Introduction to Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC)

Founded in 1962 by the late Timothy Tow in Singapore, Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) is an independent, conservative, Reformed theological institution. Its primary mission is to train pastors, missionaries, and Christian workers grounded in a staunchly fundamentalist and separatist interpretation of the Bible. FEBC adheres rigorously to the following core distinctives:

1. Biblical Inerrancy & Sufficiency: A strong commitment to the absolute authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture.

2. Reformed Theology: Emphasis on the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) and covenantal theology.

3. Ecclesiastical Separation: A commitment to separation from perceived apostasy, modernism, ecumenism, and worldliness, often leading to a position of separation not just from liberal churches but also from many evangelical groups deemed insufficiently pure.

4. King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Only / TR-Only): Perhaps its most defining and controversial stance, FEBC holds that the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text underlying the King James Version is the preserved, inerrant Word of God in the original languages, and that the KJV is the only accurate and acceptable English translation for preaching, teaching, and memorization. They reject modern critical Greek texts (like Nestle-Aland/UBS) and modern Bible translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) as corrupted.

5. Presbyterian Polity: Governed according to Presbyterian principles.

FEBC positions itself as a defender of "historic fundamentalism" and the "historic Christian faith" against perceived modern compromises.

Perceived Weaknesses and Controversial/Contested Positions:

FEBC's distinctives, while deeply held by its leadership and supporters, are the source of significant criticism and are considered weaknesses or false teachings by mainstream evangelical scholarship, other Reformed institutions, and many Christian denominations:

1. King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Only / TR-Only):

o   The Controversy: This is FEBC's most contentious doctrine. Mainstream biblical scholarship (evangelical, Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox) overwhelmingly rejects the idea that the Textus Receptus is superior to modern critical texts or that the KJV is the only acceptable English translation.

o   Criticisms:

§  Textual Basis: The TR is a late medieval/renaissance compilation based on a relatively small number of manuscripts, some of which contained errors later corrected by older and more numerous manuscript discoveries. Modern critical texts incorporate far more and older manuscript evidence.

§  Translation Imperfections: While a monumental achievement for its time, the KJV contains archaic language difficult for modern readers, known translation errors based on later textual discoveries, and passages where its rendering is less accurate than modern translations based on superior texts.

§  Lack of Scriptural Support: There is no biblical mandate that God would preserve His Word exclusively in one specific Greek text family or one specific English translation.

§  Divisiveness: This stance unnecessarily divides Christians and often leads to accusations of heresy against those using other faithful translations. FEBC frequently labels modern translations as "perversions."

o   Perceived as False: Critics argue FEBC elevates a specific historical text and translation to a level of inspiration and inerrancy that belongs only to the original autographs (which we no longer possess). This is seen as bibliolatry (worship of the KJV itself) or adding an extra-biblical requirement for orthodoxy by many outside the KJV-Only movement.

2. Extreme Ecclesiastical Separation (Secondary Separation):

o   The Controversy: While biblical separation from false teaching is a scriptural principle (2 Cor 6:14-18), FEBC often practices "secondary separation." This means separating not only from groups deemed apostate (e.g., liberal mainline denominations) but also from conservative evangelical groups, institutions, or individuals who associate with or are insufficiently critical of those deemed apostate, even if they otherwise hold sound doctrine.

o   Criticisms:

§  Undue Suspicion & Division: This can foster a spirit of suspicion, judgmentalism, and unnecessary division within the broader body of Christ. It can lead to isolation and a lack of fruitful cooperation with other gospel-preaching ministries.

§  "Guilt by Association": Criticized for condemning individuals or groups based on perceived associations rather than solely on their own stated doctrine and practice.

§  Impracticality & Inconsistency: Strict application can become practically impossible and is often applied inconsistently.

o   Perceived as Weakness: This stance is seen as a significant weakness hindering fellowship, cooperation in missions and evangelism, and creating a fortress mentality. While separation from clear heresy is essential, FEBC's application is viewed by many as overly rigid and schismatic.

3. Accreditation & Academic Isolation:

o   Weakness: FEBC is not accredited by mainstream theological accrediting bodies. While they argue this preserves their independence from perceived compromise, it means:

§  Degrees may not be recognized or transferable to other institutions.

§  Lack of external quality assurance checks common in accredited institutions.

§  Potential limitation of academic opportunities for graduates.

§  Reinforces theological isolation.

4. Specific Theological Distinctives:

o   Criticism of Other Reformed Views: FEBC strongly criticizes other Reformed theologians and institutions (even conservative ones like Westminster Theological Seminary historically) over issues like textual criticism, versions, and degrees of separation, sometimes portraying them as compromised.

o   Dispensationalist Leaning: While Reformed, FEBC (particularly under Tow) held some dispensationalist views regarding Israel and the church, which is atypical for classic covenant theology and sometimes creates tension within its own stated Reformed framework.

Conclusion:

Far Eastern Bible College is a significant institution within a specific niche of conservative, separatist, KJV-Only Reformed fundamentalism. Its strengths lie in its unwavering commitment to biblical authority and training preachers from that perspective. However, its most prominent weaknesses and the positions considered false by the vast majority of Christian scholarship and denominations are its dogmatic KJV-Only/TR-Only stance and its practice of extreme ecclesiastical separation (secondary separation). These positions are the primary sources of controversy and criticism directed towards the college, seen as creating unnecessary division, elevating a translation/text to an unwarranted status, and hindering broader gospel cooperation. Its lack of accreditation further contributes to its academic isolation.

About FEBC

Far Eastern Bible College: An Overview and Associated Criticisms

The Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) is a Reformed, fundamentalist, and separatist Bible-Presbyterian theological institution located in Singapore. Established in 1962 by Timothy Tow, it is one of the oldest Bible colleges in the country. FEBC subscribes to the Reformed system of theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and aims to train individuals for Christian ministry, adhering to a strict interpretation of biblical inerrancy and preservation. Its mottoes are "Holding forth the Word of Life" (Philippians 2:16) and "Holding fast the Faithful Word" (Titus 1:9).

FEBC is known for its strong emphasis on what it terms "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures. This doctrine asserts that God has providentially preserved every single word of the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible throughout history, down to the "jot and tittle." FEBC maintains that these perfectly preserved words are found in the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority manuscripts, which underlie the Reformation Bibles, best represented by the King James Version (KJV).

Weaknesses and Criticisms

While FEBC presents itself as a staunch defender of biblical truth, its specific theological positions, particularly regarding biblical preservation and the King James Version, have led to significant criticism and controversy within broader evangelical and fundamentalist circles.

1. Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and "King James Onlyism":

o   The Core Issue: FEBC's most notable and controversial doctrine is its unique interpretation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). While most conservative evangelicals affirm Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) of the original biblical manuscripts (autographs), FEBC extends this to argue for a perfect, word-for-word preservation of the copies (apographs) throughout history. They contend that the Textus Receptus (TR), the Greek text underlying the KJV, is the perfectly preserved text.

o   Criticism: Critics argue that this VPP doctrine goes beyond historical Reformed confessions and is a relatively new theological construct. It is often associated with "King James Onlyism," a position that asserts the KJV is the only true or authoritative English translation of the Bible. Many scholars and theologians disagree with this, pointing to the existence of numerous ancient manuscripts and textual variations, and arguing that while God has preserved His Word, He has not guaranteed a perfect, error-free transmission in every single copy or translation. Opponents suggest that FEBC's stance effectively elevates the KJV (or its underlying texts) to the status of a "new inspiration" or implies a miraculous restoration of texts by the KJV translators, which the KJV translators themselves did not claim.

o   Impact: This dogmatic adherence to VPP and the KJV has led to accusations of sectarianism and has caused divisions within Bible-Presbyterian churches, including a significant legal dispute between FEBC and Life Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore over doctrinal deviation.

2. Separatist Stance:

o   FEBC explicitly takes a separatist stance against what it perceives as liberalism, modernism, neo-orthodoxy, charismatism, ecumenism, neo-evangelicalism, and "all kinds of false isms of the day." While fundamentalism often involves separation from perceived error, FEBC's rigorous application of this principle can lead to isolation from broader Christian movements and a narrow definition of orthodoxy, potentially hindering collaborative efforts and wider theological discourse.

3. Academic Accreditation Concerns (Implied):

o   While not explicitly stated as a "falsehood," the strong emphasis on its unique VPP doctrine and its separatist nature might affect its recognition or accreditation by broader academic or theological bodies. Institutions with highly specific and exclusive doctrinal stances sometimes face challenges in gaining widespread academic acceptance, which could be seen as a practical "weakness" for students seeking to transfer credits or pursue further studies elsewhere.

In summary, while Far Eastern Bible College is committed to its interpretation of biblical authority and seeks to train ministers, its distinct and controversial doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation and its associated "King James Only" leanings are the primary points of criticism, leading to theological disputes and internal church divisions.

 

 

Defending God's Word Faithfully: A Response to "Why KJV is the Best English Translation"

The article "Why KJV is the Best English Translation of the Bible" can be found at https://gethsemanebpc.com/pastoral/kjv-best-english/

The article "Why KJV is the Best English Translation of the Bible" presents a passionate case for the exclusive use of the King James Version (KJV), rooted in a specific view of biblical preservation (Verbal Plenary Preservation - VPP) and the superiority of the Textus Receptus (TR). While I share the author's deep reverence for Scripture as God's inspired Word and the vital importance of having reliable translations, I must respectfully offer a different perspective grounded in historical reality, textual scholarship, and a broader understanding of God's faithfulness in preserving His message.

1. Matthew 4:4 and the Nature of Preservation

The article rightly emphasizes Jesus' declaration that we live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4, KJV). However, using this verse to demand that every single word must be perfectly preserved in one specific manuscript lineage or translation throughout history is an interpretation, not an explicit command of the text itself.

God's Faithfulness vs. Human Mechanisms: We absolutely affirm God's promise to preserve His Word (Isa 40:8; Matt 5:18; 24:35). The question is how He accomplishes this. VPP posits a specific, miraculous mechanism of word-for-word replication in a single manuscript stream (leading to the TR/KJV). The biblical texts speak of God preserving His message and truth faithfully for His Church, not specifying the exact method of textual transmission.

The Reality of Transmission: God's providence worked through the faithful, yet fallible, work of thousands of scribes copying manuscripts over centuries. This process inevitably resulted in minor variations (spellings, word order, occasional omissions/additions) – a reality evident in the thousands of manuscripts we possess. God's faithfulness is seen in the remarkable overall stability of the text across this vast manuscript evidence, not in the absence of any textual variants. The core message of sin, salvation, and redemption in Christ remains crystal clear across all reliable textual traditions and translations. No essential doctrine hinges on a disputed variant.

The Translation Question: The article asks, "how will we know God’s Word unless He has preserved it … and then we have it accurately and faithfully translated … into English?" This is crucial. We do have God's Word faithfully preserved in the original language manuscripts (though requiring careful scholarship to reconstruct the earliest text). The task of translation is then to accurately convey that meaning into another language. The KJV is one such translation, but not the only possible faithful one.

2. The Textus Receptus (TR) and Manuscript Evidence

The article champions the TR as the "pure," "providentially preserved," "infallible and inerrant" text, contrasting it sharply with modern critical texts based on older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The TR's Origin: The TR was compiled in the 16th century by Erasmus and others, primarily using the small number of relatively late (mostly 12th-century) Byzantine manuscripts available to them at the time. It was a monumental work for its era but was not based on the oldest available evidence.

Older Manuscript Discoveries: Since the 16th century, archaeologists and scholars have discovered thousands of older manuscripts (some dating to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries), including the Alexandrian family (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) and others. These older manuscripts are closer chronologically to the original autographs. To dismiss them wholesale as "scandalously corrupt" ignores their age and requires assuming widespread, early corruption of the text – a claim unsupported by historical evidence and contrary to God's promise of preservation.

Textual Criticism is Faithful Stewardship: Modern textual criticism isn't an attack on Scripture; it's the careful, reverent process of comparing "all" available manuscripts (including Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western families) to discern the most likely original reading. This process affirms the overwhelming reliability of the New Testament text. The differences between the TR and modern critical texts are minor and well-documented; they do not affect core Christian doctrines. The KJV translators themselves lacked access to this wealth of earlier evidence; they would likely have welcomed it.

3. The KJV Translators and Translation Philosophy

The article rightly praises the learning and piety of the KJV translators. They were indeed remarkable men dedicated to a monumental task. However, the argument for their unique, unrepeatable superiority is overstated.

Human Excellence, Not Divine Perfection: While highly skilled, they were fallible humans working within the linguistic and textual limitations of their time. Their own preface to the KJV explicitly states they did not claim perfection and anticipated future revisions as language and knowledge grew. Modern translators also include deeply devout, highly skilled scholars with access to far more resources (including those older manuscripts).

"Verbal Equivalence" vs. "Dynamic Equivalence": The article strongly favors "verbal equivalence" (word-for-word) as the "only" acceptable method, criticizing "dynamic equivalence" (thought-for-thought). While formal equivalence (like the KJV and ESV, NASB) has strengths, all translation involves interpretation. Languages don't map perfectly word-for-word. Sometimes a more dynamic approach (like the NIV, NLT, CSB) can convey the meaning more accurately and clearly to a modern audience. The KJV itself occasionally uses dynamic renderings. Both philosophies, when done faithfully and transparently, aim to accurately convey God's Word. Accusing modern translations of "adding to" or "subtracting from" God's Word (Rev 22:18-19) based on differing translation philosophy or textual choices is a serious charge requiring specific evidence, not blanket condemnation.

Team Technique: The KJV's collaborative process was excellent. Modern translation committees (like those for the ESV, NIV, CSB, NRSV) also involve extensive peer review and collaboration by teams of international scholars across denominations.

4. Theology and Modern Versions

The article claims modern versions, using critical texts, undermine key doctrines (Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, Blood Atonement) and are based on the "diabolical" work of Westcott and Hort.

Doctrinal Fidelity: This claim is demonstrably false. All major modern evangelical translations (ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, NLT) unequivocally affirm the Virgin Birth, the full Deity and sinless humanity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement through His blood, and His bodily resurrection. Passages central to these doctrines (e.g., John 1:1, 14; Luke 1:34-35; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Heb 9:12-14; 1 John 1:7; 1 Cor 15:3-4) are clearly present. Differences in wording (e.g., some debated passages like 1 John 5:7-8 or the ending of Mark) do not negate these core truths, which are taught throughout Scripture.

Westcott and Hort: Portraying these 19th-century scholars as "diabolical" is uncharitable and inaccurate. While their theories can be debated, they were devout Anglican scholars seeking the most accurate text based on the evidence available to them. Their work, refined by over a century of subsequent scholarship and manuscript discoveries, forms the basis for modern critical texts because they sought to utilize the oldest evidence. Their personal theology, while perhaps more broad than some evangelicals prefer, does not negate the scholarly value of their textual work.

5. The "No Reliable Alternative" Claim and Readability

The article dismisses modern versions as unsafe due to "diluted and adulterated doctrines" and suggests concerns about KJV's archaic language are a smokescreen.

Doctrinal Clarity: As stated above, major modern translations faithfully teach core Christian doctrine. The proliferation of versions often serves different purposes: formal equivalence (ESV, NASB), balanced approach (NIV, CSB), or functional equivalence for clarity (NLT). This allows believers to choose based on study needs or reading level.

The Readability Imperative: The claim that KJV's archaic language (e.g., "thee/thou," "prevent," "suffer," "conversation," "charity") is easily understood is simply not true for most modern English speakers, especially new believers or those without a strong literary background. Obscure language can hinder understanding, which is the very purpose of Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17). Faithful translation requires conveying God's message clearly to the target audience. Modern translations aim to do this without sacrificing accuracy.

Conclusion: Defending the Message, Not Just One Medium

The KJV is a magnificent historical landmark, a literary treasure, and a translation God has used mightily for centuries. Its translators deserve our respect. However, the arguments for its exclusive supremacy based on the perfection of the TR and VPP are not supported by the full scope of historical and textual evidence or by the Bible's own teaching on preservation.

We defend God's Word best by affirming:

1.  Divine Inspiration: The original autographs were breathed out by God, inerrant and authoritative (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21).

2.  Providential Preservation: God has faithfully preserved His Word sufficiently through the ages in the manuscript tradition, ensuring the Church has always had access to the life-giving message of the Gospel. This preservation is seen in the overall stability of the text across thousands of manuscripts, not in the perfection of one specific line.

3.  The Task of Scholarship: Textual criticism is a God-honoring discipline that seeks, using all available evidence, to recover the text closest to the originals. Modern critical texts represent the best efforts of faithful scholars to do this.

4.  The Goal of Translation: To accurately and clearly convey the meaning of God's inspired Word into the language of the people. Multiple faithful translations, based on the best available texts and using sound principles (both formal and functional equivalence), can achieve this goal for different audiences today.

Our faith rests ultimately in the God who spoke and who preserves His truth. We have His Word reliably in many faithful English translations, including the KJV, but not exclusively so. Let us focus on proclaiming the unchanging Gospel message found within them all, trusting in the Holy Spirit to illuminate hearts through His Word, however it is faithfully rendered.

Defending God’s Word: Without Idolizing One Translation or Textform

In every generation, Christians are called to defend the authority, reliability, and sufficiency of God’s Word. As a theologian, I share that deep commitment. Scripture is the foundation of our faith, the revelation of God’s will, and the guide for Christian life and doctrine. However, in our zeal to defend Scripture, we must be careful not to go beyond what Scripture itself teaches—or to elevate human traditions and historical artifacts to a level of divine perfection.

This article is written to affirm the trustworthiness of the Bible while addressing a growing concern: the claims of those who promote Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), KJV-onlyism, and the idea of a "Perfect Textus Receptus (TR)." While these views are often motivated by a desire to honor God’s Word, I believe they ultimately do more harm than good, and confuse the doctrine of Scripture with man-made theories about translations and textual history.

1. What Does It Mean to Defend God’s Word?

To defend God’s Word is not to claim that any one translation or edition of the Bible is flawless or divinely preserved to the letter. Rather, it is to affirm that:

God has spoken through human authors (Hebrews 1:1–2);

The Bible, as originally given, is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16);

The message of the gospel and the truth of God’s revelation has been faithfully preserved throughout history;

God’s Word is sufficient, clear, and authoritative for salvation and godly living.

This is the historic, orthodox position of the Church, held by countless faithful believers long before the rise of the KJV-only movement or the idea of a “perfect TR.”

2. Why I Reject Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration teaches that all the words of Scripture were inspired by God—this I affirm wholeheartedly. But Verbal Plenary Preservation, as some define it today, asserts that God has preserved every single word of the original autographs without variation, and that such preservation can be found in a specific printed text (the TR) and translation (the KJV).

This claim is not only historically and textually unsupported—it is theologically unsound.

Why?

Scripture never teaches that one printed edition of a text would be preserved perfectly. It speaks of the preservation of God’s Word (meaning His truth, message, and promises), not of one manuscript family or translation.

Manuscript evidence is complex and rich, with thousands of Greek manuscripts, none of which are completely identical. God’s providence has preserved His Word through this diversity, not through a frozen, flawless form.

VPP elevates human tradition—especially post-Reformation editorial decisions—into dogma. This risks confusing the authority of Scripture with the authority of a 16th–17th century editing process.

3. Why I’m Not a KJV-Only Advocate

The King James Version (KJV) is a monumental translation. It has shaped the English-speaking church for centuries and continues to be cherished for its literary beauty and theological depth. I respect it. But I do not idolize it.

KJV-onlyism teaches that the KJV is the only valid English Bible and that all other translations are corrupt or inferior. This view is flawed for several reasons:

1. God’s Word is not bound to one language or version. The early church read the Scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and later in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. No generation insisted on a single translation as “the only” preserved Word of God.
2. The KJV itself has undergone many revisions. The version most people use today is not the original 1611 edition.
3. Many faithful translations exist today—ESV, NASB, CSB, NKJV, NIV—produced with scholarship, reverence, and accuracy. To claim that God only blesses one version is to misrepresent both history and God’s providence.

4. The Problem with a "Perfect TR"

The Textus Receptus (TR) was the Greek text used during the time of the Reformation. It was based on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts and edited by scholars like Erasmus and Stephanus. It played an important role in history, but it is not perfect or identical to the original autographs.

1. There are known errors in early TR editions, including back-translations from the Latin Vulgate.
2. Later TR editions disagree among themselves—raising the question: which TR is perfect?
3. Modern textual criticism (based on thousands more manuscripts than were available in the 16th century) allows us to approach the original text with greater accuracy than ever before.

To claim that the TR is perfect is to ignore the historical and textual reality of how the Bible was transmitted and preserved.

5. What Do We Trust, Then?

We trust that God, in His providence, has preserved His Word faithfully. Not perfectly in one edition, but reliably through a wealth of manuscript witnesses, ancient versions, and faithful translations.

Our confidence is not in any one human product of translation or editing, but in the God who speaks.

Yes, we must be discerning about translations. Yes, we must reject those that twist doctrine or downplay divine truth. But we must also avoid the opposite error: turning a good translation into an idol, or insisting that one form of the text is the only form God can use.

Conclusion: Let the Bible Be the Bible

To defend God’s Word is not to defend a particular version or text-type, but to affirm the living, powerful, life-giving message of Scripture. Let us not fall into the trap of building walls where God has given freedom. Let us not elevate human editorial choices above God’s providential care.

God’s Word is eternal (Isaiah 40:8), sharper than any sword (Hebrews 4:12), and trustworthy (Psalm 19:7). That truth does not depend on one version, one manuscript, or one tradition—it depends on the faithfulness of the God who speaks and the Spirit who opens our hearts to hear.

Let us hold fast to Scripture, not as a museum piece, but as the living voice of our Lord. And let us defend it—not with narrow dogma—but with truth, humility, and grace.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” —Isaiah 40:8

To Those Who Teach Falsehood and Harden Their Hearts

You may have a strong will. You may be convinced in your mind and proud in your heart. You may have many followers who echo your words, not realizing the danger they are in. But the Lord sees the heart and weighs every motive.

Proverbs 14:12

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

Proverbs 29:1

"He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing."

Jeremiah 13:10

"These wicked people, who refuse to hear my words... have become stubborn and follow their own hearts."

Galatians 1:8-9

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!... If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"

2 Peter 2:1

"There will be false teachers among you... bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct."

You stubbornly cling to your doctrine—not because it is true, but because it feeds your pride. You teach with no fear of the Lord, but “not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

— James 3:1

You are “ever learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”

— 2 Timothy 3:7

Your stubbornness echoes that of Pharaoh, whose “heart was hardened” (Exodus 9:12), and God opposed him.

If you are proud of what God does not approve, remember:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

— Isaiah 5:20

You exalt yourself over God's Word. You act as though you know more than what He has revealed. But the Lord says:

“This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.”

— Isaiah 66:2

You promote teachings not found in Scripture.

“If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ … he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.”

— 1 Timothy 6:3-4

But it is not too late. My prayer for you is this:

“Lord, have mercy. Break their pride. Give them ears to hear and eyes to see. Turn their hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. Let them tremble at Your Word. May they repent and bow their knees to Christ.”

“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”

— James 4:6-7

“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

— Hebrews 3:15

Let God lead you—not your own heart. “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

— Jeremiah 17:9

Let the fear of the Lord replace your pride:

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is insight.”

— Proverbs 9:10

Let this message be both a warning and an invitation to repent. God is patient, “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

But His patience will not last forever. “Judgment will begin with the household of God.” (1 Peter 4:17)

Now is the time to turn back.

Ezekiel 36:26

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."

Acts 16:14

"The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message."

Psalm 147:5

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit."

Proverbs 1:7

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

James 4:6

"God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble."

2 Timothy 2:25-26

"God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil."

2 Peter 3:9

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise... but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

Psalm 37:7

"Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way."

"Lord, You alone break the chains of pride (Proverbs 29:1). Tear down every false teaching exalted against Your truth (2 Peter 2:1). Open deaf ears and replace hearts of stone with hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26). Let the fear of You shatter stubbornness (Proverbs 1:7), and grant repentance that leads to freedom (2 Timothy 2:25-26). We trust Your patience and power to save (2 Peter 3:9). In Jesus’ name, Amen."

Stand firm in praying these promises (James 5:16). God resists the proud but draws near to the humble—pray that His kindness leads them to repentance (Romans 2:4). 

A reply to the message from Haposan Siregar

 1. Ephesians 4:4–6 Focuses on Spiritual Unity, Not Textual Uniformity

The passage says:

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all...” (Ephesians 4:4–6)

This emphasizes the unity of the Spirit in the body of Christ, focusing on:

• One body – the Church

• One Spirit – the Holy Spirit

• One hope – eternal life in Christ

• One Lord – Jesus Christ

• One faith – the core truths of salvation

• One baptism – initiation into Christ

• One God – our heavenly Father

There is no mention of "one perfect Bible version" or "one preserved Greek text" here. Paul is urging believers to preserve unity in the faith, not to divide over manuscripts or translations.

---

2. "One Faith" Refers to the Gospel, Not a Particular Bible Text

The "one faith" mentioned here refers to the content of Christian belief—the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Jude 1:3: “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”).

• Paul never defines this as a particular manuscript or version of the Bible.

• Believers throughout the centuries and across languages have held to “one faith” even while using different translations and textual traditions (e.g., Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Septuagint, etc.).

• The essence of the faith is preserved and passed on even with minor textual differences that do not affect core doctrines.

To equate “one faith” with the KJV alone or the TR only is a distortion of the context.

---

3. God’s Word Is Preserved in the Church Through Many Witnesses

Scripture teaches that God’s Word is preserved (Isa 40:8, Matt 24:35), but it does not teach that preservation must occur through only one perfect edition or translation. Instead:

• God has preserved His Word through the multitude of manuscripts, translations, and faithful witnesses across languages and centuries.

• These witnesses are largely consistent, and no core doctrine is lost, even though minor textual variants exist.

• This reflects God’s wisdom, not disorder—just as He has raised one faith in many languages and cultures, He has preserved His Word in diverse yet faithful forms.

To demand one perfect Bible version undermines this rich, Spirit-guided history of God’s providence in Scripture transmission.

---

4. KJV-Onlyism and VPP Cause the Very Disunity Paul Warns Against

Ironically, those who insist on “one perfect Bible”—usually meaning the KJV—create division in the body of Christ over something Paul never emphasizes.

• Ephesians 4 is a call to maintain unity in the Spirit, but VPP/KJV-onlyism has divided churches, fellowships, and seminaries.

• It turns secondary matters (textual variants, translation choices) into tests of orthodoxy, which Scripture never authorizes.

• It condemns faithful believers who use modern, accurate translations like the ESV, NASB, or NIV.

This is not preserving “one faith”—it is adding to the faith something Paul never required.

---

Conclusion: One Bible Faithfully Witnessed, Not One Perfect Edition

I can respectfully say:

“Brother, I too believe God has preserved His Word. But Ephesians 4:4–6 does not teach that He has done so through one perfect version like the KJV. Rather, it calls us to unity in Christ through the one gospel, the one Spirit, and the one Church. The Bible has been faithfully preserved in many languages and manuscripts—not just one stream. To insist on one perfect edition is to go beyond Scripture, and in doing so, we risk dividing the body that Ephesians 4 calls us to protect.”

 

Second critique on the message of Haposan Siregar

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. 

A clear, structured critique of Haposan Siregar's message

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!

Firmly disagrees with the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

What is VPP?

VPP asserts that every single word of the original autographs of Scripture has been perfectly and completely preserved without any loss, corruption, or variation, down to the very letters, in a specific line of transmission (usually identified as the Masoretic Text for the OT and the Textus Receptus for the NT, underlying translations like the KJV). It claims an absolute, physical, letter-perfect preservation accessible today.

A Bible Teacher's Reflection on Verbal Plenary Preservation: Humility Before the Mystery of God's Word

As a Bible teacher committed to the truth and authority of Scripture, I feel compelled to speak honestly and pastorally about the doctrine known as Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). While I affirm the inspiration, authority, and trustworthiness of God’s Word, I cannot in good conscience accept the claims made by proponents of VPP. In fact, I believe such teaching distorts the true doctrine of Scripture and crosses into territory that dangerously borders on playing God.

Let me explain clearly.

1. The Word of God Is Inspired, But Not Every Copy Is Perfect

The Bible does affirm God's faithfulness in preserving His message and His Word (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25). It promises the endurance and power of God's truth. However, Scripture does not explicitly promise the mechanical, letter-perfect preservation of every single textual variant through human copying across millennia. 

The Bible clearly teaches that the original writings of Scripture (the autographs) were God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). We wholeheartedly affirm this. However, the doctrine of VPP goes beyond this truth by insisting that every single word, in every manuscript, in a specific line of transmission—often the Textus Receptus or the Masoretic Text—has been perfectly preserved by God, without a single mistake, even in spelling or word order.

This is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible promises that God's Word will not pass away (Matthew 24:35), but that is a promise of preservation in substance, not in perfect textual form in one tradition. The doctrine of VPP imposes a rigid standard of perfection upon the human process of copying and transmitting Scripture—something God Himself never required in His Word.

2. This Teaching Implies a Kind of Omniscience Among Men

This is where the concern about "playing God" arises. VPP effectively anoints a specific human-produced text (the Masoretic/TR tradition, compiled and edited by fallible scribes centuries after the originals) with the same inherent, absolute perfection claimed only for the original autographs breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16).

To claim that a specific manuscript tradition or version (such as the KJV or TR) perfectly preserves the inspired Word of God in every word and letter is to assume a kind of omniscience—as if we know exactly what God preserved and where, despite the evidence of thousands of differing manuscripts across centuries.

This is more than faith—it is presumption. It assumes that we, with limited knowledge, can declare infallibly which single textual tradition is "perfect" and all others are deficient. This is not humility before the Word; it is an elevation of human opinion to the level of divine authority.

3. It Fosters an Unbiblical Certainty and Presumption

Proponents often speak with an absolute certainty about the physical perfection of "their" text that goes beyond the confidence we are called to have in God's revealed truth. They claim to know with infallible precision exactly which words are preserved perfectly, dismissing the vast scholarship studying the actual manuscript evidence. This posture can morph into a sense of possessing exclusive, perfect knowledge – knowing "more than God" in the sense of claiming a level of certainty about the physical text that God, in His wisdom, did not see fit to guarantee explicitly or demonstrate empirically through the manuscript evidence He providentially preserved. It replaces the humility required before the mystery of God's work in transmission with a dogmatic assertion of human certainty. "For now we see in a mirror dimly..." (1 Corinthians 13:12) applies even to our understanding of textual transmission.

4. VPP Creates Division, Not Unity

The body of Christ should be united around the gospel and the truth of God's Word, not divided over which Greek text or translation is "the only preserved one." Sadly, those who promote VPP often create confusion and even condemnation toward fellow believers who use other faithful translations or texts, such as the NA28, ESV, NIV, or the Chinese Union Version (CUV).

Are these believers less faithful? Are they following a "corrupted Bible"? Certainly not. This divisive spirit is not from the Holy Spirit. It is the fruit of a doctrine that exalts human certainty over divine grace.

5. God Preserves His Word Through Providence, Not Perfection

We believe that God, in His sovereignty, has preserved His Word sufficiently and reliably through thousands of manuscripts, ancient translations, church lectionaries, and the faithful witness of the church through time. Yes, there are textual variants. But none of them affect a single core doctrine of the faith. The gospel is clear. The truth is not lost.

To demand that preservation must be verbal and plenary, in the sense of being identical to the originals in every single copy, is to forget that God works through history, people, and means—not through flawless dictation or robotic preservation. That’s not biblical preservation; that’s mechanical perfectionism, and it puts man’s systems in the place of God’s wisdom.

6. Conclusion: Let God Be God

In the end, those who promote Verbal Plenary Preservation often speak with such confidence and absolute certainty that they risk speaking beyond what God has revealed. They claim to protect the Bible, but in doing so, they elevate a theory that is neither taught by Scripture nor supported by the evidence. In effect, they are acting as if they know better than God—declaring perfection where God never promised it.

Let us instead be humble students of Scripture. Let us trust in God's providence, not man's presumption. And let us not build a new legalism around Bible versions and manuscript traditions. The Word of God is living and active—not because we can prove every jot and tittle is preserved in one manuscript, but because the Spirit of God makes the truth of Christ known to all who believe.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8)

Let us hold to that enduring promise, and leave the rest in the hands of the God who speaks, preserves, and saves.

Let us instead stand in awe of the God who inspired His Word, trust in His providential care in preserving its essential message through history, rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate its truth, and approach the text – and our fellow believers – with humility, grace, and a focus on the life-transforming gospel of Jesus Christ. Our confidence is ultimately in the Author, not merely the ink and parchment, however faithfully preserved.