Siregar's message can be found at https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/church_weekly/misery-addiction-and-antidote/
The message by Haposan Siregar, while earnest and filled with pastoral concern, reflects several theological and methodological problems, especially in its advocacy for Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-Onlyism. Below is a structured critique that addresses the key issues:
1. Theological Overreach of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)
Claimed Perfection of Apographs
Haposan asserts:
“We believe that the Bible is both inspired and preserved—verbally in every word and plenarily as a whole—kept pure in all ages, without error in any matter.”
This is a central claim of VPP, that not only were the autographs (original manuscripts) inspired, but that a particular set of apographs (copies) have been providentially preserved without error, to the letter.
However, this goes beyond biblical teaching. Scripture teaches inspiration (2 Tim 3:16) and divine preservation (Ps 119:89; Isa 40:8), but it does not specify that such preservation would occur in a single textual tradition or that every copyist's letter would be supernaturally preserved without corruption. In fact:
-
The Bible was preserved through the multitude of manuscripts, not one perfect stream.
-
Even faithful scribes made errors—hence the need for textual criticism.
-
Jesus affirmed the enduring authority of Scripture (Matt 5:18) but did not say a perfect set of manuscripts would be preserved without any variants.
To assert that the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus are perfectly preserved to the last letter (as FEBC and VPP proponents do) is theologically presumptuous. It implies a level of divine action the Scriptures themselves do not promise about the copies.
2. KJV-Onlyism: A Problematic Elevation of One Translation
While Haposan does not overtly promote the King James Version (KJV) in this message, his alignment with FEBC and Jeffrey Khoo implies it strongly, since FEBC teaches that the KJV is the only faithful English Bible because it is based on the “perfect” TR.
This view is flawed because:
-
No Bible verse commands or implies that one translation is the only legitimate one.
-
The KJV, though influential and beautiful, is based on a limited set of Greek manuscripts available in the 16th century (Erasmus’ editions).
-
It includes translational choices and textual readings that differ from older and earlier manuscripts (e.g., Alexandrian manuscripts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).
-
To treat one human translation as inerrant is a form of bibliolatry, risking making the KJV an idol.
In fact, no translation is perfect, including the KJV, which itself has undergone several revisions since 1611. The claim of its “perfection” has no biblical warrant and contradicts the historical process of transmission.
3. False Dichotomy and Strawman Argumentation
Haposan unfairly paints all non-VPP, non-KJV Christians as compromisers or corruptors of the Word:
“There are liberals, modernists, Charismatics, ecumenists, Roman Catholics, and neo-evangelicals who in various ways undermine the authority of Scripture.”
This is a broad and careless generalization. Many evangelicals and Charismatics who use modern versions (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV) have:
-
A high view of Scripture.
-
Commitments to inerrancy and Christ-centered faithfulness.
-
Deep love and reverence for God’s Word in their own languages.
To accuse them of “making void the Bible” merely because they do not affirm FEBC’s position is uncharitable and divisive. Disagreement over textual criticism or Bible versions does not equal rebellion against God.
4. Presumption to Speak for God’s Preservation Choices
By stating:
“Every book, every chapter, every verse, every word, every syllable, every letter is infallibly preserved by the Lord Himself to the last iota.”
Haposan attributes to God an unproven human assertion. This amounts to playing God, as if we can authoritatively declare which exact manuscript readings are preserved by divine fiat.
-
But God has not revealed which textual variants are the “preserved ones.”
-
The historical and textual data do not support one “perfect” stream of manuscripts.
-
The science of textual criticism, far from undermining Scripture, helps us carefully recover what the authors most likely wrote.
Thus, the VPP claim is a kind of pseudo-certainty, attempting to force God’s providence into human dogma.
5. Misuse of Psalm 119:126
The verse “It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law” is indeed a cry against lawlessness, but Haposan uses it to defend a specific doctrinal agenda (VPP and KJV-Onlyism), not simply a love for God’s law.
This is eisegesis—reading one’s theological bias into the text. The verse does not imply:
-
The preservation of one textual family,
-
The superiority of a particular English translation,
-
Or condemnation of anyone using a different Greek NT.
This is a misuse of Scripture to prop up sectarian distinctives rather than promote unity in truth.
6. Appeal to Institutional Authority and Legacy
The message repeatedly appeals to FEBC, Timothy Tow, and GAPPI’s doctrinal constitution—implying that truth is established by historical continuity and organizational alignment.
But Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) is the final authority—not:
-
A seminary’s doctrinal formulation,
-
The preferences of a beloved mentor,
-
Or a constitution modeled after another church.
These appeals are emotionally powerful, but theologically misplaced if they substitute for sound exegesis and biblical reasoning.
Conclusion
Haposan’s zeal for God’s Word is admirable, and his desire to combat false doctrine is valid. However, his embrace of Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJV-Onlyism introduces serious theological, textual, and practical errors. These views:
-
Go beyond what Scripture teaches,
-
Divide the body of Christ,
-
Misrepresent fellow believers,
-
And elevate human traditions and translations to near-canonical status.
Instead of insisting on perfect preservation in one version or text, a more biblical position is to affirm:
-
The inspiration of the original autographs,
-
The reliable preservation of God’s Word through many witnesses,
-
The trustworthiness of major translations,
-
And the necessity of careful, humble scholarship to study and interpret Scripture.
In the end, we uphold the Bible best not by dogmatic claims of perfection, but by humble obedience, charity toward others, and Christ-centered proclamation.
PS: Haposan will undoubtedly be expelled from the homilectic swimming pool.
No comments:
Post a Comment