What is wrong with VPP ?

Critics of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)—primarily opposing Bible-Presbyterian (B-P) churches and pastors in Singapore—raise several serious theological, historical, and practical objections to the doctrine:

• Viewed as "Perfect KJV-Onlyism" and Heresy: Opponents characterize VPP as a form of "Perfect KJV-Onlyism" and label it a "heresy". They argue it falsely assumes a "post-canonical" or "double" inspiration, claiming that an inspired, perfect process of textual criticism occurred in 1611 to perfectly restore the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Version. Critics even trace the roots of this ideology back to Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day Adventist writer, rather than historic Protestantism.
• Considered an Abandonment of Reformed Theology: Critics argue that VPP is an abandonment of the Historic Reformed Faith. They assert that the Westminster Confession of Faith actually dispels VPP rather than supporting it. Furthermore, they contend there is no biblical warrant for the doctrine, arguing that passages commonly cited by VPP defenders (such as Psalm 12:6–7) are being misused and do not support the theory.
• Identified as a "New" and Evolved Teaching: While VPP defenders claim the doctrine is as old as the Bible, critics argue that VPP is a novel concept that originated in the United States in the late 1990s and only found support in Singapore around 2002. They note that the teaching has continually "evolved" to adjust to difficult textual questions.
• Textual Inconsistencies and Lack of Proof: Opponents argue that FEBC cannot convincingly or consistently identify the exact Hebrew and Greek texts that are supposedly perfectly preserved. They point out unresolved contradictions, such as differences between the KJV and other accepted translations like the Chinese Union Version (CUV), and the unresolved question of which KJV edition (the 1611 or 1769) is the one that is "perfect".
• Exclusion and Condemnation of Others: Critics strongly object to how VPP proponents treat those who disagree with them. Opponents accuse VPP advocates of labeling anyone who doesn't subscribe to VPP as "Neo-Fundamentalists," "Neo-Evangelicals," or even as lacking "saving faith".
• Sowing Ecclesiastical Discord: On a practical level, opponents argue that VPP has "wrecked havoc" and "sown discord among brethren". In Singapore, the controversy fractured the Bible-Presbyterian community, causing high-profile splits in Life BPC, Calvary BPC, and others, and resulting in a multi-year lawsuit over shared church premises.