The New Disguised as Old

 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.

https://sotheysay-lah.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-disguise-as-old.html