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.
