Hell Bank Notes

James 3:1-2a, "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2 We all stumble in many ways." 

James 3:6,"The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."

Sending cheques to Charles Seet

Charles Seet wanted money, I going to upload a few cheques for him, including a blank cheque, he can fill in any number he likes!

Living together with the heretics...........

There is really only one true Statement of Faith that the entire Christian Church assembled has ever agreed on – the Nicene Creed which was finalized at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381.  And, interestingly, that same group specifically prohibited other creeds from being formulated and presented as the official teaching of the Christian Church. 

The views I have expressed on these blog posts and in my book are not new.  In fact, much of what I have written has been an attempt to inform people in this generation of ideas that were held by the Christian Church in the earliest years of its existence – when it was closest to the Apostles and its influence on the surrounding culture was the greatest.  

In a tract written in about AD 1627, a little known German divine named Rupertus Meldenius penned three short and very profound statements about how Christians should treat those with whom they disagree:

In essentials unity. In nonessentials liberty. In all things charity.

I want to introduce a good website to you

http://faithatworkfellowship.org/

Faith@Work

Purpose :

Community Networking for

1. Educational (through Asia Seminary for Ministry)

2. Community Projects as Catalyst, Facilitator and Conduit.

Asia Seminary For Ministry

 

Mission

Training Nationals to Nationals for integrity and skills.

(Psalm 78:72)

 

Objectives

1. To provide theological training, rightly dividing the

Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

 

2. To equip with skills for the work of the ministry (Eph.

4:12).

 

3. To facilitate personal and ministry development by

mentorship (2 Tim. 2:2).

We who do not believe in Verbal Plenary Preservation, we are flying like birds

Those who believe in Verbal Plenary Preservation....they are rats...........

Those who believe in Verbal Plenary Preservation....they are rats...........

 

 

What the Bible says about Bible Presbyterian Church and Far Eastern Bible College

I do not want to hear what Bible Presbyterian Church and Far Eastern Bible College talk about the Bible,

what I want to hear is what the Bible says about Bible Presbyterian Church and Far Eastern Bible College!

Should Christians Sue?†

Does the Bible forbid a Christian from taking another believer to court for any reason? Does this prohibition also apply to suing the unbeliever? Is an organization or business afforded the same protection from a Christian-intiated lawsuit? What if the believer is taken to court? Should he give over everything demanded by the person who sues or may he fight the claims against him? What defenses is the believer permitted? This chapter deals with some of these concerns and more.

    “If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.” (Matt. 5:40)

Being sued. What does this passage say to those who are being sued? Does it say that a person who is sued must deliver over to the plaintiff everything that he has been sued for? Why does this passage refer to “tunics and cloaks” and not to money? In Old Testament times and in New Testament times there were legal procedures for obtaining money judgements for owed debts. How could the passage refer to any man, without distinction as to whether that man may or may not be entitled to a recovery? If the reference is to anyone who wishes to sue, then even those who are not entitled to recover are included, but reason would dictate that the passage refers only to plaintiffs who have a just claim. Why, then, do the words seem to differ from what must be the meaning of this passage? The answer to these questions lies in the historical use and application of the coat and the cloak.

Clothing, in relation to debts, is legally significant in the Old Testament, and also the New Testament. In Old Testament times, a man’s coat or cloak was the last thing (before himself or his children) that he would sell or pledge to borrow money to survive. Because the pledge of clothing affected the most basic articles for survival, the law limited what a creditor could do to take it in satisfaction for a debt. For instance, the creditor could not go into the house of the debtor and forcibly seize the article of pledge (Deut. 24:10, 11). The same is basically true today.1 If the debtor had pledged his clothing, the creditor would have to return it to him each evening so he would have something warm to sleep in (Deut. 24:12, 13; Exod. 22:26, 27).2 Christ’s reference to the coat or cloak does not imply unlimited license to any conceivable legal demand on someone but to the returning of articles that have been pledged to creditors who have not been paid. It is, therefore, not a command to pay money that is not legally owed, but refers to debts from loans that are actually owed. Therefore, the Christian is perfectly free to raise any honest and legal defense in the event that he has been sued.

If the passage refers to the payment of pledges after the release of debt, Deuteronomy 15 then is also a clear statement that a lien should survive a discharge of the debt in bankruptcy, which is basically the case today.

Suing others. Is it righteous for a Christian to sue another Christian when he has been wronged? The apostle Paul speaks directly to this issue: “Now, therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another.Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6:7).

This is a difficult saying, but there are many difficult sayings in the Bible, and their difficulty does not render them unsaid. When this saying is viewed in the light of other doctrine and in the light of present law, however, it becomes more understandable but no less difficult.

Forgiveness is a critical element throughout the Scriptures, and it is God’s desire for forgiveness and harmony among believers that forms the basis of this saying by Paul. Paul is clearly concerned here with the inherent contradiction between lawsuits and forgiveness. And Christ made it clear that there is a close relationship between forgiveness of debts and the forgiveness of sin (Matt. 18:22–35).

In the parable of the unjust steward, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who was moved to compassion and forgave his steward the money debt that was owed to him by the steward. The forgiven steward then demanded full payment from another steward. Christ calls the forgiven steward who failed to forgive his debtor a wicked servant: “You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?” (Matt. 18:32, 33).

Of course, we must remember that this is only a parable, and it does not state directly that a failure to forgive a money debt is sin. As a parable, it simply uses the example of the forgiveness of a money debt as an illustration of the forgiveness of sin.

However, the Greek word which is translated “debt” in this passage is the same word which is likewise translated “debt” or sin in the Lord’s prayer. This underscores the close parallel between God’s forgiveness of sins and the forgiveness of debts: “And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 6:12).

Although the primary meaning of the Greek word refers to money debts, some translations use the word as “sins” or “trespasses.” However, if the meaning of this word were limited to sins and did not include debts also, it would be hard to understand why a different and more precise word for “sins” (and not “debts”) is used only two verses later (in Matt. 6:14) in the same Lord’s prayer to refer to sins and trespasses and not to money debts. The parallel passage in Luke 11:4 uses a different word that means only “sin.” We can conclude that the word in Matthew 6:12 may be read in either way but that it will at least connote the forgiveness of money debts.

Lawsuits that demand money judgements are, therefore, by their nature the antithesis of forgiveness. It seems clear that we cannot forgive and sue at the same time. This results in an apparent theological conflict that must be resolved. It is unrighteous for a man not to pay his debts if he can reasonably do so (Ps. 37:21; Matt. 5:40), but it is likewise unrighteous for a creditor to try to exact payment from someone who cannot pay.3 The resolution of this apparent conflict lies in the fact that not all debt needs to be forgiven. The scriptural ideal is a creditor who has rendered a valid service or made a fair sale and a debtor who is willing and ultimately able to pay in full. This debt need never be forgiven.

The trouble arises when the creditor has not rendered a valid service or made a fair sale but still wishes to be paid in full for it, or when the creditor has rendered a valid service or made a fair sale but the debtor refuses to pay. Situations like these are unjust and have the makings of lawsuits. It is situations like these, however, that Paul addresses when he admonishes with regard to Christians suing Christians: “Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?” Paul is saying that the harm done by the lawsuit against a fellow Christian may do such harm that it would have been better to be harmed in a lesser way by being cheated or defrauded. Trials usually have no winners. They are arduous tasks that tax the energies and emotions of the persons involved. Even what is won may not be worth the loss of repuation for the individual and Christ’s kingdom.

The bitterness and contention generated by Christians attempting to take money from one another do more harm to God’s purposes than the enforcement of manmade justice. Nowhere are we told to collect from our enemies, but we are told to forgive them and feed them (1 Cor. 6:6, 7).

Of course, many a lawsuit is fought more for the principle of the matter than for the money. But unfortunately the principle most often so adamantly championed is revenge, and that principle is best left to God.

Sometimes, however, the bone of contention in a lawsuit may not present any issue of forgiveness. The lawsuit may hinge on a totally impersonal legal question that requires a judge vested with the authority of the government to make a decision.

A lawsuit is the result either of one person failing to fulfill a legal obligation or of one person alleging that a nonexistent legal obligation actually exists, or a little of both. A lawsuit is a dispute as to who owes what. Numerous Old Testament laws address the issue of who owes what. These laws are meant to avoid disputes by defining in advance exactly who owes what—under what circumstances. Modern laws are written for the same reason. Old Testament and modern laws are meant not to cause lawsuits and disputes but to prevent them. Just because biblical passages or modern laws provide for the recovery of sums of money for certain reasons does not mean that in all instances that right should be enforced. Very little is said in the Bible about the enforcement of rights of recovery.

The ideal seen in Scripture is not a list of circumstances where the plaintiff is not required to forgive and may sue. The scriptural ideal is for every plaintiff to be ready and willing to forgive every defendant and for every defendant to be ready and willing to make whatever reparation to the plaintiff is righteous and reasonable and scriptural. The scriptural ideal is concord not discord, agreement and reconciliation not lawsuits.

Unfortunately, discord reigns in the courts, not concord. Discord likewise reigns in the business world. If the demands of righteousness require forgiveness in the face of a discordant business world, and if lawsuits, which are standard of the day, are an elemental part of good business practice, how can Christians in business protect themselves if they cannot sue? Can a Christian ever scripturally sue anyone, and if so, whom can he sue and whom can he not sue? Scripture states directly that lawsuits should not take place between or among Christians, even in a clear case of fraud and wrongdoing. If a defendant is not a Christian, however, then Paul’s admonition not to sue should not necessarily apply. Thus a lawsuit against a corporation would probably be unaffected by 1 Corinthians 6:7.4 Also, in the event of proper church discipline, a person may be dealt with as an unbeliever (Matt. 18:17, 18). This may well render such a person outside the scope of 1 Corinthians 6:6, 7. There is no specific scriptural admonition not to sue other persons or entities, such as governments. In determining to sue or not to sue, however, the Christian should keep in mind that just because a defendant is scripturally open to suit doesn’t mean that the Christian plaintiff is not at the same time called to forgive the defendant.5

For what should a Christian not sue? One of the most common lawsuits is a negligence action. Normally this involves suing someone for injuries. The injury that is the subject of the suit may be the result of a willful and wanton act or a grossly negligent act on the part of a defendant. Exodus 21 provides a biblical basis for recovery for personal injuries that are the direct result of willful or wanton actions, such as intentional injuries and blows to another person or, as specifically mentioned in that passage, injuries caused to a pregnant woman when two men fight each other. Other such willful or wanton actions mentioned in Scripture are situations where an owner of a notoriously dangerous ox permits the ox to have access to people and to injure them, or where a man digs a pit and leaves it open for someone to fall into. These are situations that the law today calls willful or wanton acts of gross negligence, and they can form the basis of recovery today as they did at the time of the law given by Moses. A more contemporary example of grossly neglectful conduct is a drunken driver.

There is, on the other hand, no scriptural basis for recovery against someone for a good-faith mistake. That is, if someone who acts entirely in good faith causes a loss to another person, then the person who suffers loss could not, under biblical law or principle, force the person who causes the loss to repay it. Today, however, most lawsuits are founded upon good-faith mistakes. Such a lawsuit is called a negligence action. The law of negligence says in effect that if one person, who acts in good faith and without any intention to harm anyone, injures another person, then he must pay for that injury. The crux of the difference between a lawsuit to recover for willful or wanton acts and a lawsuit for negligent acts is that where there is a willful or wanton act, the person causing the injury is consciously responsible for the resulting injury; but where there is a negligent act, the person causing the injury may do it without any conscious neglect or intention. Indeed, he may cause the injury while being as careful as he knows how to be. One reason that God has not provided for recovery based on a good-faith mistake is that he knows we are all imperfect. We all make mistakes. Why, therefore, should we hold ourselves to a standard of perfection that none of us can truly meet? However, with the institution of negligence laws our legal system makes each of us, within the scope of the application of those laws, the insurer of everyone with whom we come in contact. The result of these laws is that we insure the world that all of what we do will be without error, which is absurd.

A negligence action is founded on the presupposition that everyone is held to a standard of care of the “reasonable person.” The practical application when these lawsuits are tried, is that the reasonable person is one who never makes the mistake. Therefore, all the plaintiff need do is prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, that duty was broken by an error made by the defendant, and that an injury resulted.

Another common cause of action is a suit for a breach of contract. The Christian plaintiff in this suit should consider whether or not the breach is due to an intentional act or a good-faith mistake.

How can Christians avoid getting into situations that normally can be remedied only through lawsuits? One of the first answers to this is contained in 1 Corinthians 6:5, the passage that outlaws lawsuits among Christians. In this passage Paul asks, “Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” Paul indicates here and in the following verse that the proper alternative is to provide for arbitration within the church. Arbitration is a method whereby disputes are settled by the parties agreeing in advance that some third party will make a decision and that they will abide by that decision. It is, in effect, the setting up of a “court” within the church or between people and agreeing in advance what power and authority that “court” will have. Most states have arbitration laws that are just as binding as the courts. A church or group of churches could take advantage of such laws and institute all of the necessary scriptural principles they felt were applicable. Arbitration has another clear advantage: It provides a forum for two parties who are at odds with one another to meet and discuss and come to an agreement. Forgiveness can take place within this context far more easily than when lawyers square off and the plaintiffs and the defendants meet head-on-head in the courtroom. The court system today could hardly be made less conducive to forgiveness and reconciliation than it already is. The parties don’t speak to each other, and the lawyers, who are interested only in the legal aspects of the case, battle it out for a fee. There is no reason why litigants could not retain counsel within the context of an arbitration. When honest people with honest lawyers act with the honest intention to achieve forgiveness, justice, and equity among themselves, then God will bless their transaction. The expense and the fees that could be saved with such a resolution could be enormous. Obviously if the parties and actions are not honest, results could be much different, and a trial may ensue.

Another alternative would be for Christians to locate a Christian judge and employ him or her to hear interchurch cases. It may be necessary to pass legislation to permit parties to the litigation to file their suit and agree on a specific judge to hear the case.

Another scriptural admonition which can be used to avoid a situation leading to a lawsuit is Christ’s admonition to his disciples in Matthew 10:16: “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Perhaps the first part of this verse, “Be as wise as serpents,” is more applicable. Christ suggests that we should be wise in avoiding situations that may result in disastrous consequences. For instance, we should be extremely careful in extending credit. We should get paid in advance or have a third party hold a sum of money to be paid upon completion of a task. We should be aware of all of the facts and aware of the debt structure of persons with whom we deal. We should structure business arrangements so that there is a minimum risk. The old adage that a contract is only as good as the person with whom we contract is true.

This discussion is not intended to offer a final conclusion on every lawsuit or potential lawsuit. It is meant only to be a general discussion on general biblical principles, and not all biblical references to lawsuits have been included. All of Scripture should be applied with care and wisdom to each situation, and each situation should be judged (in light of Scripture) on its own merits.

Monetary concepts in the Old Testament offer further insight into ways to avoid conflicts. For instance, as emphasized in chapter 17 on bankruptcy, Old Testament law systematically discouraged consumer loans and transformed them into gifts every seven years (Deut. 15:2). The scriptural admonition that the borrower is the lender’s slave can apply to lenders as well as borrowers.

God’s ideal was not vindication but forgiveness, not collection but charity, and not enforcement but wisdom. It is God who is the author of all good things (James 1:17), not lawyers.

quotation from :

H. Wayne House, Christian Ministries and the Law: Revised Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 175–183.

The Heresy of Infallibility

Can you imagine Jesus as a boy cutting his hand in his father’s carpentry shop?
Or did Jesus’ divine nature protect him from all such human frailty? Just how
“infallible” was he? The pre-Raphaelite painter John Everett Millais (1829–1896)
could imagine Jesus in just such a predicament. Millais’s painting Christ in the
House of His Parents(orChrist in the Carpenter’s Shop) portrays the boy Jesus in the
shop, including all its dangerous tools, holding up his bleeding hand while being
tended to by his solicitous mother. A young John the Baptist hurries up with a basin of water to bathe the wound.

Critics are no doubt right who speak of John’s basin and Jesus’ injury as prefiguring baptism and crucifixion, but putting the scene in the shop still calls our attention to Jesus’ true humanity, susceptible to the kind
of human error or accident that awaits us all.

The point is that for Jesus to be truly human, he had to be fallible (while not
sinful). Not all of his corners were square; not all of his hammers struck true. To
claim otherwise would be to fall prey to the gnostic heresy of docetism—that Jesus
only seemed to be fully human. The church is and has been clear about this
throughout the ages.

And what then about Scripture? Shall we have a “higher” doctrine of Scripture than we have of Christ, accepting the human fallibility of Jesus but not of Holy Scripture? That would seem remarkably odd, and would, of course, partake of the same docetic heresy: Scripture only seemsto have a human element, that is, human authors subject to human limitations; it (unlike Jesus!) is solely divine.

Many would like just such a Bible. And many religions provide it—a Qur’an
transmitted literally from God by way of the angel Gabriel; the Book of Mormon,
hidden on metal plates and magically translated by Joseph Smith. But the Bible is
no such book. And make no mistake: this is not a fault of Christian faith, not a sad
but true failing. This is Christian faith; this is the heart of the matter—that God
comes to us in the flesh, that God was in Christ, that to see Jesus is to see the Father,
that the Creator of all things takes on true humanity, including the suffering, uncertainties, and human fallibility that come with that incredible divine risk. Paul’s point is not that “we have this treasure in clay jars,” but, oh, would that it were otherwise! No, this is the gospel itself, given in this way so that we are “always carrying
in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in
our bodies” (2 Cor 4:7–10).

We could ask for a different Bible, but to do so would be to ask for a different
god—the untouched god of the philosophers or the distant god of much human
religion. True, we confess that the Bible unerringly points us to God and Christ,
and that is what it is for. But if it were to do this “inhumanly,” that is, without true
humanness, without being an earthen vessel, the God to whom it would point
would not be the God of the Bible, the One fully committed to participation in this
world. To say that the Bible unerringly points us to Christ is not to say that it does
so magically, inevitably, mechanically (ex opere operato), but rather to say that,
faithfully proclaimed, the Bible bears Christ to us and for us—God in Christ—to
be received in the mystery of faith through the power of the Spirit.
The gospel is not something we “get right” in infallible words; it is a living
word that comes to us always anew, always as surprise. Martin Luther, discussing
“how the kingdom of Christ is carried on by the office of preaching,” notes that the
gospel, though promised in the writings of the Old Testament,
was not preached orally and publicly until Christ came and sent out his apostles.
Therefore the church is a mouth-house, not a pen-house....It is the way of the
Gospel and of the New Testament that it is to be preached and discussed orally
with a living voice....Thus the apostles were not sent out until Christ came to his
mouth-house, that is, until the time had come to preach orally and to bring the
Gospel from dead writing and pen-work to the living voice and mouth.

A living word is more precarious than “dead writing,” but only the former conveys
the gospel. To want to nail Scripture down with a doctrine of infallibility will finally
fail to appreciate fully the nails that cut the boy Jesus in Millais’s painting or the nails
that cut the man Jesus on that terrible Good Friday.

In short, to assert an infallible Scripture is to commit the heresy of docetism.
So, make no apology for teaching the wonder of a truly human (and truly divine)
Bible. Such teaching is not less faithful, as is often claimed, for the alternative precisely removes the element of faith, offering a misplaced certainty instead. It seeks
to walk by sight, and thus misses the very heart of Christian faith.


F.J.G.

http://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/issues.aspx?article_id=1517

The Judgment of Charity

by R.C. Sproul

Every time I read the Gospels, I am struck by how Jesus seems to have found Himself in the middle of controversy wherever He went. I am also struck by how Jesus handled each controversy differently. He did not follow the example of Leo “The Lip” DeRosier, the former manager of the New York Giants and treat every person He encountered in the same manner. Although He expected everyone to play by the same rules, He shepherded people according to their specific needs.

The Old Testament depicts the Good Shepherd as One who carries both a staff and a rod, for His responsibility is both to guide His sheep and to protect them from ravenous wolves (Ps. 23:4). In the Gospels, we see Jesus exercise His protective rod most often against the scribes and Pharisees. When Jesus dealt with these men, He asked no quarter and gave none. When He pronounced the judgment of God on them publicly, He used the oracle of woe that was used by the Old Testament prophets: “Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte [convert], and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:15).

Jesus dealt with many of the religious leaders of His day so forcefully because of their hard-hearted hypocrisy. Other people who were cognizant of their sin and ashamed of it—these He addressed with love and encouragement. Consider the woman at the well (John 4). Jesus sat and talked with a Samaritan woman, which was unheard of for a Jewish rabbi in those days because of common biases against women and Samaritans. He patiently drew a confession of sin out of her and revealed His Messianic office to her. Jesus treated her as a bruised reed and smoldering wick, tenderly confronting but not crushing her (Matt. 12:15–21).

Among many other things, I think Christ’s example teaches us how we are to deal with those with whom we disagree. Sometimes we must be forceful and sometimes we must be gentle—forceful with the wolves and gentle with Jesus’ lambs.

There are disagreements we have with our brothers, but also disagreements we have with those who claim to be our brothers but who may, in fact, be wolves in sheep’s clothing. Such wolves always represent a clear danger to the safety, health, and well-being of Christ’s sheep. No quarter can be given to wolves, but we are called to exercise gentleness toward those whose disagreements with us do not touch the heart of Christian orthodoxy.

To know the difference between when to be gentle and when to be forceful is one of the most difficult matters for mature Christians to discern. I don’t have a formula that is easily applied, but I do know that we are always called to deal with the disputes and disagreements we have on the basis of charity, that is, love.

Charity and Its Fruits by Jonathan Edwards is the deepest exposition of 1 Corinthians 13 that I know of. I’ve read it at least half-a-dozen times, probably more. In this work, Edwards writes:

A truly humble man, is inflexible in nothing but in the cause of his Lord and master, which is the cause of truth and virtue. In this he is inflexible because God and conscience require it; but in things of lesser moment, and which do not involve his principles as a follower of Christ, and in things that only concern his own private interests, he is apt to yield to others.

The humility of which Edwards is speaking here is a humility that must be brought to every disagreement that erupts among believers. It is a humility that brings to the fore what in church history many have called the judgment of charity. The judgment of charity works something like this: When we disagree with one another, I believe that we are called as Christians to assume the motives of the person with whom we disagree are pure motives. This is the approach we are to have with those with whom we have an honest difference in biblical interpretation but who love the Bible and aren’t trying to change what it teaches. Such people are unwilling to compromise the essential truths of the Christian faith.

Now, the judgment of charity assumes in a Christian dispute that the brother or sister with whom we are disagreeing is disagreeing honestly and with personal integrity. Here I think of my friend John MacArthur. If I disagree about something with John—I don’t care what it is—and we go to the mat and talk about it, John will change his position—no matter the cost— if I can persuade him that the Bible teaches my view and not his. That’s because what he wants more than anything else is to be faithful to the Word of God.

That’s what I mean by the judgment of charity. We don’t impugn people’s motives and don’t assume the worst of them when we disagree with them. We make a distinction between best-case and worst-case analysis. The problem we all have as sinners on this side of glory is that we tend to reserve best-case analysis to our own motives and give worst-case analysis to our brother’s and sister’s motives. That’s just the opposite of the spirit we’re called to have in terms of biblical humility.

Jeffrey Khoo from FEBC is noticing my blog, and he is angry....

He wrote:

It is well-known that FEBC stands foursquare on the 100% perfection of the Holy Scriptures. Satan is not pleased with this for sure. We are getting a lot of his attention. In the internet, a number of blogs have been set up for the sole purpose of slandering and ridiculing FEBC. These blogs are not just inflammatory, they are defamatory. We are open to criticisms and can take the flak, but false accusations are satanic. The bloggers are anonymous (there is even one who uses multiple pseudonyms to deceive). They maliciously and falsely accuse FEBC of “heresy”.

http://febc.edu.sg/assets/weekly2014/weekly-volxii-no8.htm

My comment: he thinks he is well learned, and know everything, and we are not as good as him.....he thought he is the only One who can write, and we are not as good as him, so every one must let him attack, and let him mock brothers and sisters of Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore. He is a free man, and we are not?

Lets see what he is going to write next.

Bible Presbyterian Church.

Bible Presbyterian Church. A small Presbyterian denomination born out of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. In 1936 The Presbyterian Church of America (later Orthodox Presbyterian Church) was founded by a small group of pastors and elders who left the Presbyterian Church-U.S.A. The immediate cause for this exodus was the suspension of J. Gresham Machen and J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., from the Presbyterian ministry due to their support of an independent mission board that sought to insure biblical teaching on Presbyterian mission fields. The newly formed denomination was soon drawn into internal conflict. Genuine differences in doctrine, ethics and church government, coupled with suspicions and disagreements, led Buswell, Carl McIntire, Allan MacRae and others to separate and form the Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) in 1937.

At its first synod the BPC amended the Westminster standards to teach premillennialism. A piety which included alcoholic abstinence was enjoined, and a church government allowing greater freedom to the local church and both independent and church-controlled agencies was established. The chief characteristic was a self-conscious denominational “testimony” for the Bible and Jesus Christ, which issued in separatist stance calling for separation from apostasy as well as from those having fellowship with apostates. This ultimately isolated the BPC and hindered evangelistic efforts.

The BPC was originally supportive of the American and International Councils of Christian Churches (ACCC; ICCC) presided over by Carl McIntire. Disagreement during the 1950s over the denomination’s association with the ACCC and ICCC and the autonomy of BPC agencies led to the withdrawal of McIntire and others at the 1956 General Assembly to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, Collingswood Synod. The majority continued as the Bible Presbyterian Church, Columbus Synod, until 1961, when the denomination changed its name to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). In 1965 the EPC then merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, General Synod, to form the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.    G. P. Hutchinson, The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (1974); The Constitution of the Bible Presbyterian Church (1946).
J. H. Hall

copied from
Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).