I just came back from the Annual Congregational Meeting. I do not like what I saw and heard. Firstly, the meeting did not go according to the agenda. The message was purposely planned right at the end so that the congregation do not have a chance to voice their opinion.
Things started quite smoothly except for the chairman's snide remarks occasionally.
However, I was totally disappointed with the treasurer. He seemed to be unprepared and was unable to answer many questions raised. This is his responsibility not the internal auditor! He was even visibly irritated by the question from one of the members of mandarin congregation and hence misinterpreted his question and gave a totally out of point answer. Furthermore, he seems not have much patience with people.
I was quite surprised that the Mandarin Congregation managed to come up with 271 signatures calling for a ECM. However, I am very sceptical of its effect and as many fellow english congregation members continue to be mislead and indoctrinated by the pastors. Kudos to the mandarin session. Do not give up this fight against extremism.
The finance report and budget was quickly called for adoption by members after the chairman said that any queries be directed at the internal auditor and treasurer after the meeting. How can we adopt the report if there are questions unanswered? This is absurd.
The sermon really took me by surprise. In my entire christian life, this is the first time I heard a sermon that has no references to the bible, full off personal attacks, unsupported accusations and deceit.
I did not expect this from the almighty and revered Dr Tow.
Let's see what he had to say. He mentioned that we must remember history and started giving a personal account of how the BP movement started and how Calvary Jurong and Calavary Pandan came about. I was very disgusted. So many "I"; seemed like he has claimed all the glory of God for himself. Furthermore, anyone familiar with the history of the BP movement will know that what he said was not true. He was not the one that founded the BP movement. It was Dr T. Tow and Dr Quek KC. The decision for a Pandan outreach was made by the Jurong Session, not his personal decision. Rev Tang came over from Jurong and not as what he said the BOE invited him after Pandan Mandarin was established. He made us of Rev Philip Heng and Elder Cheng but do not that both of them do not subscribe to this extremist theory of VPP.
Next he goes on to a gross generalisation of the churches in singapore seems like every other church except the BP churches headed by him are going "back to rome". This is his very subjective opinion and a simple validation will prove him wrong. By the way, it is sola scriptura and not sola KJV.
Reformation did not give us the KJV. It gave us the German bible, which do not use the MTTR underlying KJV as texts.
Next he tried to define VPP and keep referring to his useless book. I have read the book and do not feel blessed as he claimed. He used faulty logic to say that since the autographs do not exits, our constitution refers to the apographs. This is his own creative interpretation of the constitution. He even took the Mandarin report's statement out of context and added in his own opinion and intrepretation.
Oh, before I forget. Before he started out on his slides, he displayed a lot of bible versions such as the NIV, RSV, Living Bible and was condemning them one by one as corrupt, not fit to the called the bible and that people of read them are doomed. This is pure blashpemy. These are the word of God! Thousands of people have been saved by them! He also displayed an image of a symbol representing the Holy Trinity as Satan's symbol. Nonsense.
www.greatdreams.com/three/trinity5.gif
looks similar to this.
Next, he mentioned that doctrine is not decided by member's votes by the BOE. He uses Constitution 11.2 to say that this is the specific responsibility of the BOE. However. I personally think that the BOE has failed in this responsibility and the members must do something about it!
After that he continues with an elaborate personal attack on Rev Tan Eng Boo and Rev Tang which I shall not elaborate. He takes their words out of context and accuses them of saying things they did not meant.
Lastly, he mentioned that CUV is the best chinese translation available. But fellow readers, it was predominantly based on the Revised Version which he condemned as corrupt. This is double speak. Lastly he said that someone in New York is translating a chinese bible from the KJV. Oh great, one man's work. How is this different from many modern english translations. Do you want to read the CUV which was translated by a panel of bible scholars almost a century ago or you trust the work of a single man? A translation from a translation? Infallible?
God Bless You.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
All you wanted to know about VPP
What's wrong with VPP?
I could write long essays on this but I think the leaders of the Mandarin Congregation at Pandan had done an excellent job to summarise this issue into a small little booklet. I shall attempt to do a short point form summary soon.
In the meantime, please read this booklet prayerfully.
http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/PandanChineseRejectsVPP.pdf
I'll put up a separate link if this link is down.
I could write long essays on this but I think the leaders of the Mandarin Congregation at Pandan had done an excellent job to summarise this issue into a small little booklet. I shall attempt to do a short point form summary soon.
In the meantime, please read this booklet prayerfully.
http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/PandanChineseRejectsVPP.pdf
I'll put up a separate link if this link is down.
Statement by Singapore Council of Christian Churches on VPP
This was reproduced wholesale from
http://www.iccc.org.sg/html/holyscripture.doc
INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
The Singapore Council of Christian Churches (SCCC), at its Reformation Rally 2005 and 49th AGM on 29th October 2005, reiterates its stand “On the Inspiration and Translations of the Holy Scriptures”.
2 As the national affiliate in Singapore of the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC), SCCC identifies itself with ICCC on the stand on the Inspiration and Translations of the Holy Scriptures in the following three ways:
i) The inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures in the original languages, as stated at ICCC Constitution, Article 2a and SCCC Constitution, Article 4(1) which reads in full as follows: “Among other equally biblical truths, we believe and maintain the plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life”
ii) The established practice, as far as the Bible in the English language is concerned, of using the King James Version, which the ICCC and all its affiliated bodies believe to have been faithfully translated from the God–preserved Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Greek New Testament (the first edition of the Textus Receptus was made by Elzevir in 1624, thirteen years after the KJV was translated). The SCCC stands by the ICCC 16th World Congress Statement “ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AND BIBLE TRANSLATIONS”, November 2000, Jerusalem.
iii) On other translations of the Bible : SCCC and ICCC are grateful to those who have laboured or are labouring to produce other translations that present the Word of God as accurately as possible, but view with sorrow that in recent years there have been translations produced by men who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, or by committees that have included individuals who even deny such basic doctrines as the deity of Christ, His miraculous birth and bodily resurrection, and the Messianic Prophecies (ICCC 17th World Congress Statement No. 1 “ON THE SCRIPTURES”, Korea, June 8 – 14, 2005)).
3 Recently some brethren in Singapore and elsewhere have been promulgating that apart from the verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) and the consequent inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, “the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible are the very words which God has preserved down through the centuries being the exact words of the originals themselves”. This theory of claiming Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) for the KJV’s underlying texts and their exact identification with the Holy Scriptures in the original languages, is without Biblical foundation. This has not been, and is not the position of the ICCC or SCCC or other ICCC-affiliated organizations. The SCCC therefore calls upon its members and all other Bible-believing brethren not to subscribe to this new, Biblically unfounded and unproven theory.
http://www.iccc.org.sg/html/holyscripture.doc
INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
The Singapore Council of Christian Churches (SCCC), at its Reformation Rally 2005 and 49th AGM on 29th October 2005, reiterates its stand “On the Inspiration and Translations of the Holy Scriptures”.
2 As the national affiliate in Singapore of the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC), SCCC identifies itself with ICCC on the stand on the Inspiration and Translations of the Holy Scriptures in the following three ways:
i) The inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures in the original languages, as stated at ICCC Constitution, Article 2a and SCCC Constitution, Article 4(1) which reads in full as follows: “Among other equally biblical truths, we believe and maintain the plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life”
ii) The established practice, as far as the Bible in the English language is concerned, of using the King James Version, which the ICCC and all its affiliated bodies believe to have been faithfully translated from the God–preserved Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Greek New Testament (the first edition of the Textus Receptus was made by Elzevir in 1624, thirteen years after the KJV was translated). The SCCC stands by the ICCC 16th World Congress Statement “ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AND BIBLE TRANSLATIONS”, November 2000, Jerusalem.
iii) On other translations of the Bible : SCCC and ICCC are grateful to those who have laboured or are labouring to produce other translations that present the Word of God as accurately as possible, but view with sorrow that in recent years there have been translations produced by men who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, or by committees that have included individuals who even deny such basic doctrines as the deity of Christ, His miraculous birth and bodily resurrection, and the Messianic Prophecies (ICCC 17th World Congress Statement No. 1 “ON THE SCRIPTURES”, Korea, June 8 – 14, 2005)).
3 Recently some brethren in Singapore and elsewhere have been promulgating that apart from the verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) and the consequent inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, “the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible are the very words which God has preserved down through the centuries being the exact words of the originals themselves”. This theory of claiming Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) for the KJV’s underlying texts and their exact identification with the Holy Scriptures in the original languages, is without Biblical foundation. This has not been, and is not the position of the ICCC or SCCC or other ICCC-affiliated organizations. The SCCC therefore calls upon its members and all other Bible-believing brethren not to subscribe to this new, Biblically unfounded and unproven theory.
Introductory Post
I'm creating this blog for all bible believing fundamental christians to be educated and informed about this new theory that has wrecked havoc in a few churches in Singapore, mine included.
This new theory is known as Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Bible. The leaders of my church have made it into a doctrine, and declared it binding for all members to accept. Personally, I think that the way they intrepret the church constitution may or may not be legally accurate but I personally think it reeks of office politics and perhaps unethical.
The posts in this blog are representative of my own views and findings regarding this issue and it would be great if you could read it with a open and discriminating mind. If you have an axe to grind, please stop reading and leave.
This VPP theory employs arguments used by KJV only (KJVO) activists around the world, especially in the US.
It seeks to differentiate itself from this heretical group by declaring that the "underlying text of the KJV" is identical to the scriptures originally inspired by God. However, any earnest student of the bible will agree that the KJV do not originate or is identical to any single NT text available in history. It is at best a cut and paste of different editions of the textus receptus. The Scrivener NT text is one that is reverse engineered after KJV has been translated.
That said, proponents of this new theory is effectively KJV only as there is no single bible based on the same underlying text as the KJV unless it has been TRANSLATED from the KJV.
For the records, I am effectively bi-lingual and I read the KJV and Chinese Union Version (CUV). It is of my opinion that both versions are the best version in English and Chinese languages respectively as they are faithfully translated works. However, I do not support the extremist view held by proponents of VPP.
This deadly teaching was brought into Singapore by JK after being influenced by books written by EF Hills and DA Waite. It has since led to split within FEBC and a few other BP churches. The one currently under tremendous stress is Calvary Pandan BP Church.
This new theory is known as Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Bible. The leaders of my church have made it into a doctrine, and declared it binding for all members to accept. Personally, I think that the way they intrepret the church constitution may or may not be legally accurate but I personally think it reeks of office politics and perhaps unethical.
The posts in this blog are representative of my own views and findings regarding this issue and it would be great if you could read it with a open and discriminating mind. If you have an axe to grind, please stop reading and leave.
This VPP theory employs arguments used by KJV only (KJVO) activists around the world, especially in the US.
It seeks to differentiate itself from this heretical group by declaring that the "underlying text of the KJV" is identical to the scriptures originally inspired by God. However, any earnest student of the bible will agree that the KJV do not originate or is identical to any single NT text available in history. It is at best a cut and paste of different editions of the textus receptus. The Scrivener NT text is one that is reverse engineered after KJV has been translated.
That said, proponents of this new theory is effectively KJV only as there is no single bible based on the same underlying text as the KJV unless it has been TRANSLATED from the KJV.
For the records, I am effectively bi-lingual and I read the KJV and Chinese Union Version (CUV). It is of my opinion that both versions are the best version in English and Chinese languages respectively as they are faithfully translated works. However, I do not support the extremist view held by proponents of VPP.
This deadly teaching was brought into Singapore by JK after being influenced by books written by EF Hills and DA Waite. It has since led to split within FEBC and a few other BP churches. The one currently under tremendous stress is Calvary Pandan BP Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)