of God…. We believe we have the perfect Bible, but not the
perfect version!" 43 If so, can they state
where this "perfect Bible" is?
(24) Do Life BPC believe God would providentially lead Samuel to
"let none of his words fall to the ground" (1 Sam 3:19), yet He did
today as we cannot find some of these Words? Does any Bible version
tell us that God would preserve His words "out there somewhere"
among thousands of variant readings and that it is up to the
scholars, who never agree with each other and keep changing their
minds every few years, to tell us where the true words of God might
be found?
(25) If a member of Life BPC does not have access to all the
"Words of God" today, will God hold him accountable on the day of
judgment for rejecting and not receiving them (John 12:48) and not
keeping His commandments (Luke 16:10; Rev 22:14)?
(26) Who is preserving the Words of God today – God or man?
(27) Can Life BPC identify absolutely all the Words of God today?
Could they explain how they could do this? Rev Charles Seet said at
Life BPC sanctuary in a sermon44 that "The
correct reading can be easily determined by comparing scripture with
scripture" so this should be a straightforward task.
(28) In light of 2 Peter 3:2 which say, "That ye may be mindful
of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of
the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour" are we
excused of this as we do not have all these words?
(29) As "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"
(Rom 10:17), how can the members of Life BPC "earnestly contend for
the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) if we
do not have all of that faith?
(30) Life BPC stated45 in respect of
Matthew 24:35 that "The words of Jesus will continue to be certain,
valid and trustworthy even after the universe ceases to exist." Can
a member of Life BPC know today that all the Words of Jesus are
"certain, valid and trustworthy" if they do not have them all?
(31) Life BPC stated46 in respect of the
words "kept pure in all ages" in the Westminster Confession, "If
they had truly written it with the intention of proving perfect
preservation of Scripture, more would have been written about it."
Can they show us any evidence from the writings of any of the
Westminster Divines to prove that the basis of their interpretation
of this is correct?
(32) In light of the following quote in 1893 for The
Evangelist by E D Morris,47 expert on the
Westminster divines, who contributed to Philip Schaff’s History
of the Christian Church, do you believe that the
one-Bible-belief started in the 1970s or the mid-twentieth century?
As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has been my duty
to make a special study of the Westminster Confession of Faith,
as have I done for twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no
one who is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, would
dare to risk his reputation on the statement that the
Westminster divines ever thought the original manuscripts of the
Bible were distinct from the copies in their possession.
(33) In light of the following quote by Samuel Rutherford, in
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, in
1649, do you believe that we can separate the teaching of Scripture
from the actual Words?
Though the Letter of the Scripture be not the Word alone, yet
the Letter with the true sense and meaning of it, is the
Word.... So if ye destroy the Letter of the Scripture, you do
destroy the Scripture; and if you do deny the Letter, how is it
possible that you should attain to the true sense thereof, when
the Sense lies wrapped up in the Letters, and the words thereof?
We must say, we have not the clear and infallible word of
God, because the Scripture comes to our hand, by fallible means,
which is a great inconsequence, for through Scribes,
Translators, Grammarians, Printers, may all err, it followeth
not that an [un]-erring providence of him that hath seven eyes,
hath not delivered to the Church, the Scriptures containing the
infallible truth of God.
(34) In light of the following quote by Richard Capel, one of the
divines, when he writes (Capel’s Remains, London, 1658, pp
19-43), do you agree that God by His providence hath preserved all
the words "uncorrupt?"
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek],
which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter
which may stumble any. This concerns only the learned, and they
know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all
sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his
providence hath preserved them uncorrupt.... As God committed
the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jews, and did and
doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I
dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so
with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve
the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by
Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to
be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis
certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in
another.
Notes
1 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/markthem.htm.
2 Harold O J Brown, Heresies (Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1984), 2.
3 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
4 http://www.lifefebc.com/ourstand/stmtrelations.htm.
5 http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf.
6 Bob Jones University. "Position of the Bible Department of Bob
Jones University on the Scripture" (mimeograph). Office of the
President, no date. Printed in Standing Without Apology: The
History of Bob Jones University by Daniel L Turner (Greenville:
Bob Jones University Press, c1997). Appendix D, 322-3.
7 The Perfect Bible or the Perfect Version? at
http://www.truth.sg/response/pborpv.htm.
8 Samuel Schnaiter, Relevancy of Textual Criticism, 1980.
9 Edward Glenny, The Bible Version Debate, 93, 95, 99.
10 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtfaith.htm.
11 James B Williams, ed, From the Mind of God to the Mind of
Man (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald International, 1999).
12 Rev Charles Seet, "The Word that Endures Forever," preached at
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church on October 28, 2007.
13 http://www.lifefebc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
14 Cited by David Cloud from William Aberhart, The Latest of
Modern Movements, 1925 at
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/trusted-voices-on-translations.html.
15 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
16 John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the Old Testament.
17 A comprehensive list is at
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns88.html.
18 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm. So desperate
are Life BPC to buttress their misrepresentation of the TBS view
that they have resorted to citing A J Brown, former editorial
secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) in a 24-year-old
document, "Faith and Textual Scholarship", TBS Quarterly
Record (Oct-Dec 1984). They have acted, at best, carelessly in
failing to study the clear statements of the latest
"Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture" by the TBS. This error is
compounded when the TBS has rejected the validity of the statements
of A J Brown, as Mr David Larlham, the Assistant General Secretary
of TBS, recently wrote to Dr Jeffrey Khoo of FEBC, "we would suggest
that neither you nor the Rev. Wong should place any such reliance
upon the comments of Mr Andrew Brown going back around 20 years."
David Cloud lists correspondence from Mr Brown
(www.wayoflife.org/articles/majoritytext.htm) clearly endorsing the
"Majority Text" position in the 1980s, but he states that Mr Andrew
Brown was "dismissed from the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1991."
19 http://www.truth.sg/tbsnonvpp.htm.
20 http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf.
21 Preface, Section 4.
22 Section 6.
23 Note 1, page 6.
24 Note 3, page 6.
25 See definition of "Majority Text" in Word List, 9.
26 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtfaith.htm.
27 Editorial, The Burning Bush 12 (2006): 2.
28 "A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus" in Appendix 3.
29 Indeed, the TBS state in Appendix 2, (footnote 4) that "the
Society believes that the latest and best edition is the text
reconstructed by F H A Scrivener in 1894."
30 The Burning Bush 12 (2006): 80.
31 http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=31306.
32 http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/61/29.
33 http://www.thecrowncollege.com/Future/Faith.aspx.
34 http://www.pcci.edu/CampusChurch/PastorBios.html.
35 Lloyd Streeter, Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist
Theological Seminary’s Book "The Bible Version Debate" (LaSalle:
First Baptist Church, 2001), 98, 99, 104.
36 http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/churchdir/!churches.htm.
37 http://shalom-baptist.com/index.html.
38 http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Beliefs/AuthorisedVersion.php.
39 Ian R K Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword: the English
Authorised Version (KJV) (Belfast: Ambassador, 1997), 102-3.
40 Ibid, 106.
41 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
42 http://www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com.
43 http://www.truth.sg/response/pborpv.htm.
44 Rev Charles Seet, "The Word that Endures Forever," preached at
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church on October 28, 2007.
45 http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
46 Ibid.
47 Prof E D Morris for decades taught the Westminster Confession
at Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Paul Ferguson was born in Northern Ireland and was brought up in
the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, where his father is a
minister in the London congregation. He studied Biochemistry at
Queen’s University, Belfast and Law at King’s College, University of
London. Paul then practised Corporate Law for five years in London
and has also been a lecturer in Law and British History in various
universities in Southeast Asia. After completing a Doctorate in
Religious Education from 2006-2008 at Foundations Theological
Seminary in Dunn, North Carolina, he is now studying for a Doctorate
in Theology at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore. He is married
to a Singaporean, Cheryl, and they have a daughter, Sarah Anne.
|
