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.