Haposan Siregar's message can be found at https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/church_weekly/misery-addiction-and-antidote/
I am addressing both its strengths and significant weaknesses from theological, methodological, and pastoral perspectives:
Strengths & Valid Concerns
Emphasis on Biblical Authority:
The author rightly stresses the necessity of Scripture governing Christian life and warns against neglecting/misusing the Bible (e.g., the East Java pastor’s exploitation). These are legitimate critiques of abuses in some Christian circles.
Pastoral Vigilance:
His engagement with the "sinless perfection" group demonstrates commendable pastoral concern for doctrinal integrity and the dangers of spiritual pride.
Call for Discernment:
Highlighting liberal skepticism toward miracles and ecumenical compromises serves as a valid reminder to uphold core Christian truths.
Critical Weaknesses & Concerns
Overbroad & Uncharitable Labeling:
Grouping "liberals, modernists, Charismatics, ecumenists, Roman Catholics, and neo-evangelicals" as those who "make void the Bible" is reductionist and theologically uncharitable. This dismisses orthodox believers within these traditions who affirm scriptural authority but differ on interpretation or preservation. Such rhetoric fosters division, not discernment.
Problematic Conflation of Issues:
Misuse vs. Preservation: Critiques of pastoral abuses (e.g., the East Java story) or doctrinal errors (e.g., "sinless perfection") are unrelated to textual preservation. These examples do not demonstrate "corruption of the text" but misapplication of the text—a crucial distinction.
Preservation ≠ KJV/VPP: The leap from affirming God’s preservation of Scripture (a mainstream evangelical belief) to insisting on Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) as defined by FEBC is an unsubstantiated theological claim. Most scholars agree God preserved His message faithfully but acknowledge minor textual variants in manuscripts—none affecting core doctrine.
VPP/KJV-Only Dogmatism:
Circular Reasoning: The author assumes VPP (and by implication, the KJV/Textus Receptus) without engaging contrary evidence. He claims the Bible "teaches" preservation "in every word" (Matt 5:18), but this verse addresses the law’s fulfillment, not textual transmission.
Historical Ignorance: No extant manuscript matches the KJV perfectly. Early Christians used diverse manuscripts (Byzantine, Alexandrian), and the KJV itself was a revision of earlier English Bibles. Insisting on one textual tradition as "perfect" ignores documented scribal variations.
Practical Consequences: Elevating the KJV (or Indonesian equivalents) as the only valid Bible risks alienating non-English speakers and younger generations who benefit from contemporary translations.
Inconsistency in Application:
The author uses an Indonesian Bible translation to interpret Psalm 119:126 ("merombak Taurat-Mu"), yet his VPP view implicitly delegitimizes non-KJV-based translations. This undermines his own practice of using vernacular Scripture.
Tribalistic Ecclesiology:
Framing FEBC/GAPPI as the exclusive guardians of truth ("I began GAPPI in the spirit of FEBC") implies other traditions are compromised. This mirrors the very "pride" he critiques in the "sinless perfection" group.
Eschatological Tension Ignored:
While correctly noting believers remain sinners in this life, he fails to reconcile this with VPP’s implication that the church possesses a physically perfect Bible. If human fallibility affects theology, why not textual transmission?
Pastoral & Theological Risks
Division Over Unity: The rhetoric fuels suspicion of other Christians rather than promoting constructive dialogue. Labeling diverse groups as "voiding God’s law" alienates potential allies in upholding biblical authority.
Idolizing a Translation: Treating the KJV/Textus Receptus as inerrant risks bibliolatry—confusing the textual vehicle with the divine voice.
Neglect of Hermeneutics: The focus on preservation overshadows the harder work of interpretation and application in cultural contexts (e.g., Indonesia’s pluralistic society).
Conclusion
Haposan Siregar’s zeal for Scripture’s authority is admirable, but his argument is weakened by dogmatic adherence to VPP/KJV-Onlyism, uncharitable broad-brushing of other Christians, and conflating genuine abuses with textual criticism. A more robust approach would:
Affirm God’s faithful preservation of His Word without insisting on one manuscript tradition;
Engage charitably with Christians who use diverse translations;
Address hermeneutical challenges rather than attributing all disagreement to "voiding" Scripture.
The appeal for God to "work" is urgent—but it must begin with humility, recognizing that the Spirit illuminates Scripture through the global, historic church, not one institution alone.
PS: Haposan Siregar was indeed preaching with pride!
No comments:
Post a Comment