With the denomination divided following the dissolution of the Synod in 1988 and the VPP issue in 2002/2003, Tan Eng Boo in “A Very Sad State of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore Today” posed the question, “Who is the original B-P Church?” and followed up immediately with another, “Are we not the ones?”[32][33] Tan’s 2009 article, which first appeared in the weekly of his church Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church (“Grace B-P Church”), was posted on a blogspot http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg that was started in 2008 but removed in November 2016. The blogspot resurfaced in January 2017 with a new name “febcbpc.blogspot.com” and a seemingly deceptive title/header “Far Eastern Bible College” (previously “Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) and Bible-Presbyterian Churches”) as it has many articles, including Tan’s 2009 article,[34] critical of FEBC re-posted on the new blogspot. Regardless of whether Tan’s article remains or disappears (again), the questions posed by him on the B-P Church remain pertinent.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible-Presbyterian_churches_(Singapore)
My previous blog http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sgwas removed, now I continue my writing in https://vpplawsuit2.blogspot.com/ and then https://Singaporebpc.blogspot.com
I gave my life to pursue unity in body of Christ.
"Holding Forth the Word of Life" (Philippians 2:16).
THIS BLOG HAS STRONG LANGUAGE. READER DISCRETION IS ADVICED.
Sep 12, 2018
Internal Fighting in Bible Presbyterian Churches
When Leaders of a Church Fail To Exercise Discipline: Situation In Calvary Pandan BP Church.
The situation.
In the 28th of August 2006, the Straits Times newspaper published a one-eighth-page report, “Barred believer sues pastors for defamation.” Senior Pastor (Dr.) S. H. Tow, Rev. Quek Suan Yew and Mr. Lim Seng Hoo were good friends and fellow believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, they were engaged in a legal battle before a secular court!(“…Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?” St. Paul ). What was the cause of the animosity between Mr. Lim on the side and, Dr.Tow and Rev. Quek on the other?
FEBC and VPP_KJVOyism
The root cause of their legal case can be traced indirectly to the newly created teaching of VPP-KJVOnlyism espoused by the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC). It started as a difference of opinion between two lecturers from the FEBC, Dr. Jeffrey Khoo (academic dean) and Rev. Charles Seet. They disagreed on how the underlying texts of the KJV was preserved. In the words of Rev. Seet,
In June this year (2002) I had prepared answers in support of our KJV only position in response to two sets of questions (a total of 70 questions) that were written by some writers who do not hold to the KJV only position. I shared these with Dr Jeffrey Khoo and he proposed that we publish it jointly in the next issue of the Burning Bush. He also proposed some amendments to them which I did not entirely agree with. For instance, I had written for my answer to the question, Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translationin order to call it “the Word of God?” If so, how do we know “it” is perfect? If not, why do some limit “the Word of God” to only one 17th Century English translation? Where was “the Word of God” prior to 1611?(“Why I Resigned from Teaching at FEBC, Rev Charles Seet’s letter to Life B-P Church Session, 8.11.02, pg 1”. )
Now, the debate should have been kept within the four walls of the FEBC. The study of the Original manuscripts(autographa), its copies (apographs) and translations is a specialized subject that should not concern the average church member. However, some of the FEBC lecturers began promoting VPP-KJVOnlyism as a dogma from the pulpit of those churches who happened to invite them to preach. Similarly, no effort was spared to preach this newly created theory to the Youth Felllowship, Young Adult Fellowship, Sunday School of the many BP churches.
A carefully thought-out plan was made to infiltrate BP churches with this newly formed teaching. The plan was simple enough; the KJV bible is the only valid bible to be used in the English language, other versions are based on “satanic” Westcott and Hort texts. Further, the KJV bible or texts underlying the KJV, are perfect and identical to the Original manuscripts. The KJV bible is totally without errors of any type. Pastors and elders of churches who do not agree with the FEBC lecturers are branded as “neo-fundamentalist”, “neo-evangelical”, doubting the Bible as the Word of God, etc.
The aim of the plan is to create confusion in the church and discredit the pastor(s) or leaders in the church who are not VPP-KJVOnlyist. Indeed, confusion reigned among the members as to what VPP-KJV really is. Some say that the KJV bible is perfect; others say that it is the underlying texts of the KJV is perfect; yet others say that there is a VPP for the Chinese Bible (Chinese Union Version)[ this is not possible because the CUV is based on the Westcott-Hort text].
When asked by the non-VPP-KJVOnlyist to identify the autographic (God-breathed Original ) texts,
the FEBC lecturers would avoid answering the question. They prefer to hide behind the confusion in the church and, at the same time abuse the pulpits by attacking the non-VPP advocates.
The following is an extract of a weekly (28-9-2003) from a BP church which faced such a situation
The disregard of the Board of Elders’ Statement of Reconciliation (dated 1st January 2003) by certain FEBC lecturers.
The Session has been informed by concerned Lifers who attended the FEBC night classes that they have been distressed that the peace promised by the reconciliation statement did not materialize, as the Perfect Bible issue continues to be expounded by FEBC lecturers in Life Church premises, maligning Life Church Session of leading the Church the way of Fuller Theological Seminary going down the slippery road of Neo-Evangelicalism and heresy. This was confusing to Church members who attended that class, and undermined the authority of the Board of Elders and the Session. The Statement of Reconciliation said that neither view is dogma, but personal conviction; we are to accommodate and love one another notwithstanding our differences. However, certain FEBC lecturers have disregarded the statement unanimously agreed by Rev Tow and the Board of Elders, and continued to preach their Perfect Bible view as dogma, even including it as part of a Systematic Theology Course. This course included an assigned essay, "Is the Preservation of Scripture a Doctrine Worth Dying For?" which is insensitive and inappropriate given the Reconciliation Statement and current fears of terrorism, which may implicate the Church. In addition they have labeled those who do not hold to their Perfect Bible view as Neo-Fundamentalists and preaching heresy. The Session appealed to Rev --- to make good his repeated promises that he gave to the Session before the reconciliation statement was agreed and published, that he will restrain the FEBC lecturers from promoting their view as dogma.Lifers have been distressed, confused and divided by the conduct of these FEBC lecturers in contravention of the spirit of the reconciliation statement. However, Rev--- refused to fulfill his promises. Then he said he will resign as Pastor, and instructed Rev--- to take charge of the weekly and the 10.30am service, while Rev--- will take charge of the 8.00am service.
Split of some BP churches
In October 2003 a minority of the Life BP Church members left to start a new church, the True-Life BP church, under the pastorship of Rev. Timothy Tow and his son-in-law, Rev. Jeffrey Khoo (academic dean of the FEBC).
About 70 members of the Calvary BP Church (Jurong), left under the guidance of Ms. Carol Lee, lecturer in the FEBC, to found Truth BP Church. This happened in January 2006.
Instead of confining the debate to issues, sadly, it became personal at the Calvary Pandan BP Church. The situation was so serious that it resulted in a legal suit. A Mr. Lim Seng Hoo alleged that Rev. Quek Suan Yew (a lecturer at the FEBC and long time friend of Rev. Jeffrey Khoo from days gone by when they were members of a Charismatic church) and Dr. S. H. Tow defamed him. Before the legal suit, two non-VPP-KJV elders who tried to mediate between the ‘warring’ parties voted out of office and, two other elders resigned their positions soon after the election. The church is now under the leadership of mainly VPP-KJVOnlyists.
Spread of VPP-KJVOnlyism within BP churches.
Could the schism in the BP churches been avoided? The answer is a definite ‘yes’, provided the leaders of the churches and the FEBC had taken steps to deal with the issues and the people responsible. VPP-KJV spread to the BP movement when it was introduced to the FEBC in the late 1990’s by a D. A. Waite. Although there were leaders in the BP movement who were aware of the non-biblical character of VPP-KJV, there was generally a lack of knowledge of Scripture and courage that prevented them to act decisively against this unwholesome teaching which was vigorously promoted. Not knowing God’s Word well implies having little faith in the promises of Scripture. So at best only half-measures were taken to deal with this heresy, and oftentimes, the teaching is welcomed with open arms. Factors such as friendship, kinship, career, positions of power, academic advancement prevented any real attempts at finding a peaceful way out of this explosive situation. God’s truth and the gospel of peace had been compromised.
Biblical example of handling error.
God in His mercy has left us an example in the Bible of how to deal with heretical teaching in the letter to the Galatians.
Having read that Paul was welcomed by some of the apostles as being a missionary to the gentiles(Gal 2:9), we now read that Paul confronted Peter (Gal 2:11) “to the face”. The apostle Paul had to oppose vigorously the Judaizers who secretly sent people to spy on the new found liberty the converts have in Christ. The Judaizers wanted to reintroduce practices that would bring Christians into the bondage of the defunct religion of the Jews.
The church in Antioch had a healthy mix of Jewish and gentile Christians. Peter has had meals in common with the non-Jewish Christians in Antioch and we can be sure that this would include the Lord’s Supper. This is consistent with Peter’s experience of the vision where he was commanded to eat ‘anything’ which has been cleaned by God (Acts 10). However in the presence of the Judaizers, he would withdraw and separated himself from the Gentiles, fearing what the Judaizers would report when they go back to James. The rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch would follow after the hypocrisy of Peter in separating from the non-Jewish Christians. This event even affected Barnabas, the faithful servant of the Lord who being the first pastor of the church in Antioch should have stood against the tide of Christian Zionism. But alas, the influence of Peter and the Jewish believers were so compelling that it carried him along to act contrary to his beliefs. It was clear to the Jewish Christians at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts15) that ceremonial laws and practices are now obsolete (Acts 15:24-29), yet in Antioch, they as a group acted contrary to these basic beliefs.
Paul’s principle of handling false teaching.
a) False teaching must never be tolerated even for a moment (Gal 2:5). Errors should be dealt with decisively that truth might abide.
b) A false teaching does not become truth because some influential person holds to that teaching. Just because an academic dean of a seminary teaches a new theory does not make the teaching true. We need to examine it in the light of the Bible (Gal 2:6 …whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:…)
c) The way Paul confronted Peter suggests that we have to be open in exposing heresy. The typically discreet, “hush-hush” manner of dealing with problems has been set aside by the great apostle Paul. He defended the truth and liberty of the gospel valiantly, clearly, directly and openly. To defend truth by political manoeuvring, stealth and deception is to undermine the very thing we are trying to defend.
Steps taken by Paul in exposing error.
(i) Paul clearly identified the person who was the cause of the trouble and confronted him. (But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:11)
(ii) He did not speak to Peter privately but confronted him in front of all present. (Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?)
(iii) He explained to all present why the works of the law does not justify a person before God but rather, the death and resurrection of Christ secures for believers the love of God and their justification.(Gal 2:15-21)
We know that the apostle Peter did not take to heart this action of Paul. We can be sure that Peter is grateful that Paul brought up this matter [in 2Peter 3:15, Peter addresses Paul as “beloved brother” and acknowledges that what Paul wrote is on par with Scriptures(v. 16)]. Paul did not attack the person of Peter but instead was concerned with what is wholly doctrinal. His being a Christian and an Apostle required him to confront Peter publicly.
Jeffrey Khoo and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP).
Jeffrey Khoo must be ‘credited’ with breaking up the Bible Presbyterian denomination along the lines of VPP-KJVOnlyism. Khoo has been aided by the majority of current lecturers of the Far Eastern Bible College and the elders of some BP churches. Jeffrey Khoo makes use of the pulpit to preach the heresy of VPP-KJVOnlysim and, also attack pastors and whoever does not subscribe to VPP-KJV. When challenged, he would be evasive, seek pulpit immunity and redefine terms (give new meanings to established terms) thus creating confusion amongst the average church members. Many of the lecturers of the FEBC and elders would parrot Khoo from the pulpit, not knowing the real meaning and significance of VPP-KJVOnlyism.
Simply put, the VPP promoted by the FEBC says that the underlying texts (in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic) of the KJV bible is word-for-word identical to the Original, God-breathed manuscripts. The reason for saying this is that, unless we have a Bible in our hands today we cannot be sure of our faith, or unless God has preserved the physical texts 100%, He is not a real God but an impotent one.
We can see from some of the articles written by Jeffrey Khoo that VPP is not based on the Bible, but the dreams and fancies of Jeffrey Khoo. Consider the extract from an article below;
Could God have restored for His Church all of His inspired and preserved words in the days of the Reformation? As the all-powerful God, He certainly could, and by faith we believe He surely did. Just as He restored the Old Covenant words of His Decalogue through His servant Moses (Exod 19:16-21:26, 31:18-32:28, 34:1-4; Deut 5:1-29, 9:20-21,10:1-5), and all His words in the scroll which Jehoiakim cut up and burned (Jer 36:1-32), so we believe the Lord has similarly done for His New Testament words which have been kept pure in the Traditional and Majority manuscripts and are now found in the Printed Text of the Protestant Reformation—the time-tested and time-honoured Textus Receptus underlying the KJV [ The Burning Bush, July 2006,p. 78]
What does Khoo say? “by faith we believe He surely did”. So when we read Act 19:6, “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”, can we too believe by faith that we can speak in tongues and prophesy the way Paul and the believers did? Similarly, can we, by faith drink poisons, endure snake bites, cast out demons, etc as Jesus said (Mark 16:17-18)? “And these signs shall follow them that believe; …. they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
There are many objections to VPP but we will only consider two points.
(i) There are no more special revelations and general revelations after the close of the apostolic age (about AD 100). This is a common teaching among the Reformed Churches. It is not surprising when you consider that Jeffrey Khoo and his close ally Quek Suan Yew were members of a Charismatic church for a long time. They never have truly embraced Reformed Christianity.
(ii) To say that the God restored the Original God-breathed texts in 1611 is to imply that those people (e.g. Erasmus) associated with the Received Text (textus receptus) are of equal standing with the Biblical authors, i.e. they are directly inspired by God. This is because the Received Text contains ‘a few readings taken from the Latin, for which there are now no extant Greek manuscripts, have always been included in the various printed editions of the Received Text’.[1]
What makes VPP a heresy is that
(a) it belittles the promise of Jesus that He will send the Holy Spirit
(b) it casts doubt on the function of the Holy Spirit.
The work of the Holy Spirit in relation to God’s Word is as follows:
(i) He will make Christ known: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (Joh 15:26)
(ii) He will guide Christians to all truth and glorify Christ: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (Joh 16:13-14)
(iii) He will convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgement: Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:(Joh16:7-8)
(iv) He will teach Christians all things: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 )
Consider what some of the VPPites say when Christians do not believe that the KJV underlying text is perfect (Note: When VPPites speak of “Bible” they mean the KJV bible) .
The alternative view is that God’s Word is perfect in the originals (autographs)…. if we subscribe to the fact that God inspired His Word in the original writings but does not ensure a 100% preservation of it, how can we then even trust in God for our salvation? [‘VPI and VPP: Does it concern me.’, Boaz Boon, (“Elder” of a church)]
… how can we know for certain that our faith is sure? …... If we do not have an infallible and inerrant Scripture today, then is not our faith vain? Are we still not in our sins? Christians are a most miserable lot for sure![‘Knowing our Bible-Presbyterian faith’, Jeffrey Khoo]
…if the Christian Bible is not perfect, infallible and inerrant, “then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; … If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” [“The emergence of neo-fundamentalism: one bible only? Or ‘yea hath god said?’”
, Jeffrey Khoo]
“….If I say that God has preserved the biblical texts and I DO NOT HAVE it then how can I say that GOD has preserved it!...this is a contradiction that, in my opinion, undermines and perhaps attacks the omnipotence of God.” [Rev.Quek Suan Yew in a letter to Rev. Charles Seet]
The sum of all the arguments by the VPPites is that God is obliged to preserve the Original text a 100% so that they can hold a physical bible in their hands, otherwise they would doubt God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
What about those people who became Christians through using the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc? The VPPites doubt their salvation because their Bibles are based on the Satanic texts of Westcott and Hort. However, God’s Word states otherwise; it is the Holy Spirit that interprets the Bible to us when we read it, that makes us believe that it is the Word of God.
“But the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true and no lie, and as He has taught you, abide in Him.”(1Joh2:27)
The VPP-KJVOnlyist attack the Holy Spirit in doubting His ability to bring the truth to believers. They grieve the Holy Spirit and make unbiblical demands on God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God would preserve the Autographical text in the KJV underlying texts. The heresy of the VPPites comes very close to committing the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit.[2]Jeffrey Khoo, a false teacher of the Gospel, redefined established biblical terms giving them new meanings to confuse the church members and elders. He then launched vicious attacks against Christians who do not subscribe to his fanciful made-up stories regarding God restoring the Autographical texts in 1611.
Failure of leaders of the FEBC to exercise discipline.
If Jeffrey Khoo had kept his belief within the confines of the college and debated within the academia there would have been no split of the BP churches along the lines of VPP-KJVOnlyism. However, sensing that he could not prove from the Bible and produce data to substantiate his claims for VPP-KJVOnlyism, he resorted to political means and deception to win converts over to VPP-KJVOnlyism. Herein lies the start of the schism in the BP movement. Leaders of the FEBC and some of the BP churches sacrificed truth for kinship and friendship. He was cautioned but ignored them and was allowed to be let loosed to do further damage to the congregations as the leaders watch from the sideline. The key players of VPP-KJVOnlyism from the FEBC Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy and Carol Lee were not from Reformed background and know very little about the historic-reformed Christianity.
Situation in Calvary Pandan
Mr. Lim Seng Hoo, an ordinary member of the church, not a deacon nor an elder, was willing to spend the time, effort and resources to debate with Jeffrey Khoo on VPP-KJVOlyism. In Lim’s own words,
“On 3 Jul 05, Dr Khoo distributed 300 copies of an open letter against my “An Evidential Review” to his church, and also emailed his letter to other churches. He later on 10 Jul preached a VPP sermon at Calvary Pandan, which led to my Open Letter on 14 Jul, inviting him to a public academic debate, which many had implored of me, as being the best way to resolve the issue decisively, for the peace of all our churches On 17 Jul, I hand distributed 60 copies of my open letter to English members…” [http://www.truth.sg/necessity.htm]
The act of distributing his open letter to 60 members calling for an open debate with Jeffrey Khoo got him into trouble with the pastors. However, this time, some of the elders of Pandan were not willing to sit on the sideline to watch. They did their best to resolve the standoff between Lim and the two pastors. Political manoeuvrings by the VPP-KJVOnlyist and their sympathizers thwarted any plans at resolving the impasse amicably. During the session elections two long-standing elders were voted out and subsequently, two others who were voted in resigned their positions. This event is not surprising seeing as one of the pastors is also a lecturer in the FEBC.
Many Christians have the opinion that Lim should not have brought a legal suit against the pastors. But then again we do not really know what transpired during the worship service. Did the pastors went overboard in their criticism of Lim, or was Lim too sensitive? One thing is for certain, this issue can be traced to VPP-KJVOnlysim of Jeffrey Khoo and, with the majority of the newly elected Pandan session members being VPP-KJVOnlyist, Lim would be censured for his stand against the heresy of VPP-KJVOnlyism.
We pray to God that this legal case will be settled amicably and out-of-court.
Conclusion: The mysterious man sent to tell Eli about the downfall of his family.
And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, "Thus the LORD has said, 'Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?' Therefore the LORD the God of Israel declares: 'I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,' but now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. (1Sam2:27-31)
[1] The Trinitarian Bible Society wrote in its “Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture” Erasmus’ first edition included, in a few cases, readings from the Latin Vulgate. This was largely due to the fact that some of the Greek manuscripts available to him were incomplete (e.g. his manuscript of Revelation was missing its last six verses). ….However, a few readings taken from the Latin, for which there are now no extant Greek manuscripts, have always been included in the various printed editions of the Received Text.
[2] ‘This sin consists in the conscious, malicious, and willful rejection and slander, against evidence and conviction, of the testimony of the Holy Spirit respecting the grace of God in Christ, attributing it out of hatred and enmity to the Prince of Darkness…in committing that sin man willfully, maliciously, and intentionally attributes what is clearly recognized as the work of God to the influenced operation of Satan’. [Systematic Theology; L Berkhof]
The above posting is taken from : http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/legalcase.html
six vices
Ephesians 4:31–32.
Believers are to get rid of the six vices of bitterness, rage (thymos, “outbursts of anger”), anger (orgē, “settled feeling of anger”), brawling (kraugē, “shouting or clamor”), slander (blasphēmia), and malice (kakia, “ill will, wickedness”). Several of these vices are also listed in Colossians 3:8.
The positive commands are three: (1) be kind (chrēstoi, lit., “what is suitable or fitting to a need”); (2) be compassionate (eusplanchnoi; used elsewhere in the NT only in 1 Peter 3:8; cf. splanchnoi, “inner emotions of affection,” in 2 Cor. 6:12; 7:15; Phil. 1:8; 2:1; Col. 3:12; Phile. 7, 12, 20; 1 John 3:17); (3) be forgiving (lit., “being gracious,” charizomenoi, the participle from the verb charizomai, “to give freely” or “to give graciously as a favor”). The reason for these positive commands is that in Christ God is kind (Eph. 2:7), compassionate (Mark 1:41), and gracious (Rom. 8:32) to believers.
Harold W. Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 637.
Believers are to get rid of the six vices of bitterness, rage (thymos, “outbursts of anger”), anger (orgē, “settled feeling of anger”), brawling (kraugē, “shouting or clamor”), slander (blasphēmia), and malice (kakia, “ill will, wickedness”). Several of these vices are also listed in Colossians 3:8.
The positive commands are three: (1) be kind (chrēstoi, lit., “what is suitable or fitting to a need”); (2) be compassionate (eusplanchnoi; used elsewhere in the NT only in 1 Peter 3:8; cf. splanchnoi, “inner emotions of affection,” in 2 Cor. 6:12; 7:15; Phil. 1:8; 2:1; Col. 3:12; Phile. 7, 12, 20; 1 John 3:17); (3) be forgiving (lit., “being gracious,” charizomenoi, the participle from the verb charizomai, “to give freely” or “to give graciously as a favor”). The reason for these positive commands is that in Christ God is kind (Eph. 2:7), compassionate (Mark 1:41), and gracious (Rom. 8:32) to believers.
Harold W. Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 637.
Please look at me!
“You are the God who sees me,”
for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.”
Genesis 16:13
for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.”
Genesis 16:13
Why some are criticized
I have been of opinion for years that we are all inclined to measure others by ourselves, and that we are quick to suspect of others motives which we ourselves posess. The best people are the slowest to suspect evil, and the worst ones hardest to see good, in others. Beware lest that in seeking to expose wickedness in others you reveal sin in yourself.
—F. D. Srygley in Gospel Advocate, 1890
Brent Lewis, “And Then Some,” Christianity Magazine (Jacksonville, FL: Christianity Magazine, 1994), 8.
—F. D. Srygley in Gospel Advocate, 1890
Brent Lewis, “And Then Some,” Christianity Magazine (Jacksonville, FL: Christianity Magazine, 1994), 8.
Dedicating a church building
“These I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
—Isaiah 56:7
My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.
—Mark 11:17
Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.
—Luke 14:23
Responsive Reading, Psalm 24
Leader: The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.
Congregation: Who may ascend the hill of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place?
Leader: He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false. He will receive blessing from the Lord and vindication from God his Savior.
May we dedicate our bodies as temple of God.
—Isaiah 56:7
My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.
—Mark 11:17
Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.
—Luke 14:23
Responsive Reading, Psalm 24
Leader: The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.
Congregation: Who may ascend the hill of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place?
Leader: He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false. He will receive blessing from the Lord and vindication from God his Savior.
May we dedicate our bodies as temple of God.
Today Bible Reading
1 Corinthians 8:1b–7, 11–13
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
RESPONSE
Psalm 139:24b
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
RESPONSE
Psalm 139:24b
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.
John Calvin and Henry Cole
John Calvin reply:
If you steal of necessity (according to your own argument), think you not that you are less excusable after the Law has been given than you were before it was given? How widely different is the apostle Paul’s opinion of himself, where he confesses that he was “sold under sin,” but where, at the same time, he freely and loudly testifies that the Law “worketh wrath”? showing thereby that it is in vain to stretch forth in our defence the shield of necessity, when every man’s own conscience condemns him of voluntary and wilful wickedness.
Now I would just ask you this question: When, a year ago, you had your own hook in your hand, by which you might have pulled down firewood to warm your own house, was it not your own will that drove you to steal wood from your neighbour? If, then, this one act suffices for your own righteous condemnation, that you willingly made a base and wicked gain to your neighbour’s loss, what noise soever you may make about necessity, necessity did not acquit you on that occasion. And as to your farther noisy argument: that no one can be justly condemned, excepting on account of his crime and after his crime; concerning the former there exists no strife nor cause of strife (or ought not to exist) between me and you, because I everywhere teach that no one perishes but by the just judgment of God. But I cannot withhold my testimony that there lies concealed under your words a great depth of poison. For if your statement of the Divine matter and your figure of speech are to be received, God will appeal unjust who righteously includes the whole race of Abraham under the guilt of original sin.
You deny that it is lawful and right in God to condemn any one of mortals, unless it be on account of sin committed. Now numberless mortals are taken out of life while yet perfect infants. You had better then commence your virulent war with God Himself, Who casts innocent babes, just taken from the wombs of their mothers, under the guilt of original sin, and subjects them to His wrath and the desert of eternal death. Who, I pray you, must not detest the blasphemy of thus contending against God, when it is exposed to view, either by the voice or by pen of truth? Curse me as long as you will, but blaspheme not the adorable God. For, as to myself, I can never expect to be free or exempt from the reproaches of those who spare not the ever blessed God Himself.
With respect to the second member of your argument, that no one can justly be condemned until after his crime, just weigh in your own balance the lightness and emptiness of your loquacity herein. Why, your own masters, Pighius, Servetus, and all like barking unclean dogs, will at least confess that all those whom God foreknew to be worthy of eternal destruction were condemned by Him before the foundation of the world; whereas you will not grant unto God the right to condemn any to eternal death, but those who have first been brought before earthly judges for their actually perpetrated crimes. From such arguments as these, readers may at once gather the marvellous extent of your insanity, who hesitate not to root out, in absolute sport or jest, all the solemn order of the Divine justice!
John Calvin and Henry Cole, Calvin’s Calvinism: A Defence of the Secret Providence of God (Wertheim and Macintosh, 1857), 114–115.
The lecturers in Bible College are all sinners!
If you steal of necessity (according to your own argument), think you not that you are less excusable after the Law has been given than you were before it was given? How widely different is the apostle Paul’s opinion of himself, where he confesses that he was “sold under sin,” but where, at the same time, he freely and loudly testifies that the Law “worketh wrath”? showing thereby that it is in vain to stretch forth in our defence the shield of necessity, when every man’s own conscience condemns him of voluntary and wilful wickedness.
Now I would just ask you this question: When, a year ago, you had your own hook in your hand, by which you might have pulled down firewood to warm your own house, was it not your own will that drove you to steal wood from your neighbour? If, then, this one act suffices for your own righteous condemnation, that you willingly made a base and wicked gain to your neighbour’s loss, what noise soever you may make about necessity, necessity did not acquit you on that occasion. And as to your farther noisy argument: that no one can be justly condemned, excepting on account of his crime and after his crime; concerning the former there exists no strife nor cause of strife (or ought not to exist) between me and you, because I everywhere teach that no one perishes but by the just judgment of God. But I cannot withhold my testimony that there lies concealed under your words a great depth of poison. For if your statement of the Divine matter and your figure of speech are to be received, God will appeal unjust who righteously includes the whole race of Abraham under the guilt of original sin.
You deny that it is lawful and right in God to condemn any one of mortals, unless it be on account of sin committed. Now numberless mortals are taken out of life while yet perfect infants. You had better then commence your virulent war with God Himself, Who casts innocent babes, just taken from the wombs of their mothers, under the guilt of original sin, and subjects them to His wrath and the desert of eternal death. Who, I pray you, must not detest the blasphemy of thus contending against God, when it is exposed to view, either by the voice or by pen of truth? Curse me as long as you will, but blaspheme not the adorable God. For, as to myself, I can never expect to be free or exempt from the reproaches of those who spare not the ever blessed God Himself.
With respect to the second member of your argument, that no one can justly be condemned until after his crime, just weigh in your own balance the lightness and emptiness of your loquacity herein. Why, your own masters, Pighius, Servetus, and all like barking unclean dogs, will at least confess that all those whom God foreknew to be worthy of eternal destruction were condemned by Him before the foundation of the world; whereas you will not grant unto God the right to condemn any to eternal death, but those who have first been brought before earthly judges for their actually perpetrated crimes. From such arguments as these, readers may at once gather the marvellous extent of your insanity, who hesitate not to root out, in absolute sport or jest, all the solemn order of the Divine justice!
John Calvin and Henry Cole, Calvin’s Calvinism: A Defence of the Secret Providence of God (Wertheim and Macintosh, 1857), 114–115.
The lecturers in Bible College are all sinners!
BROTHERS, PRAY FOR THE SEMINARIES
BROTHERS, PRAY FOR THE SEMINARIES
WE CANNOT overemphasize the importance of our seminaries in shaping the theology and spirit of the churches and denominations and missionary enterprise. The tone of the classrooms and teachers exerts profound effect on the tone of our pulpits. What the teachers are passionate about will by and large be the passions of our younger pastors. What they neglect will likely be neglected in the pulpits.
When I was choosing a seminary, someone gave me good advice. “A seminary is one thing”—he told me, “faculty. Do not choose a denomination or a library or a location. Choose a great faculty. Everything else is incidental.” By “great faculty” he, of course, did not mean mere charismatic personalities. He meant that wonderful combination of passion for God, for truth, for the church, and for the perishing, along with a deep understanding of God and His Word, a high esteem for doctrinal truth and careful interpretation and exposition of the infallible Bible.
I believe his advice was right: choose a seminary for its teachers. Which means that when we pray for our seminaries, we pray especially for the minds and hearts of faculty and those who assess and hire them.
When we stop to think for a while about what to pray, we start to clarify our own concept of ministry. We can’t pray without a goal. And we can’t have a goal for a seminary faculty unless we have a vision for what kind of pastors we want to see graduate. So the more we try to pray, the more we are forced to define what we value in the pastoral office. And once we clarify this, we begin to ponder what sort of person and pedagogy cultivates these values.
So the will to pray for the seminary presses us on to develop at least a rudimentary pastoral theology and philosophy of theological education. What follows is a baby step in this direction, a rough sketch of what I think we need from our seminaries. My petitions cluster in three groups. Each group echoes a Biblical value at which I think we should aim, and toward which we should pray, in pastoral education.
Under the all-embracing goal of God’s glory (first petition), petitions 2–7 echo my goal that we cultivate a contrite and humble sense of human insufficiency. “I am the vine, you are the branches.… Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves” (2 Cor. 4:7 NASB). “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16).
Petitions 8–11 echo my goal that we cultivate a great passion for Christ’s all-sufficiency and that, for all our enthusiasm over contemporary trends in ministry, the overwhelming zeal of a pastor’s heart be for the changeless fundamentals of the faith. “Whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil. 3:7–8 NASB).
Petitions 12–20 echo my goal that we cultivate strong allegiance to all of Scripture and that what the apostles and prophets preached and taught in Scripture will be esteemed worthy of our careful and faithful exposition to God’s people. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
You will want to supplement these prayers with the burdens of your own heart for the seminaries you care about most deeply. But these are essential, I think, to breed power and purity in our churches.
I pray:
1. That the supreme, heartfelt, and explicit goal of every faculty member might be to teach and live in such a way that his students come to admire the glory of God with white-hot intensity (1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 5:16).
2. That, among the many ways this goal can be sought, the whole faculty will seek it by the means suggested in 1 Peter 4:11: Serve “in the strength which God supplies: in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.”
3. That the challenge of the ministry might be presented in such a way that the question rises authentically in students’ hearts: “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16).
4. That in every course the indispensable and precious enabling of the Holy Spirit will receive significant emphasis in comparison to other means of ministerial success (Gal. 3:5).
5. That teachers will cultivate the pastoral attitude expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Romans 15:18: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.… I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience by word and deeds.”
6. That the poverty of spirit commended in Matthew 5:3 and the lowliness and meekness commended in Colossians 3:12 and Ephesians 4:2 and 1 Peter 5:5–6 be manifested through the administration, faculty, and student body.
7. That the faculty might impress upon students by precept and example the immense pastoral need to pray without ceasing and to despair of all success without persevering prayer in reliance on God’s free mercy (Matt. 7:7–11; Eph. 6:18).
8. That the faculty will help the students feel what an unutterably precious thing it is to be treated mercifully by the holy God, even though we deserve to be punished in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; 18:23–35; Luke 7:42, 47).
9. That, because of our seminary faculties, hundreds of pastors, fifty years from now, will repeat the words of John Newton on their deathbeds: “My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: that I am a great sinner and that Jesus is a great Savior.”1
10. That the faculty will inspire students to unqualified and exultant joy in the venerable verities of Scripture. “The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart” (Ps. 19:8).
11. That every teacher will develop a pedagogical style based on James Denney’s maxim: “No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.”2
12. That in the treatment of Scripture there will be no truncated estimation of what is valuable for preaching and for life.
13. That students will develop a respect for and use of the awful warnings of Scripture as well as its precious promises; and that the command to “pursue holiness” (Heb. 12:14 JP) will not be blunted, but empowered, by the assurance of divine enablement. “Now the God of peace … equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20–21 NASB).
14. That there might be a strong and evident conviction that the deep and constant study of Scripture is the best way to become wise in dealing with people’s problems. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17 NASB).
15. That the faculty may not represent the contemporary mood in critical studies which sees “minimal unity, wide-ranging diversity” in the Bible; but that they will pursue the unified “whole counsel of God” and help students see the way it all fits together. “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27).
16. That explicit Biblical insights will permeate all class sessions, even when issues are treated with language and paradigms borrowed from contemporary sciences. That God and His Word will not be taken for granted as the tacit “foundation” that doesn’t get talked about or admired.
17. That the faculty will mingle the “severe discipline” of textual analysis with an intense reverence for the truth and beauty of God’s Word.
18. That fresh discoveries will be made in the study of Scripture and shared with the church through articles and books.
19. That faculty, deans, and presidents will have wisdom and courage from God to make appointments which promote the fulfillment of these petitions.
20. And that boards and all those charged with leadership will be vigilant over the moral and doctrinal faithfulness of the faculty and exercise whatever discipline is necessary to preserve the Biblical faithfulness of all that is taught and done.
Brothers, let us not merely criticize or commend the seminaries. God loves His church and His truth. He ordains to do His work through the intercession of His people. Generations of faithfulness are at stake. Therefore, brothers, let us pray for the seminaries.
John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 261–266.
Are you praying for Far Eastern Bible College and Emmanuel Reformed Bible College?
WE CANNOT overemphasize the importance of our seminaries in shaping the theology and spirit of the churches and denominations and missionary enterprise. The tone of the classrooms and teachers exerts profound effect on the tone of our pulpits. What the teachers are passionate about will by and large be the passions of our younger pastors. What they neglect will likely be neglected in the pulpits.
When I was choosing a seminary, someone gave me good advice. “A seminary is one thing”—he told me, “faculty. Do not choose a denomination or a library or a location. Choose a great faculty. Everything else is incidental.” By “great faculty” he, of course, did not mean mere charismatic personalities. He meant that wonderful combination of passion for God, for truth, for the church, and for the perishing, along with a deep understanding of God and His Word, a high esteem for doctrinal truth and careful interpretation and exposition of the infallible Bible.
I believe his advice was right: choose a seminary for its teachers. Which means that when we pray for our seminaries, we pray especially for the minds and hearts of faculty and those who assess and hire them.
When we stop to think for a while about what to pray, we start to clarify our own concept of ministry. We can’t pray without a goal. And we can’t have a goal for a seminary faculty unless we have a vision for what kind of pastors we want to see graduate. So the more we try to pray, the more we are forced to define what we value in the pastoral office. And once we clarify this, we begin to ponder what sort of person and pedagogy cultivates these values.
So the will to pray for the seminary presses us on to develop at least a rudimentary pastoral theology and philosophy of theological education. What follows is a baby step in this direction, a rough sketch of what I think we need from our seminaries. My petitions cluster in three groups. Each group echoes a Biblical value at which I think we should aim, and toward which we should pray, in pastoral education.
Under the all-embracing goal of God’s glory (first petition), petitions 2–7 echo my goal that we cultivate a contrite and humble sense of human insufficiency. “I am the vine, you are the branches.… Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves” (2 Cor. 4:7 NASB). “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16).
Petitions 8–11 echo my goal that we cultivate a great passion for Christ’s all-sufficiency and that, for all our enthusiasm over contemporary trends in ministry, the overwhelming zeal of a pastor’s heart be for the changeless fundamentals of the faith. “Whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil. 3:7–8 NASB).
Petitions 12–20 echo my goal that we cultivate strong allegiance to all of Scripture and that what the apostles and prophets preached and taught in Scripture will be esteemed worthy of our careful and faithful exposition to God’s people. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
You will want to supplement these prayers with the burdens of your own heart for the seminaries you care about most deeply. But these are essential, I think, to breed power and purity in our churches.
I pray:
1. That the supreme, heartfelt, and explicit goal of every faculty member might be to teach and live in such a way that his students come to admire the glory of God with white-hot intensity (1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 5:16).
2. That, among the many ways this goal can be sought, the whole faculty will seek it by the means suggested in 1 Peter 4:11: Serve “in the strength which God supplies: in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.”
3. That the challenge of the ministry might be presented in such a way that the question rises authentically in students’ hearts: “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16).
4. That in every course the indispensable and precious enabling of the Holy Spirit will receive significant emphasis in comparison to other means of ministerial success (Gal. 3:5).
5. That teachers will cultivate the pastoral attitude expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Romans 15:18: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.… I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience by word and deeds.”
6. That the poverty of spirit commended in Matthew 5:3 and the lowliness and meekness commended in Colossians 3:12 and Ephesians 4:2 and 1 Peter 5:5–6 be manifested through the administration, faculty, and student body.
7. That the faculty might impress upon students by precept and example the immense pastoral need to pray without ceasing and to despair of all success without persevering prayer in reliance on God’s free mercy (Matt. 7:7–11; Eph. 6:18).
8. That the faculty will help the students feel what an unutterably precious thing it is to be treated mercifully by the holy God, even though we deserve to be punished in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; 18:23–35; Luke 7:42, 47).
9. That, because of our seminary faculties, hundreds of pastors, fifty years from now, will repeat the words of John Newton on their deathbeds: “My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: that I am a great sinner and that Jesus is a great Savior.”1
10. That the faculty will inspire students to unqualified and exultant joy in the venerable verities of Scripture. “The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart” (Ps. 19:8).
11. That every teacher will develop a pedagogical style based on James Denney’s maxim: “No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.”2
12. That in the treatment of Scripture there will be no truncated estimation of what is valuable for preaching and for life.
13. That students will develop a respect for and use of the awful warnings of Scripture as well as its precious promises; and that the command to “pursue holiness” (Heb. 12:14 JP) will not be blunted, but empowered, by the assurance of divine enablement. “Now the God of peace … equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20–21 NASB).
14. That there might be a strong and evident conviction that the deep and constant study of Scripture is the best way to become wise in dealing with people’s problems. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17 NASB).
15. That the faculty may not represent the contemporary mood in critical studies which sees “minimal unity, wide-ranging diversity” in the Bible; but that they will pursue the unified “whole counsel of God” and help students see the way it all fits together. “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27).
16. That explicit Biblical insights will permeate all class sessions, even when issues are treated with language and paradigms borrowed from contemporary sciences. That God and His Word will not be taken for granted as the tacit “foundation” that doesn’t get talked about or admired.
17. That the faculty will mingle the “severe discipline” of textual analysis with an intense reverence for the truth and beauty of God’s Word.
18. That fresh discoveries will be made in the study of Scripture and shared with the church through articles and books.
19. That faculty, deans, and presidents will have wisdom and courage from God to make appointments which promote the fulfillment of these petitions.
20. And that boards and all those charged with leadership will be vigilant over the moral and doctrinal faithfulness of the faculty and exercise whatever discipline is necessary to preserve the Biblical faithfulness of all that is taught and done.
Brothers, let us not merely criticize or commend the seminaries. God loves His church and His truth. He ordains to do His work through the intercession of His people. Generations of faithfulness are at stake. Therefore, brothers, let us pray for the seminaries.
John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 261–266.
Are you praying for Far Eastern Bible College and Emmanuel Reformed Bible College?
MCINTIRE, Carl (1906–2002)
MCINTIRE, Carl (1906–2002), militant separatist fundamentalist and anti-Communist crusader, was born in Ypsilanti, Michigan, on 17 May 1906. His father, Charles Curtis McIntire, was a Presbyterian minister, and his mother, Hettie, was a teacher and librarian. Soon after McIntire’s birth, the family moved to Durant, Oklahoma, where his grandmother had been a missionary to the Choctaws. His father suffered from delusions and spent 1914 to 1919 in a mental institution, forcing Hettie McIntire to raise her four sons on her own. She sought a divorce in 1922, fearing for her own safety and that of her family, and eventually became dean of women at a college in Oklahoma. When Carl McIntire reached college age, he began to attend Southeastern State College in Oklahoma, but then transferred to Park College in Kansas City, Missouri, where he received his BA in teacher education in 1927. Although McIntire contemplated a law degree, he decided instead to study for the ministry and entered Princeton Seminary in 1928, where he was elected president of the entering class.
Princeton in the late 1920s was caught up in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, and McIntire soon came under the influence of the renowned scholar and fundamentalist leader J. Gresham Machen. When the Presbyterian Church placed Princeton Seminary under a liberal governing board in 1929, Machen left to found Westminster Seminary in Chester Hill, Pennsylvania. McIntire followed his professor and graduated from Westminster in 1931. Soon afterwards he married Fairy Eunace Davis of Paris, Texas. On 4 June 1931 McIntire was ordained into the Presbyterian Church and installed as pastor of the Chelsea Presbyterian Church in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which had been decimated by the suicide of the previous pastor. Through aggressive evangelizing and outdoor preaching on the ocean boardwalk, McIntire added almost 200 members within two years. On 28 September 1933 McIntire was called as pastor to the 1,000-member fundamentalist Collingswood Presbyterian Church in Collingswood, New Jersey, a position that he would hold for the next sixty-six years.
In 1934 McIntire became a member of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, which Machen had created as an alternative to the increasingly liberal Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions. The creation of a rival missions agency provoked the ire of the Presbyterian General Assembly, which brought McIntire, along with Machen and his followers, to trial for creating disorder. McIntire responded by broadcasting his evening services on a local Philadelphia radio station, giving full vent to his dispute with the Presbyterian Church. He began publishing The Christian Beacon, a weekly newspaper that chronicled his struggles, on 13 February 1936, and he continued to publish it for more than five decades.
On 15 June 1936 McIntire and the others responsible for the Independent Board were found guilty and ousted from the Presbyterian Church. Those expelled immediately formed the Presbyterian Church of America, but this new denomination was soon racked by internal conflicts. Two factions developed, one (represented by McIntire) that supported premillennial dispensationalism and another (represented by Machen) that accepted premillennialism but viewed dispensationalism with suspicion. Machen managed to hold the denomination together until his death in 1937, but soon afterwards McIntire’s followers formed the Bible Presbyterian Church, while those loyal to Machen formed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. McIntire founded Faith Theological Seminary in July 1938 to train ministers for his fledgling denomination.
All but eight of McIntire’s congregation voluntarily left the Presbyterian Church when McIntire was expelled, but as a civil court in 1938 refused to grant them ownership of the Collingswood Presbyterian Church property, they were forced to meet in a tent while a wooden ‘Tabernacle of Testimony’ was built, which served the congregation from 1938 until 1957. Denied the Collingswood Presbyterian Church name, the congregation changed its name to the Bible Presbyterian Church of Collingswood.
Ruthlessly insistent on doctrinal purity, McIntire formed the American Council of Christian Churches in 1941 and the International Council of Christian Churches in 1948 to oppose and offer an alternative to the ecumenical positions of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. McIntire’s extreme separatism created a schism within the Bible Presbyterians that caused more than three-quarters of the denomination’s hundred churches to disassociate themselves from him in 1956. The American Council of Christian Churches followed suit in 1968. However, McIntire was far from beaten by these struggles. He continued to pastor his large Collingswood church, maintained control of Faith Seminary and the International Council of Christian Churches and reached millions more through his radio broadcasts and The Christian Beacon.
On 7 March 1955 McIntire began broadcasting ‘The Twentieth Century Reformation Hour’, a thirty-minute radio programme on WCVH in Chester, Pennsylvania. He daily excoriated the twin threats of apostasy and Communism, and his message proved popular in the Cold War era. Within five years, he was heard on 600 stations throughout the country and was receiving almost two million dollars a year in contributions from an estimated 20 million listeners. These funds enabled him to buy several hotels in Cape May, New Jersey, which he turned into fundamentalist conference centres. In addition, he assumed control of Shelton College (formerly the National Bible Institute) in 1964. He founded a secondary school in 1968 and a primary school in 1973.
McIntire worked closely with Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Affairs Committee to identify suspected Communist clergymen. He also regularly attacked the National Association of Evangelicals, Billy Graham and other ‘New Evangelicals’ for their refusal to separate themselves from non-fundamentalists. His other targets included the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church and the Civil Rights movement. He used protest demonstrations at the meetings of groups he opposed to attract publicity. In 1970 and 1971 McIntire garnered national media attention by rallying at least 50,000 people for a series of ‘Victory Marches’ in support of the Vietnam War.
McIntire’s influence waned greatly after 1971, and he faced insurmountable obstacles. In 1971 Faith Seminary was rocked by the departure of the institution’s president along with all but two of its staff and half the student body in protest at McIntire’s dictatorial style. McIntire fought the Federal Communications Commission for years over the licensing of his radio station WXUR. McIntire’s conference centres in Cape May proved unsustainable when the city decided that they did not meet the requirements for tax-exempt status. Shelton College faced twenty years of struggles over accreditation with the state of New Jersey. McIntire attempted to move the school to Florida, but financial difficulties forced a return to New Jersey, where the accreditation struggles continued until they were settled by the US Supreme Court in favour of New Jersey in 1985. By that time, the school had been reduced to a handful of students.
Despite these obstacles and a near-fatal pancreatic disorder in 1978, McIntire continued to fight Communism and ecumenism well into the 1990s. Yet his situation worsened. His wife died in 1992 and a car crash almost killed him in 1993. The Christian Beacon ceased publication soon afterwards. In 1996 financial problems forced the sale of Faith Seminary, which according to some insiders had become a money-oriented diploma mill. In 1999 the Bible Presbyterian Church in Collingswood ousted McIntire after he refused to retire. The ninety-two-year-old McIntire responded by holding Sunday services in his home. Carl McIntire died, aged 95, on 19 March 2002.
Bibliography
J. Fea, ‘Carl McIntire: From Fundamentalist Presbyterian to Presbyterian Fundamentalist’, American Presbyterians, 72, 4 (1994), pp. 253–268; E. Fink, 40 Years …: Carl McIntire and the Bible Presbyterian Church of Collingswood, 1933–1973 (Collingswood: Christian Beacon Press, 1973); C. McIntire, ‘Fifty Years of Preaching in Collingswood, N. J.’, Christian Beacon 48, 33 (1983), pp. 1–5, 7.
D. K. LARSEN
D. K. Larsen, “McIntire, Carl,” ed. Timothy Larsen et al., Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 393–395.
We should have learned something from Carl McIntire, but sad to say, we did not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Prinsep Street Presbyterian Church 28 September 2025 - REFLECTIONS
Be a Light in the Marketplace The recent death of Charlie Kirk, a young Christian activist, has stirred many emotions and sparked a wide ran...