"Where are the autographs?"
"Nowhere? Then how can you say that you have the perfect Word of God."
Let me rephrase the argument this way.
A man asked an abandoned child, "Where are your biological parents?"
"Don't know? Then you must never say that you have parents"
Absurd? But that's how the dean of FEBC presents his argument for the inspired apographs. Remember what he said: apographs must exactly be like the autographs in order to claim that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant. Read previous posts.)
So the dean asks, "How can a non-existent authority serve as our final authority? An authority must be existent, tangible, available right now, at this time, or else it can be no authority at all."
When the pope speaks ex-cathedra, he issues a bull. This is the bull from the FEBC dean.
An authority be "existent, tangible, available right now, at this time" in order that it may be authoritative.
If that's the criteria to go by, then the invisible and intangible God would fail as an authority in the eyes of the dean.
God is existent to be sure. He is also omnipresent -- available right now. But God is not tangible. He is not visible.
Question: Is God's authority in anyway diminished because He is neither tangible nor visible?
For Bible-believing Christians, God's authority is absolute even though we can neither see nor handle Him.
For the FEBC dean, God's authority is diminished because in his bull, he states that for an authority to be authoritative, it must be "existent, tangible, available right now, at this time."
Friday, 11 May 2007
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
FEBC defends Westcott and Hort
If the apographs were not inspired, how can we say that they are inerrant and infallible?
God has said that He would preserve His Word. How? In what form? we do not know. We merely accept God's word by faith, which is, btw, why we do not write dissertations on things which we do not know.
Words have meanings. Words must only mean what they say. Otherwise, they are useless.
The Scriptures in the "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 must only mean the autographs in order to claim verbal and plenary inspiration.
If "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 also describe the apographs, the dean is saying that the apographs were also verbally and plenarily inspired.
If that were so, then the Scriptures would have multiple inspirations because every time a copy is made in the original languages, it would have to be verbally and plenarily inspired.
And if the dean is right, then any ancient biblical text (apographs) found written in the Aramaic and Hebrew and Greek must be divinely inspired.
Why? Because they are written in the original languages.
And the irony is that these apographs would comprise the TR and other non-TR Greek manuscripts, including those used by Westcott and Hort (Yipes!)
After all, Westcott and Hort were accused of, found guilty and condemned by the dean (he being the accuser, jury and judge all in one) for leaving out words in their Greek NT Text. They were never accused of adding words!
But consider this: whatever Westcott and Hort did not have in the Greek NT Text, they did not have.
And whatever Westcott and Hort had in the Greek NT Text are similar to the parts that are found in other apographs. They are all in the original languages. Ergo: they must be inerrant and infallible.
Why? Because -- as the dean says -- they are in the original languages, what.
By a strange twist of logic, the dean of FEBC becomes the defender of his long departed enemies.
God has said that He would preserve His Word. How? In what form? we do not know. We merely accept God's word by faith, which is, btw, why we do not write dissertations on things which we do not know.
Words have meanings. Words must only mean what they say. Otherwise, they are useless.
The Scriptures in the "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 must only mean the autographs in order to claim verbal and plenary inspiration.
If "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 also describe the apographs, the dean is saying that the apographs were also verbally and plenarily inspired.
If that were so, then the Scriptures would have multiple inspirations because every time a copy is made in the original languages, it would have to be verbally and plenarily inspired.
And if the dean is right, then any ancient biblical text (apographs) found written in the Aramaic and Hebrew and Greek must be divinely inspired.
Why? Because they are written in the original languages.
And the irony is that these apographs would comprise the TR and other non-TR Greek manuscripts, including those used by Westcott and Hort (Yipes!)
After all, Westcott and Hort were accused of, found guilty and condemned by the dean (he being the accuser, jury and judge all in one) for leaving out words in their Greek NT Text. They were never accused of adding words!
But consider this: whatever Westcott and Hort did not have in the Greek NT Text, they did not have.
And whatever Westcott and Hort had in the Greek NT Text are similar to the parts that are found in other apographs. They are all in the original languages. Ergo: they must be inerrant and infallible.
Why? Because -- as the dean says -- they are in the original languages, what.
By a strange twist of logic, the dean of FEBC becomes the defender of his long departed enemies.
Monday, 30 April 2007
Apology for Apographs?
What are the "original languages"? The good dean of FEBC asked.
His reply: They are the Hebrew and Aramaic words of the Old Testament Scripture, and the Greek words of the New Testament Scripture.
Then he asked: Where does Article 4.2.1 of the B-P Constitution say that the infallible and inerrant Scriptures are only in the autographs?
His reply: Nowhere! Nowhere! Nowhere!
BTW, every time a person answers his own question, you know he's going to be right no matter what. Did not Solomon tell us that "the way of a fool is right in his own eyes?"
Read 4.2.1 carefully, lah. "We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary 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."
The meaning of Article 4.2.1 is this -- the Scriptures, in the original languages, are verbally and plenarily inspired, and as a consequence of their verbal and plenary inspiration, they are inerrant and infallible.
Question: What Scriptures in the original languages are inspired and consequently inerrant and infallible?
Answer: Only the autographs
But the good dean tries to pull a fast one, and so he says, lah: if there's nowhere in Article 4.2.1 that says that the "original languages" refer to the autographs, then the "original languages" must not only refer autographs but also the apographs.
And the dean wants this underscored. Well, he can double-, triple-, quadruple-, multiple-scored it for all he wants.
But there's one big difference: inspiration. The original languages of the autographs were immediately and divinely inspired. The original languages of the apographs were not immediately and divinely inspired. As a matter of fact, the apographs were not inspired at all.
His reply: They are the Hebrew and Aramaic words of the Old Testament Scripture, and the Greek words of the New Testament Scripture.
Then he asked: Where does Article 4.2.1 of the B-P Constitution say that the infallible and inerrant Scriptures are only in the autographs?
His reply: Nowhere! Nowhere! Nowhere!
BTW, every time a person answers his own question, you know he's going to be right no matter what. Did not Solomon tell us that "the way of a fool is right in his own eyes?"
Read 4.2.1 carefully, lah. "We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary 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."
The meaning of Article 4.2.1 is this -- the Scriptures, in the original languages, are verbally and plenarily inspired, and as a consequence of their verbal and plenary inspiration, they are inerrant and infallible.
Question: What Scriptures in the original languages are inspired and consequently inerrant and infallible?
Answer: Only the autographs
But the good dean tries to pull a fast one, and so he says, lah: if there's nowhere in Article 4.2.1 that says that the "original languages" refer to the autographs, then the "original languages" must not only refer autographs but also the apographs.
And the dean wants this underscored. Well, he can double-, triple-, quadruple-, multiple-scored it for all he wants.
But there's one big difference: inspiration. The original languages of the autographs were immediately and divinely inspired. The original languages of the apographs were not immediately and divinely inspired. As a matter of fact, the apographs were not inspired at all.
Friday, 27 April 2007
Say What You Mean
In the latest edition of the Burning Bush (Jan. 2007), Dr Jeffrey Khoo, tries to convince us that VPP has always been part of the BP Church.
Let's see what he has said.
The Bible -- so he says lah -- is not only divinely inspired but also divinely (read: supernaturally, miraculously, and if you're really smart like the good doctor of theology, throw in a Latin phrase providentia extraordinaria) preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the OT and the Greek Textus Receptus of the NT.
The KJV, so he says, is based upon these MT and TR and is a most faithful and reliable translation because the words of the MT and TR are totally infallible and inerrant.
If the TR and MT are miraculously preserved and hence perfect, and if the words in the KJV can be traced back to this inerrant and infallible TR and MT, should'nt the KJV be the one and only and not just a faithful and reliable translation.
The good doctor should'nt hide behind word plays. Be brave! Take the stand! Defend the faith!
Dr Khoo and his friends should learn from William Grady. Listen to Grady's sermon.(http://www.gradypublications.com/video/intro.htm)
I don't agree with Grady, but at least he has the guts to call VPP for what it really is -- Ruckmanism.
Let's see what he has said.
The Bible -- so he says lah -- is not only divinely inspired but also divinely (read: supernaturally, miraculously, and if you're really smart like the good doctor of theology, throw in a Latin phrase providentia extraordinaria) preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the OT and the Greek Textus Receptus of the NT.
The KJV, so he says, is based upon these MT and TR and is a most faithful and reliable translation because the words of the MT and TR are totally infallible and inerrant.
If the TR and MT are miraculously preserved and hence perfect, and if the words in the KJV can be traced back to this inerrant and infallible TR and MT, should'nt the KJV be the one and only and not just a faithful and reliable translation.
The good doctor should'nt hide behind word plays. Be brave! Take the stand! Defend the faith!
Dr Khoo and his friends should learn from William Grady. Listen to Grady's sermon.(http://www.gradypublications.com/video/intro.htm)
I don't agree with Grady, but at least he has the guts to call VPP for what it really is -- Ruckmanism.
Monday, 23 April 2007
The New Disguised as Old
The doctrine of VPP is taught in our Constitution and it is not a new doctrine. So they say lah.
But where is the article in the Constitution that teaches that? Where in the Constitution is the exact phrase "VPP" mentioned?
Article 4.2.1?
Words must have meanings. Without the words "VPP," there can be no teaching. Silence can be used to argue for a great deal of things.
If the good reverend reverence the meanings of words in the Constitution, then surely such an important claim of VPP must be clearly stated before he can claim that it is taught.
If it VPP is as old as the Bible and as important as the good doctor claims, why is the "VPP" taught in FEBC only in recent years? Why did Rev. Quek change his lecture notes to accommodate the idea of VPP?
Christians need to be warned against such theological shenanigans of the reverend.
"What we have today is a new attack." So he says lah. What we have from Dr. Quek is a bending of the meanings of the words of Article 4.2.1, and a dogmatic declaration from his chair. He said it, therefore, it must be so.
Article 4.2.1 and VPP are "two faces of the same biblical coin" -- again, so he says lah -- but how does he know that when he does not really know (read previous post).
And if he does not know this, how audacious of him to claim "All faithful pastors and shepherds of God must believe in the doctrine of VPP if they truly love God’s flock placed under their care."
According to his irreverent declaration, many godly pastors over the years that would be counted as unfaithful in the eyes of Rev. Quek.
We just thank God that God is the Judge of all men's hearts, and not the doctor of theology.
But where is the article in the Constitution that teaches that? Where in the Constitution is the exact phrase "VPP" mentioned?
Article 4.2.1?
Words must have meanings. Without the words "VPP," there can be no teaching. Silence can be used to argue for a great deal of things.
If the good reverend reverence the meanings of words in the Constitution, then surely such an important claim of VPP must be clearly stated before he can claim that it is taught.
If it VPP is as old as the Bible and as important as the good doctor claims, why is the "VPP" taught in FEBC only in recent years? Why did Rev. Quek change his lecture notes to accommodate the idea of VPP?
Christians need to be warned against such theological shenanigans of the reverend.
"What we have today is a new attack." So he says lah. What we have from Dr. Quek is a bending of the meanings of the words of Article 4.2.1, and a dogmatic declaration from his chair. He said it, therefore, it must be so.
Article 4.2.1 and VPP are "two faces of the same biblical coin" -- again, so he says lah -- but how does he know that when he does not really know (read previous post).
And if he does not know this, how audacious of him to claim "All faithful pastors and shepherds of God must believe in the doctrine of VPP if they truly love God’s flock placed under their care."
According to his irreverent declaration, many godly pastors over the years that would be counted as unfaithful in the eyes of Rev. Quek.
We just thank God that God is the Judge of all men's hearts, and not the doctor of theology.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Truth Be Told!
TRUTH BE TOLD! So the good reverend says lah.
But has he told the truth about Article 4.2.1?
Is there a Bible verse that shows that God preserved His Word in one particular ancient text?
“Listen to the expert,” so he orders lah.
Ta…da! Dr George Skariah – the indisputable expert on the doctrine of preservation. But the good reverend can only tell us this: “No one knows the process of inspiration for how can sinful men produce perfect words? We believe the doctrine of Inspiration because God’s perfect Word says so. We believe it not because we are convinced by empirical evidence or by science or because we know the process [i.e. we don't know]…The Doctrine of Preservation is the same.”
Pray tell! How can someone write a dissertation on what he doesn't know? How can someone has so much to say on something that he doesn't know?
“We believe every doctrine in the Bible by faith.”
So do those of us whom the good doctor of theology described as attacking God’s Word, enemies of the Bible.
Is our faith inferior to his? If it is, then there must be something that he knows that we don’t.
But wait, did he not just say that he doesn't know!
“We do not know the process of creation…but believe it because the Bible says so. Likewise, we do not know and do not need to know the process of preservation to believe that the same God who gave us the perfect Word also preserved the perfect
Word, perfectly.”
Then pray tell! What does he really know?
To quote the good doctor of theology: We do not know!
But has he told the truth about Article 4.2.1?
Is there a Bible verse that shows that God preserved His Word in one particular ancient text?
“Listen to the expert,” so he orders lah.
Ta…da! Dr George Skariah – the indisputable expert on the doctrine of preservation. But the good reverend can only tell us this: “No one knows the process of inspiration for how can sinful men produce perfect words? We believe the doctrine of Inspiration because God’s perfect Word says so. We believe it not because we are convinced by empirical evidence or by science or because we know the process [i.e. we don't know]…The Doctrine of Preservation is the same.”
Pray tell! How can someone write a dissertation on what he doesn't know? How can someone has so much to say on something that he doesn't know?
“We believe every doctrine in the Bible by faith.”
So do those of us whom the good doctor of theology described as attacking God’s Word, enemies of the Bible.
Is our faith inferior to his? If it is, then there must be something that he knows that we don’t.
But wait, did he not just say that he doesn't know!
“We do not know the process of creation…but believe it because the Bible says so. Likewise, we do not know and do not need to know the process of preservation to believe that the same God who gave us the perfect Word also preserved the perfect
Word, perfectly.”
Then pray tell! What does he really know?
To quote the good doctor of theology: We do not know!
Article 4.2.1
Rev. Quek Suan Yew has recently commented on the Article 4.2.1 of the Church Constitution (Elder’s Page 15 April, 2007).
Constitution 4.2.1 reads as follows, “We believe in the divine, verbal, and plenary 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.”
“To seal the case tight and beyond reasonable doubt, as this doctrine of inspiration was under attack in the early and mid 1990’s the defenders of God’s perfect Word added the words ‘inerrant and infallible.’” That’s what the good reverend says lah.
Then he says some more, “The Constitution is our guide and never to be equated with or placed above the Word of God. The Constitution is the servant of the Bible and not the other way around. The Bible remains constant and forever the same whereas the Constitution can be changed for the defence of God’s Word and the protection of God’s people…Statements in our Constitution have to be improved upon and restated from time to time in order to ward off these attacks for the protection of God’s flock.”
He says alot more, but the rest of what he writes in the article is immaterial from this point onward.
If the Word of God is under attack, so he says.
If the Constitution has to be improved from time to time to protect God’s flock, then all Rev. Quek needs to – and should – do is to change the constitution.
What's the point of having a Constitution if it can be misunderstood?
What's the point of trying to defend Article 4.2.1 which is a statement on the doctrine of inspiration and redefine it to include VPP.
Words do have meanings. And the meanings do not change just because the good reverend says so.
Read 4.2.1. Is "preservation" found in its wording? Is "VPP"? No, leh.
Then what Calvary Pandan BPC needs is an amendment to the Constitution; an amendment that says that the Church believes that the divinely inspired, inerrant and infallible Holy Scriptures are preserved in the form and words of the KJV. It is the divine original (or so he used to say, lah).
Trying to read VPP in 4.2.1 is akin to eisegesis in Bible interpretation. And that I'm sure the good doctor in theology knows is a no no.
Constitution 4.2.1 reads as follows, “We believe in the divine, verbal, and plenary 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.”
“To seal the case tight and beyond reasonable doubt, as this doctrine of inspiration was under attack in the early and mid 1990’s the defenders of God’s perfect Word added the words ‘inerrant and infallible.’” That’s what the good reverend says lah.
Then he says some more, “The Constitution is our guide and never to be equated with or placed above the Word of God. The Constitution is the servant of the Bible and not the other way around. The Bible remains constant and forever the same whereas the Constitution can be changed for the defence of God’s Word and the protection of God’s people…Statements in our Constitution have to be improved upon and restated from time to time in order to ward off these attacks for the protection of God’s flock.”
He says alot more, but the rest of what he writes in the article is immaterial from this point onward.
If the Word of God is under attack, so he says.
If the Constitution has to be improved from time to time to protect God’s flock, then all Rev. Quek needs to – and should – do is to change the constitution.
What's the point of having a Constitution if it can be misunderstood?
What's the point of trying to defend Article 4.2.1 which is a statement on the doctrine of inspiration and redefine it to include VPP.
Words do have meanings. And the meanings do not change just because the good reverend says so.
Read 4.2.1. Is "preservation" found in its wording? Is "VPP"? No, leh.
Then what Calvary Pandan BPC needs is an amendment to the Constitution; an amendment that says that the Church believes that the divinely inspired, inerrant and infallible Holy Scriptures are preserved in the form and words of the KJV. It is the divine original (or so he used to say, lah).
Trying to read VPP in 4.2.1 is akin to eisegesis in Bible interpretation. And that I'm sure the good doctor in theology knows is a no no.
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Introduction
Chaucer writes: If gold rust, what shall poor iron do? For if the priest be foul, in whom we trust, What wonder if layman yield to lust?
I begin this blog as a response to the numerous mischaracterisations of some BP ministers in Singapore by other BP ministers.
This blog will be devoted to holding VPP ministers accountable to the words they say. And they've said and written a great deal.
The context: the VPP issue in the Singapore BP churches
The process: BP ministers have been maligned as neo-fundamentals (whatever that means), denounced as compromisers, and accused of denying the Bible as God's Word.
The pretext: For the defence of the truth.
The price: So far, several BP churches have split. A lawsuit in the courts. The ministers are all serious about this issue -- life and death of the church, so they say lah. But from the outside, the unbelievers are having a fun watching this sorry soap opera and family feud.
The purpose: Truth must be told. And here's the other side of the story.
I begin this blog as a response to the numerous mischaracterisations of some BP ministers in Singapore by other BP ministers.
This blog will be devoted to holding VPP ministers accountable to the words they say. And they've said and written a great deal.
The context: the VPP issue in the Singapore BP churches
The process: BP ministers have been maligned as neo-fundamentals (whatever that means), denounced as compromisers, and accused of denying the Bible as God's Word.
The pretext: For the defence of the truth.
The price: So far, several BP churches have split. A lawsuit in the courts. The ministers are all serious about this issue -- life and death of the church, so they say lah. But from the outside, the unbelievers are having a fun watching this sorry soap opera and family feud.
The purpose: Truth must be told. And here's the other side of the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)