Augustine mentioned that minor textual variations don't undermine Scripture's authority

Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430) addresses the issue of textual variations in Scripture and their impact on its authority in his work "De Doctrina Christiana" (On Christian Doctrine), specifically in Book II, Chapter 12. Here, he acknowledges the existence of manuscript discrepancies but argues that such variations do not undermine Scripture’s core truths or divine authority. 

________________________________________

1. From De Doctrina Christiana (Book II, Chapter 12):

He wrote that a diversity of interpretations is useful.

https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Augustine%20doctrine.pdf

• Augustine acknowledges that scribal errors or variations exist due to copying mistakes, but he advises readers to prioritize reason and context to resolve ambiguities:

"When, however, a word is ambiguous... we must either consult the original language or compare various translations. If the same ambiguity exists in all of them, we must rely on the context... For the truth of the Scriptures is so divinely supported that even such variations do not hinder the devout reader."

• He emphasizes that minor textual issues do not obscure the Bible’s overarching message or its divine inspiration.

________________________________________

2. In His Letters (e.g., Letter 71 to Jerome):

• Augustine corresponded with Jerome, who was translating the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin (the Vulgate). Augustine defended the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament used by early Christians), despite its differences from the Hebrew text:

"For the very same Spirit that was in the prophets when they spoke was present also in the seventy translators... so that they too could also say something else, just as divinely, as if the prophet himself had said both."

— Letter 71, Section 5

• Here, Augustine argues that even divergent translations can be divinely guided, trusting that God preserves Scripture’s essential truths despite human imperfections.

________________________________________

From Augustine’s View:

1. Tolerance for Minor Variations: Augustine accepted textual diversity as inevitable in a pre-printing-press world but insisted that core doctrines (e.g., Christ’s resurrection, God’s love) remain intact.

2. Divine Providence: He believed God ensured Scripture’s reliability despite human errors, as the Holy Spirit guided both the original authors and later translators.

3. Focus on the Message: For Augustine, Scripture’s authority lay in its ability to inspire faith and love, not in mechanical precision:

"Whoever, therefore, thinks he understands the Scriptures… but does not build up the twin love of God and neighbor has not yet understood them."

— De Doctrina Christiana, Book I, Chapter 36

________________________________________

Why This Matters:

Augustine’s approach reflects a pastoral and theological perspective: Scripture’s authority is rooted in its transformative purpose, not textual perfection. His writings remain foundational for understanding how early Christians navigated textual diversity while maintaining confidence in Scripture’s divine inspiration.

The pursuit of a "perfect Bible"

The pursuit of a "perfect Bible"—often understood as reconstructing the most accurate possible text of the original manuscripts.

Challenges and Limitations

1. The Myth of "Perfection"
• The original autographs are lost, and reconstructing them perfectly is impossible due to gaps in manuscript evidence. The pursuit risks becoming an endless academic exercise.
• Example: Even the oldest manuscripts (e.g., 𝔓52, 2nd c. CE) are fragments, leaving questions about earlier forms.
2. Neglect of the Bible’s Purpose
• Overemphasis on textual perfection can distract from the Bible’s role in shaping faith, ethics, and community. The message risks being overshadowed by debates over minor variants.
• Example: Jesus and Paul quoted the Septuagint (a Greek translation with variations from the Hebrew), prioritizing theological meaning over textual precision.
3. Divisiveness
• Disagreements over textual preferences (e.g., KJV-onlyism vs. modern translations) can fracture communities, implying that faith hinges on textual purity rather than spiritual truth.
4. Cultural and Canonical Diversity
• Different traditions already use varying canons (e.g., Protestant 66 books, Catholic 73, Ethiopian Orthodox 81+). A universally "perfect" Bible is unattainable without resolving these differences.

---

A Balanced Perspective

The pursuit of textual accuracy is valuable but not ultimate. Key principles include:

• Humility: Acknowledge that no manuscript is flawless, yet trust the overall reliability of Scripture.
• Purpose: Prioritize the Bible’s transformative message over hyper-focus on textual minutiae.
• Practical Faith: As Augustine noted, minor variations do not undermine Scripture’s authority, since the Holy Spirit “accommodates” human limitations in transmission.

---

Conclusion

There is "good" in pursuing a more accurate Bible if it deepens understanding and trust in Scripture. However, this pursuit must be tempered with the recognition that the Bible’s authority lies not in textual perfection but in its enduring power to convey divine truth, inspire faith, and guide communities. The goal is not an unattainable "perfect" text but a faithful engagement with the Word as it has been preserved and proclaimed through history.

When the Bible was canonized, the Church did not seek a "perfect" Bible

The formation of the biblical canon was a gradual process, shaped by theological, historical, and communal factors.

1. Canonization Timeline

• Old Testament (Hebrew Bible):
  The Jewish canon was largely settled by the end of the 1st century CE, traditionally linked to the Council of Jamnia (Yavne), though modern scholars debate its formal role. The tripartite structure (Torah, Prophets, Writings) was affirmed, with most books accepted by the 2nd century BCE.
• New Testament:
  The canon evolved over centuries. Key milestones include:
• 367 CE: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Easter letter listing the 27 NT books.
• 393–397 CE: Councils of Hippo and Carthage ratifying the NT canon as recognized today.

2. Manuscripts Available at the Time

• Old Testament:
• Hebrew Texts: Pre-Masoretic manuscripts (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, 3rd c. BCE–1st c. CE), which show textual diversity.
• Greek Septuagint: A 3rd–2nd c. BCE translation widely used by Hellenistic Jews and early Christians.
• New Testament:
• Early Papyri: Fragments like 𝔓52 (John, ~125 CE) and codices like 𝔓45, 𝔓46, 𝔓66 (2nd–3rd c. CE).
• Uncial Codices: Complete 4th-century manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) containing most NT books.

3. Pursuit of a "Perfect" Bible?

• Canon vs. Textual Perfection:
  The focus was on authoritative content, not textual uniformity. Early communities prioritized apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and liturgical use over resolving minor textual variations.
• Textual Diversity:
  Manuscripts exhibited variations (e.g., spelling, phrasing), but these were tolerated as long as theological coherence remained. The concept of a "perfect" text is modern; ancient compilers relied on available copies without systematic comparison.
• Heresies as Catalyst:
  Challenges like Marcion’s truncated canon (2nd c.) and Gnostic writings spurred efforts to define orthodoxy, emphasizing canon over textual precision.

Why This Matters Today

The canonization process sought to unify communities around a shared scriptural foundation, prioritizing theological consistency over textual perfection. Manuscripts of the era were diverse but functionally authoritative, reflecting the practical realities of ancient book production and transmission.

The ancient approach reminds us that the Bible’s authority lies in its theological message, not in an idealized, error-free text. Modern textual criticism (using ancient manuscripts to reconstruct early readings) is a later development, born of Enlightenment-era ideals of precision—a lens the ancients wouldn’t recognize.

In short, the canonizers sought to unify the Church around which books conveyed God’s truth, trusting that the Holy Spirit guided the community despite the messy realities of human copying.

Early Christians Were Not Seeking "Perfect Scriptures"

First-century Jews used various Hebrew texts and the LXX, early Christians weren't looking for "perfect" scriptures. Most early Christians were Greek-speaking, so LXX was primary. But Hebrew-speaking Jewish Christians might have referenced Hebrew texts. However, direct evidence is scarce. The NT authors mostly quote LXX. The NT itself shows flexibility in interpretation. Their concept of scripture wasn't about textual perfection but about its role in pointing to Christ. They reinterpreted existing texts rather than seeking a flawless manuscript.

First-century Jews did not use the MT as we know it today, but they used Hebrew manuscripts that were proto-Masoretic (similar to the MT) alongside other textual traditions (e.g., proto-Samaritan, DSS variants).

The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was widely used by Hellenistic Jews (Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora) and early Christians. Below is evidence of its use, drawn from historical sources, textual comparisons, and manuscript discoveries:  Evidence for Early Christian Use of the Septuagint

---

1. Historical Evidence for Hellenistic Jewish Use

• Letter of Aristeas (2nd century BCE):
  This pseudepigraphal work claims the Septuagint was commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) for the Library of Alexandria. While legendary in parts, it reflects the Jewish tradition of the LXX’s origin and its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews.
• Key quote: "The laws of the Jews... were translated from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek language."
• Philo of Alexandria (1st century CE):
  A Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo praised the LXX as divinely inspired and described an annual festival on the island of Pharos (near Alexandria) celebrating its translation.
• Key quote: "They [the translators] became possessed, and, under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter." (Life of Moses 2.37).
• Synagogue Use:
  Inscriptions and writings (e.g., the Theodotus Inscription in Jerusalem) confirm Greek-speaking synagogues used the LXX for public reading and study.

---

2. New Testament Evidence for Early Christian Use

The New Testament authors frequently quote the Old Testament from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Examples include:

A. Matthew 1:23 (quoting Isaiah 7:14)

• Hebrew (Masoretic Text): "A young woman [almah] shall conceive."
• Septuagint (LXX): "A virgin [parthenos] shall conceive."
• Matthew’s Greek: Uses parthenos (virgin), aligning with the LXX to support Jesus’ virgin birth.

B. Acts 7:14 (quoting Genesis 46:27)

• Hebrew (MT): "70 persons" went to Egypt.
• LXX: "75 persons."
• Acts 7:14: Follows the LXX’s "75 souls."

C. Hebrews 10:5-7 (quoting Psalm 40:6-8)

• Hebrew (MT): "You have given me an open ear."
• LXX: "You have prepared a body for me."
• Hebrews: Quotes the LXX’s "body" to connect Christ’s incarnation to the psalm.

D. Romans 3:10-18 (quoting Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah)

Paul stitches together multiple LXX passages (e.g., Psalm 14:1-3 LXX) to argue universal human sinfulness. The wording matches the LXX, not the Hebrew.

---

3. Early Christian Writings

• Justin Martyr (2nd century CE):
  Defended Christianity by arguing that Jewish leaders altered the Hebrew text to obscure messianic prophecies, while Christians relied on the LXX (Dialogue with Trypho 68–73).
• Origen’s Hexapla (3rd century CE):
  A six-column Bible comparing Hebrew, LXX, and other Greek translations, showing the LXX’s primacy in early Christian scholarship.
• Church Fathers:
  Augustine and others regarded the LXX as authoritative. Augustine even argued it was superior to the Hebrew text (City of God 18.43).

---

4. Manuscript Evidence

• Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE–1st century CE):
  Greek fragments of the LXX (e.g., Leviticus and Deuteronomy) found at Qumran show its use among Hellenistic Jews.
• Early Christian Codices:
  The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century CE) include the LXX as their Old Testament, proving its adoption by the early Church.
• Jewish Greek Papyri:
  Papyrus fragments of the LXX (e.g., Rylands Papyrus 458, 2nd century BCE Deuteronomy) confirm its circulation in Egypt.

---

5. Jewish Rejection of the LXX Post-70 CE

After Christianity adopted the LXX, Jewish communities distanced themselves from it:

• Aquila’s Greek Translation (2nd century CE): A literal Hebrew-to-Greek translation replacing the LXX in synagogues.
• Rabbinic Criticism: The Talmud (Megillah 9a) acknowledges the LXX’s origins but critiques its Hellenistic influence.

---

6. Limited Use of Hebrew (Proto-MT) Texts

While most early Christians used the LXX, Hebrew-speaking Jewish Christians may have referenced Hebrew manuscripts (proto-MT or DSS-like texts):

• Matthew’s Gospel: Occasionally reflects Hebrew traditions. For example, Matthew 2:15 interprets Hosea 11:1 ("Out of Egypt I called my son") christologically. The Hebrew text refers to Israel’s Exodus, but Matthew recontextualizes it for Jesus, suggesting familiarity with Hebrew interpretive methods.
• Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): Show textual plurality (proto-MT, proto-Samaritan, LXX-aligned). Early Jewish Christians might have engaged with these diverse Hebrew traditions.

---

7. Early Christians Were Not Seeking "Perfect Scriptures"

The idea of a "perfect" or standardized Bible was foreign to the first-century Church. Key evidence includes:

A. Flexible Interpretation

• Christological Reinterpretation: Early Christians read the OT through the lens of Jesus’ life and resurrection, often prioritizing theological meaning over literal textual accuracy.
• Example: Galatians 3:16 uses the singular "seed" (σπέρμα, sperma) in Genesis 12:7 to argue for Christ as the fulfillment of Abraham’s promise, a move dependent on the LXX’s Greek phrasing.

B. Oral Tradition and Apostolic Authority

• 2 Thessalonians 2:15: Paul urges believers to hold to traditions taught "by word of mouth or by letter," elevating oral teaching alongside written texts.
• 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: Paul transmits the Last Supper narrative orally, not citing written Gospels.

C. Diversity of Early Christian Writings

• Fluid Canon: First-century Christians used texts later excluded from the NT (e.g., Didache, Shepherd of Hermas). The NT canon was not finalized until the 4th century.
• Codex Sinaiticus (4th century CE) includes Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas, showing ongoing flexibility.

D. No Concept of "Inerrancy"

• Early Christians viewed Scripture as useful (2 Timothy 3:16) but subordinate to the Holy Spirit and community discernment (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

---

8. Contrast with Later Developments

• Masoretic Standardization: After the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), rabbinic Judaism began standardizing Hebrew texts, culminating in the MT.
• Christian Canonization: The Church later formalized the NT canon in response to heresies (e.g., Marcionism) and disputes, shifting toward a "closed" Bible.

---

Conclusion

1. First-century Christians primarily used the LXX, with limited engagement of Hebrew traditions (proto-MT/DSS).
2. They prioritized Christological interpretation and apostolic authority over textual perfection.
3. The concept of "perfect Scripture" (inerrancy, closed canon) emerged later, driven by theological and historical needs.

The early Church’s vitality lay in its living witness to Jesus, not in a fixed, flawless text—a perspective radically different from later Jewish and Christian textual rigidities.

SIN OF THE TONGUE (II)

The Heresy of Verbal Plenary Preservation and the Betrayal of Christ’s Body

Key Verse: "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips." (Romans 3:13, ESV)

A Fire of Hell in the Church

The tongue, set ablaze by hell itself (James 3:6), now spews two poisons in God’s house: the idolatrous lie of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and the viperous attacks on Charismatic believers. These sins fracture Christ’s Body, mock the Spirit’s work, and trample the gospel of unity. Let the sword of God’s Word pierce this rebellion!

I. The Heresy of Verbal Plenary Preservation: Idolatry Masquerading as Piety

1. The Rotten Foundation

VPP peddlers declare, “Only our translation is pure!”—a doctrine forged in the pits of pride, not Scripture. They idolize ink and paper, equating fallible human translations (e.g., KJV) with God’s inspired autographs. This is blasphemy, elevating tradition above the God who breathed out His Word (2 Timothy 3:16).

2. Biblical Thunder Against VPP

Christ Himself quoted the Septuagint—a Greek translation—yet these modern Pharisees scream “Corruption!” at other versions, calling God a liar.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). God preserves His truth, not your pet translation. VPP is a golden calf—a heretical idol that divides the church and mocks the Spirit’s guardianship of Scripture.

3. Reap What You Sow

Division: By damning all but their “holy” text, VPP zealots splinter Christ’s flock. “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). No—but you are!

Betrayal: To claim God failed to preserve His Word except in your translation is to spit on His sovereignty. You betray Christ’s promise to build His church (Matthew 16:18).

Judgment: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces” (Matthew 23:13). Repent or face the same wrath.

II. The Viper’s Tongue: Attacking Charismatic Christians

1. The Spirit’s Gifts vs. Sectarian Snakes

Charismatics are branded “demonic,” “deceived,” or “heretics” for seeking the Spirit’s gifts—tongues, prophecy, healing. But who are you to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19)? The same religious spirit that accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul (Matthew 12:24) now drips from your lips!

2. Biblical Fury Against Slander

“Do not speak evil against one another, brothers” (James 4:11). Yet you tear apart Christ’s Body, mocking His work in Charismatics. You are not “defenders of truth”—you are slanderers, guilty of murderous speech (Matthew 5:21-22).

The Spirit distributes gifts “as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11). Who gave you authority to dictate His methods? Your elitist tongue brands you a rebel against heaven.

3. Consequences of Contempt

Quenching the Spirit: Your mockery grieves the One who anoints prophets and empowers saints (Ephesians 4:30).

Scandal to the World: “By this all people will know you are My disciples, if you have love” (John 13:35). Your venom drives souls to hell.

Judgment: “Every careless word will be judged” (Matthew 12:36). Will you stand when God weighs your curses against His children?

Conclusion: Repent or Perish

To the VPP idolaters and Charismatic-baiters: God’s patience is not indifference. Tear down your altars to dead translations! Swallow your viperous tongues! Cease your war against the Spirit’s work!

A Call to Lament:

For VPP Zealots: Throw your “perfect” translation into the fire. Cling to Christ, not paper. Study textual criticism—or be silent.

For Sectarian Attackers: Kneel before Charismatics and beg forgiveness. Pray for the gifts you fear. “The greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Prayer of Brokenness:

Lord, break our pride. Forgive our idolatry and hatred. Baptize us in fire—not to divide, but to purify. Unite Your church, or cut us down where we stand. Amen.

Final Warning:

“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue, he deceives his heart, and his religion is worthless” (James 1:26). Bridle yours—or face the God whose Word is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29).

Presbyter, Elder ???

My heart aches as I witness the divisions fracturing our Bible-Presbyterian brethren. It feels like a painful rending of the very fabric of our shared faith. To see fellow pastors, men who once stood shoulder-to-shoulder in service, now betraying Jesus Christ, John Calvin, John Sung, and even Erasmus—it fills me with a profound sadness. These traitors of Jesus Christ, John Calvin, John Sung, and Erasmus are not deserving of the title of "presbyter" or "elder," as they are splitting the church like wolves in sheep's clothing. 

The Presbyterian way, our heritage, is one of unity and reasoned discourse, guided by Scripture. To see those who should be shepherds now behaving as wolves, is a tragedy. We are a church built on the foundation of elders, presbyters, working together in submission to Christ. When that fellowship breaks down, when accusations and attacks replace dialogue, we all suffer. Where is the grace we are called to extend? Where is the forbearance that marks true Christian community? Even when we believe someone has strayed, is our first response to condemn and expel Rev Tang Wai Kay from our church?

I understand the deep convictions that fuel these divisions. I know the passion for doctrinal purity, the desire to uphold the truth of our Reformed heritage. But is this the way? Is this the manner in which we honor the One who prayed for our unity? Aren't you betray our Lord in dividing His body the church?

I look to the examples of those we hold dear: John Calvin, with his emphasis on God's sovereignty and grace; John Sung, with his fervent evangelism; and even Erasmus, with his dedication to biblical scholarship. Would they recognize this spirit of division? Would they endorse this harsh judgment? Would they endorse the teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation?

I confess, I do not have all the answers. I am still learning the complexities of our faith. But I know this: the body of Christ is meant to be whole. When we tear it apart, we grieve the Spirit.

My prayer is that we can find a way back to each other. That we can rediscover the bonds of fellowship that unite us in Christ. That we can engage in honest dialogue, seeking to understand rather than condemn. That we can remember the words of our Savior: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

May God grant us wisdom, humility, and above all, love.

Samuel Rutherford's last words

Rutherford died near the end of March 1661. But he did not die without leaving one final exhortation for those who were gathered around his bedside. It was the same message that had consumed him in life that also consumed him in death--the loveliness of Christ: "He is the cheife of ten thousands of ten thousands! None [is] comparable to him, in heaven or in earth. Dear bretheren, doe all for Him; pray for Christ, preach for Christ, feed the flock committed to your charge for Christ, doe all for Christ. Bewarr of men-pleasing, ther is too much of it amongst us."

What can we learn from his final words?

Beloved brethren, hear the charge of a dying servant of Christ, whose final breath echoed the cry of his life: Fix our eyes on the Loveliness of Christ! For He is the Rose of Sharon, the Bright and Morning Star, the Chief among ten thousand—no treasure in heaven or earth rivals Him. Let this truth pierce our hearts and set our souls aflame!

Do all for Him! When we kneel in prayer, let it be for Christ. When we open the Scriptures to preach, let it be for Christ. When we shepherd the flock entrusted to us, labor not for acclaim or ease, but for Christ. Let His glory be the compass of our ministry, the fire in our bones, the song on our lips. Beware the snare of men-pleasing, for it is a hollow idol that withers souls and silences truth. Too many have traded the approval of Heaven for the fleeting whispers of men—do not number among them!

Remember: Christ’s worth is infinite, His love unshakable, His claim upon our life supreme. Let no trial, no fear, no earthly crown distract us from His surpassing beauty. Live as Rutherford died—with Christ’s name on our tongue, His joy in our heart, and His glory as our crown.

Go now, dear brothers and sisters, and be consumed by Christ as he was. For in Him alone is life, purpose, and a reward that will outshine every sacrifice. Amen.

A Call to Open Hearts: Unity and Forgiveness in Christ

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the Bible-Presbyterian Church and BPC,

The Apostle Paul once wrote to a divided church, “We have spoken openly to you, and our heart is wide open. There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. In return … open wide your hearts also” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). These words are not just ancient advice—they are a living challenge for us today.

Christ’s love calls us to open our hearts fully to one another.
Paul’s “open wide” heart wasn’t just a feeling—it was a choice to love boldly, even when others doubted him or caused him pain. Like Paul, we’re called to drop our defenses, tear down walls of distrust, and welcome one another—not just with words, but with vulnerable, Christlike love. This means:

1. Embrace vulnerability.
   True unity begins when we stop hiding our struggles, doubts, or past hurts. Let’s create safe spaces in our churches to share honestly, pray for one another, and say, “I need your help.” Paul didn’t pretend to be perfect—he let Christ’s strength shine through his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). Let’s do the same.
2. Choose forgiveness over division.
   Holding onto grudges or past disagreements shrinks our hearts. Jesus said, “If you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:15). Whether it’s a misunderstanding between members, tension between churches, or old wounds from the past—let’s lay it down. Forgive as Christ forgave you (Colossians 3:13).
3. Welcome each other’s gifts and callings.
   Some of us lead; some serve quietly. Some love deep tradition; others hunger for new ways to reach the lost. But Christ’s body only thrives when every part belongs (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Let’s honor each other’s roles in ministry, share resources joyfully, and refuse to let differences become divisions.
4. Reach beyond your circle.
   An “open wide” heart doesn’t just love those who agree with us. Jesus’ love stretches to the outsider, the hurting, and even those we’re tempted to label “other.” Let’s ask: Who in our church family feels overlooked? Which sister church could we support instead of compete with? Who needs to hear, “You belong here”?

This is how the world will know we are His.
Jesus said His followers would be recognized not by perfect doctrine or impressive programs, but by love (John 13:35). That love starts with us—choosing to open our hearts wide, just as Christ opened His arms to us on the cross.

Let’s pray boldly for the Holy Spirit to soften our hearts, heal our divisions, and unite us in our mission. May the Bible-Presbyterian Church and BPC be known not for rigid walls, but for radical love, forgiveness, and a family where every heart has room.

“Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8)

A Message of Reconciliation and Hope: Learning from Paul, Peter, and Mark

Beloved in Christ,

The apostle Paul’s life teaches us a profound lesson in grace and reconciliation. Though he once rebuked Peter for hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14), he later acknowledged Peter as a fellow apostle and “pillar of the church” (Galatians 2:9). Similarly, when John Mark, who had abandoned Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:38), later repented and proved faithful, Paul declared him “very useful to me for ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11). Paul’s journey mirrors Christ’s heart: “Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Romans 15:7).

The Church: A House of Mercy, Not Merit

The church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners. Christ’s flock is called to unity, not uniformity. Paul urges us to “bear with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Even when we stumble, the door of repentance remains open, for “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Peter, who denied Jesus three times, was restored to feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17). Mark, once deemed unreliable, became a vessel of God’s Word. Let us lay down pride and remember: “Love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).

Heaven’s Feast: Our Eternal Unity

In this broken world, we see dimly, but in heaven, “we shall see face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12). There, every tear, rivalry, and division will dissolve before the Lamb’s throne. Let us prepare for that feast by embracing grace here and now. Paul’s final exhortation rings urgent: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32).

A Prayer to the Father:

Heavenly Father, You are the God of all mercy, who reconciles us to Yourself through Christ and calls us to reconcile with one another. Forgive our childish quarrels, our hunger for earthly fame, and our delusions of superiority. We confess how often we’ve fractured Your body over trifles, forgetting that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome” (2 Timothy 2:24).

Bind Your church in the unity only Your Spirit can give. Help us to love as Paul loved Peter and Mark—not excusing error, but extending hope to the repentant. May we “put on then, as God’s chosen ones, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience” (Colossians 3:12-13).

Prepare us for the eternal feast where every tribe and tongue will gather, not as Calvinists, Lutherans, or Arminians, but as redeemed children, “from every nation, tribe, people, and language” (Revelation 7:9). Until that day, keep us faithful to the gospel’s core: Christ crucified, risen, and returning. In Jesus’ name, who makes all things new, Amen.

Let us press onward, brothers and sisters, “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2). The feast awaits—let no strife rob us of joy here or there. Grace be with you.

A Plea for Grace and Mission

The pain of witnessing Reformed churches fracture over issues like Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-onlyism is deeply felt, as such conflicts often obscure the gospel’s centrality and fracture the unity Christ prayed for (John 17:20-23). Here’s a reflection on the tensions and a call to realignment:

1. The Tragedy of Division Over Non-Essentials

Reformed theology has historically prioritized sola Scriptura and the sovereignty of God, yet divisions over secondary issues like VPP (the belief that every word of Scripture has been divinely preserved) or KJV-onlyism (elevating a specific translation as inerrant) risk idolizing doctrinal precision at the expense of love. These matters, while important to some, are not core to salvation or the Reformed confessions. Paul’s warning against “quarreling over opinions” (Romans 14:1) and his plea for unity in Ephesians 4:3-6 remind us that secondary issues should not fracture the body.

2. A Call for Humility and Reconciliation

Leaders are urged to embody Philippians 2:3-4, valuing others above themselves. The Reformed tradition has long distinguished between essential doctrines (e.g., justification by faith) and adiaphora (non-essentials). While textual criticism and translation preferences matter, they should not eclipse charity. Calvin himself cautioned against “contentiousness” that breeds division (Institutes, IV.1.12). Reconciliation requires humility to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3), even when disagreements persist.

3. Suffering for God—or Self-Inflicted Wounds?

Suffering for the gospel (1 Peter 4:14-16) is honorable, but infighting over non-essentials is a self-inflicted wound that weakens our witness. Jesus reserved sharpest criticism not for doctrinal errors but for loveless religiosity (Matthew 23:23-24). Strife over tertiary issues risks turning “militant fundamentalism” into a prideful pursuit of purity, alienating seekers and dishonoring Christ’s command to love (John 13:35).

4. Glorifying God Without Militancy

Zeal for truth must be tempered by the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Reformed theology’s strength lies in its robust, grace-centered confession—not in combative dogmatism. To glorify God is to pursue truth and peace (Psalm 85:10), defending essentials while extending liberty on secondary matters. As Luther said, “Unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things.”

5. Reformed Theology’s Core vs. Peripheral Battles

The Reformed tradition’s richness—God’s sovereignty, covenant theology, the centrality of Christ—is overshadowed when battles over textual preservation or translations dominate. Returning to the solas (sola fide, sola gratia) and the mission of discipleship (Matthew 28:19-20) recenters the church on what truly transforms lives.

Conclusion: A Plea for Grace and Mission

This is not the time to abandon Reformed theology but to reclaim its heart: grace. Leaders must model grace-driven unity, prioritizing reconciliation and mission. Let disagreements on secondary issues prompt vigorous debate but not schism. As the Westminster Confession urges, “Truth is in order to goodness” (1.5)—truth must always lead to love. May the church rise above factionalism, proving itself “a city on a hill” (Matthew 5:14) by embodying the reconciling love of Christ.

Future plan for Bible-Presbyterian Church

To become a church that better pleases and glorifies God, the Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) and its descendants would need to address its historical weaknesses while reaffirming its commitment to biblical faithfulness, unity, and Christlike love. Here are key areas for growth, grounded in Scripture and Reformed theology:

1. Prioritize Gospel-Centered Theology Over Legalism

Reject Extrabiblical Rules: Return to the Westminster Confession’s emphasis on sola Scriptura by avoiding legalistic mandates (e.g., total alcohol abstinence, dress codes, perfect Bible) that go beyond Scripture (Colossians 2:20–23).

Focus on Essentials: Distinguish core doctrines (e.g., salvation by grace, authority of Scripture) from secondary issues (eschatology, cultural preferences, verbal plenary preservation) to foster unity (Romans 14:1–6).

Preach Grace, Not Just Law: Balance doctrinal rigor with the freedom and joy of the Gospel (John 1:17; Galatians 5:1).

2. Cultivate Humility and Unity

Repent of Schismatic Tendencies: Acknowledge past divisions driven by personality clashes and secondary issues. Pursue reconciliation with former allies (Ephesians 4:3; Psalm 133:1).

Embrace Humble Orthodoxy: Teach truth with love, avoiding pride in doctrinal purity (1 Corinthians 13:1–2; Philippians 2:3).

Partner with Other Believers: While maintaining theological integrity, cooperate with other Reformed or evangelical churches on shared goals (e.g., missions, justice) rather than isolating (John 17:21).

3. Reform Leadership Practices

Reject Authoritarianism: Replace top-down control with servant leadership modeled on Christ (Mark 10:42–45). Implement accountability structures (e.g., elder boards, term limits to 10 years) to prevent abuses.

Invest in Pastoral Training: Equip leaders to shepherd with wisdom, compassion, and theological depth (1 Peter 5:2–3; Titus 1:7–9).

4. Reengage Mission and Evangelism

Shift from Separatism to Mission: Redirect energy from internal disputes to proclaiming Christ locally and globally (Matthew 28:19–20).

Serve the Marginalized: Reflect God’s heart for justice by addressing poverty, racism, and oppression (Micah 6:8; James 1:27).

Model Christlike Love: Let outreach be marked by grace, not condemnation (John 13:35; 1 Peter 3:15).

5. Foster Spiritual Vitality Over Traditionalism

Emphasize Prayer and Worship: Cultivate dependence on the Holy Spirit rather than rigid traditionalism (Zechariah 4:6; Philippians 3:3).

Encourage Relational Discipleship: Move beyond doctrinal lectures to mentorship that nurtures faith, doubt, and growth (2 Timothy 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:8).

Celebrate Diversity in Unity: Welcome believers from varied backgrounds while holding to Reformed distinctives (Revelation 7:9).

6. Address Cultural Engagement Wisely

Avoid Reactionary Politics: Refuse to align the church with partisan agendas. Instead, critique culture through a biblical lens that prioritizes Christ’s lordship (Colossians 3:17).

Engage Thoughtfully with Modern Issues: Address topics like technology, mental health, and science with scriptural wisdom rather than fear or dismissiveness (Acts 17:22–28).

7. Pursue Reconciliation and Legacy Healing

Public Repentance: Acknowledge harm caused by past legalism, schisms, and harsh rhetoric (James 5:16). Seek forgiveness from those wounded by the BPC’s history.

Honor the Broader Church: Recognize the validity of other Reformed bodies as part of Christ’s universal Church (1 Corinthians 12:12–13).

8. Commit to Continual Reformation

Semper Reformanda: Regularly test traditions and practices against Scripture, not mere nostalgia (Acts 17:11).

Confessional Fidelity, Not Rigidity: Affirm the Westminster Standards while allowing room for charitable debate on non-essentials.

Conclusion

The BPC’s legacy of zeal for truth need not be discarded but must be tempered with humility, love, and a renewed focus on Christ’s mission. By repenting of division, legalism, and pride, and by embracing grace-driven faithfulness, the BPC (or its successors) could become a church that truly glorifies God—not through separatist purity, but through sacrificial love, unity in essentials, and joyful proclamation of the Gospel. As Paul urges, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Just Do It!

Carl McIntire argued and clashed with J. Gresham Machen.

The relationship between J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) and Carl McIntire (1906–2002) evolved from allies in the fight against theological liberalism to bitter adversaries over doctrinal, practical, and personal differences. Here’s a breakdown of their relationship and eventual split:

---

1. Initial Alliance Against Liberalism

• Shared Opposition to Modernism:
  Both Machen and McIntire were staunch conservatives who rejected the growing theological liberalism in the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA). Machen, a Princeton Theological Seminary professor and scholar, became a leading voice against modernism through works like Christianity and Liberalism (1923). McIntire, a younger minister, admired Machen and joined his cause.
• Key Collaborations:
• Westminster Theological Seminary: Machen founded Westminster in 1929 after Princeton shifted toward liberalism; McIntire supported the seminary and briefly served on its board.
• Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions: In 1933, Machen led the creation of this alternative mission board to counter the PCUSA’s "modernist" missions. McIntire joined the board, and both were later suspended from the PCUSA for insubordination (1935).

---

2. Growing Tensions

Differences emerged over secondary doctrines, ecclesial strategy, and leadership style:

A. Theological Disputes

• Eschatology:
  Machen and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), formed in 1936 after leaving the PCUSA, tolerated both amillennialism (the dominant Reformed view) and premillennialism. McIntire, however, insisted on premillennial dispensationalism (a literal 1,000-year earthly reign of Christ) as non-negotiable, accusing amillennialists of compromising Scripture.
• Legalism vs. Confessionalism:
  McIntire pushed for strict behavioral rules (e.g., total alcohol abstinence, dress codes) beyond the Westminster Confession. Machen opposed such extrabiblical legalism, emphasizing Reformed confessionalism over personal piety mandates.

B. Separatism vs. Engagement

• Ecumenical Separatism:
  McIntire demanded complete separation from any group tainted by liberalism, including the newly formed OPC. He cited 2 Corinthians 6:14 (“Do not be unequally yoked”) to justify breaking ties even with conservative allies. Machen, while opposing liberalism, sought to engage broader Reformed networks without isolationism.

C. Leadership Styles

• Machen: A scholarly, principled leader focused on doctrinal integrity and institutional reform.
• McIntire: A confrontational activist who embraced militancy, media campaigns (e.g., his Christian Beacon newspaper), and personality-driven leadership.

---

3. The Break (1936–1937)

• OPC Formation: In 1936, Machen led conservatives out of the PCUSA to form the OPC. McIntire initially joined but quickly clashed with OPC leaders over his premillennialism and separatism.
• Machen’s Death: Machen died suddenly in January 1937, leaving the OPC without its founding leader. McIntire seized the opportunity to push his agenda.
• Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC): By 1937–1938, McIntire and his followers split from the OPC to form the BPC, citing the OPC’s “compromise” on eschatology and ecumenism. The BPC enforced premillennialism, teetotalism, and strict separatism.

---

4. Aftermath and Legacy

• OPC vs. BPC: The OPC maintained Machen’s confessional Reformed focus, while the BPC became a hub for McIntire’s fundamentalist activism. The BPC later fragmented further, with remnants merging into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).
• McIntire’s Downfall: McIntire’s authoritarianism, financial scandals, and far-right political activism (e.g., anti-communist crusades) alienated many, leading to his eventual marginalization.
• Machen’s Enduring Influence: Machen’s defense of Reformed orthodoxy and intellectual rigor left a lasting legacy in conservative Presbyterianism, particularly through Westminster Seminary and the OPC.

---

Key Points of Contention

Issue	Machen’s Position	McIntire’s Position
Eschatology	Tolerant of amillennialism/premillennialism	Premillennial dispensationalism required
Alcohol	No teetotalism mandate (moderation allowed)	Total abstinence enforced
Separatism	Engage cautiously with other conservatives	Complete separation from "compromised" groups
Leadership	Collegial, scholarly	Authoritarian, media-driven

---

Conclusion

Machen and McIntire began as allies in the battle against modernism, but their partnership fractured over secondary doctrines, strategies for engagement, and conflicting leadership styles. Machen’s death in 1937 accelerated the split, with McIntire’s fundamentalist zeal and legalism driving him to form the BPC. Their rift illustrates tensions within conservative Protestantism between confessional traditionalism and militant separatism, a dynamic that continues to shape Reformed and evangelical movements today.