Scandals in Singapore churches

Though they are BP .. I think their theology not strong one. From the ST article .. you can see how childish is the pastor's "written defence". Either that or the leadership trying to find excuses to "silence" an intellectual from their church. Maybe they exasperated 'cos the businessman learn theology from bible college .. so in the end they resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Pathetic.

I believe if they try to preach to SIS . .they are in for a rude shock. 

http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/206157?page=3

Question: "Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?"

Answer: This is truly a difficult issue to grasp. Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no Biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

How do we deal with this? First, it is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago.

Second, we should not be quick to say “Oh, that is just a scribal error.” The vast majority, if not all, of Bible “errors” can be explained in a logical and believable manner. Those that cannot by explained, or are very difficult to explain – could very well have an answer that we simply do not know at this point. Just because we cannot find a solution does not mean that a solution doesn’t exist. Believing there to be a scribal error must be the absolute last resort in any supposed Bible “error.”

Ultimately, though, it is possible that errors have crept into our modern manuscripts and translations of the Bible. Copyists and translators are human beings and they make mistakes. The fact that the Bible is incredibly accurate is a testimony to its inspiration and preservation by God.

Can we still trust the Bible? Absolutely! The Bible translations we have today are God’s Word. The Bible today is just as authoritative as it was in the 1st century A.D. We can completely trust the Bible as being God’s message to us today. Yes, the biblical promises of inspiration and inerrancy only apply directly to the original manuscripts. That does not impact, though, whether our modern Bibles are accurate and authoritative. God’s Word endures forever, despite the occasional failings and mistakes of copyists and translators. 

Recommended Resources: The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Geisler & Howe and Logos Bible Software.

Question: "What is the KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?"

Answer: Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17). 

Recommended Resources: The King James Only Controversy by James White and Logos Bible Software.

Timothy Tow was an old fox...............

Here is a story from Far Eastern Bible College, when Timothy Tow became old, he became cruel, that is why we called him, "An old fox!" 

And he had so many small little foxes, like his son in law Jeffrey Khoo, and his students like Quek Suan Yew, Prabhudas Koshy...

Are you one of his small little foxes, repent!

Fox

And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’ 

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Lk 13:32.

O Israel, your prophets are like foxes in the deserts. 

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Eze 13:4.

   Catch us the foxes,
   The little foxes that spoil the vines,
   For our vines have tender grapes.
   
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), So 2:15–16.

Then Samson went and caught three hundred foxes; and he took torches, turned the foxes tail to tail, and put a torch between each pair of tails.

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jdg 15:4.

   Because of Mount Zion which is desolate,
   With foxes walking about on it.

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), La 5:18.

Commentary:

Tell that fox (32). The fox was considered a crafty animal, but without the power of the lion. Jesus chose a fitting figure to describe Herod—sly, but secondary in a Roman world.^[1]

Go, tell that fox. It is certain, that the person here spoken of is Herod Antipas. Though he had throughout the character of a fox, and was as remarkable for servility as for cunning, I do not think that the term, fox, is intended to refer generally to the cunning of his whole life, but rather to the insidious methods by which he laboured to undermine the doctrine of the Gospel, when he did not venture to attack it openly. Christ tells him that, with all his craftiness, he will gain nothing by his schemes. “Whatever artifices he may devise,” says Christ, “to-day and to-morrow I will discharge the office which God has enjoined upon me; and when I shall have reached the end of my course, I shall then be offered in sacrifice.”^[2]

---

^[1]Lewis Foster, Luke: Unlocking the Scriptures for You, Standard Bible Studies (Cincinnati, OH: Standard, 1986), 201.

^[2] John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 158.

Fox hunting season begins

We are not to hunt these spiritual foxes with real bullets, but with the spiritual bullets, pursuing them to repent and return to the right path,  and by pointing them to their false, and leading them to the right way...The Living Word, Our Lord and God Jesus Christ.

My letter to the students in Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore.

To the students in Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore,

For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.^[1] Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”^[2] …..Then they understood that He did not tell themto beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrineof the Pharisees and Sadducees.^[3]

Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,  that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. [4]

The Lecturers in Far Eastern Bible College…..many of them were bad examples. They were like a well-known Bible professor of a generation or two ago. In the classroom, he was a brilliant interpreter of the Bible. His influence over his students was almost hypnotic. Few could sit at his feet for long without being inspired by his insights into God’s Word and being persuaded to his point of view. But off campus, he often destroyed what he accomplished in class sessions. His rudeness, especially to persons he perceived to be his social inferiors, embarrassed everyone with him. After a few hours in his company on such occasions, many former disciples could not listen to his Biblical expositions again. He was a good teacher, but such a bad example that he canceled his words by his actions.

This is Jesus’ opinion of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who “sit in Moses’ seat” (as professors authorized to explain the correct meaning and application of Moses’ laws). Jesus’ disciples do well to obey their teaching, but would be ill advised to follow their example. Jesus knows them well. They have already made themselves His enemies. They have sought every opening to criticize and heckle Him. In the end, they look for a way to kill Him.

Yet they seem so respectable. Of course they do, because that is one of their chief goals. Jesus castigates them on at least these counts:

(1) You don’t practice what you preach (3).

(2) Your rules are a burden to sincere people (4).

(3) You put on a good show to win men’s applause (5–7).

(4) You glory in titles and honors (8–12). Jesus’ disciples, on the other hand, are not to seek to be honored with titles like “rabbi” or “father” or even “teacher.” They are to take nothing away from the Father or the Son. They are to remember they are servants, not masters. If there is to be any exalting, God is to do it!

(5) You are keeping people out of the kingdom of God (13). You are hypocrites, pretending to be serving God but really just using your religious role to puff yourselves up. You won’t heed My teaching about the kingdom of God, and you do everything you can to keep others from hearing and obeying. You won’t repent and you won’t let anyone else repent, if you can help it. (Verse 14 is reduced to a footnote in recent versions of the Bible, since it is not found in the most reliable early manuscripts. It is quite in keeping with the rest of Jesus’ denunciations, however. His heart always goes out to widows, who are often helpless to prevent themselves from being taken by unscrupulous profiteers.)

(6) Your converts are worse, not better, than before their conversion (15). As students often surpass the fanaticism of their teachers, so yours invite an even more disastrous judgment than you do.

(7) You complicate even such matters as oath-taking (16–21). We already know Jesus’ opinion concerning oaths: Matthew 5:33–37. The prevailing principle seems to have been to swear by the greater, so the Pharisees thought an oath “by the gold in the temple” would be more binding than swearing by the temple (made of stone) itself. All this does not matter to Jesus, who would do away with the whole system of swearing oaths.

(8) You commendably practice some doctrines—like tithing—while completely ignoring weightier matters like justice, mercy, and faithfulness (22–24). Mint and anise and cummin were garden herbs used in cooking and for certain medicinal purposes. The tithing of herbs was considered the ultimate in religious piety.

(9) You scrupulously observe the external niceties of religion while leaving the inner person unreformed (25–28).

(10) You honor dead prophets but, like true descendants of their murderers, you do as your forefathers did (29–32).

(11) When I send “prophets and wise men and teachers” to you, you will prove yourselves to be as quick to kill as your forefathers killed the prophets who came to them (33–36). The first reference is to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who was slain in the court of the temple—2 Chronicles 24:20f. The second is to Abel, son of Adam, who was slain by his brother Cain, the first of a long and inglorious line of murderers—Genesis 4:10.^[5]

Beloved students in Far Eastern Bible College,

Remember this, you may have learned a lot from those lecturers, but do not follow their bad example…..!!!

Harsh-sounding language was not unusual in religious debates in first-century Judaism. Words and phrases like blind guides, twice the sons of hell, hypocrites, and brood of vipers were typical expressions in such debates between Jewish religious groups at Jesus’ time. This kind of language was the way a person or a group staked out territory. Ancient listeners would not have heard these words and thought how much the speaker hated the other people. Rather, ancient listeners would have concluded that the speaker firmly believed the other party was wrong, and his or her party was right.^[6]

Yours sincerely,

.......................................

Timothy Tow

Only a handful of Bible-Presbyterian old pastors dare to call Timothy Tow Siang Hui as "an old fox," these old pastors were very close to Timothy Tow from the beginning of Far Eastern Bible College, they were all at inner circle of Tow's life, they knew him very well, they were in the beginning good friend.....but Tow betrayed them and hurt their feeling...that is why they called him, "an old fox"

St James’ Church Kindergarten (Gilstead)

"The Temple of War" in Singapore, Gilstead Road.

Why FEBC and some BP churches are heretics?

I have to explain again.

1. They say KJV Bible is a perfect Bible, inspired. Other Bible versions are satanic!

2. They say underlying Hebrew and Greek text of KJV Bible are perfect without error.

3. They say one TR is perfect without error. Others are erroneous.


Then what happened?

1. They are attacking brothers and sisters in Christ. They sued one another in civil courts.

2. They chased out pastors and ministers who do not agreed with them from FEBC and BP church.

3. They split BP churches in Singapore and oversea, creating confusion among Christian.


Outcome,

1. They see KJV Bible more important than the Living God. They reject the Bible commandment and disagree that we are one in Christ.

2. They see Bible version more important than the Cross and Jesus.

3. They do not have love, they criticize.


Conclusion:

They are heretics.

did FEBC break the commandment in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Did FEBC break the commandment in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 in seeking a declaration from the High Court (Case No OS6/2009G) that she has the right to the premises at 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road which be her birthplace and home since 1962?

The answer is no for the following reasons:

(1) The case between Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (LBPC) and Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) had to do with public and not private property and funds. Gifts and offerings were given by believers or collected in churches to purchase the land and erect the buildings not just for LBPC, but also for FEBC. Since monies were given for the purpose of a Bible College, specifically FEBC, it is the duty of the directors and trustees of the College to protect the funds and ensure that they are used to accomplish the charitable purpose for which they have been given.

(2) The dispute over doctrine and property should ideally be resolved between LBPC and FEBC without going to court. FEBC had repeatedly asked for a face-to-face meeting in 2007/2008 to resolve this matter amicably but to no avail.

(3) LBPC insisted that FEBC had no legal rights whatsoever to the premises. LBPC also demanded an unconditional undertaking from FEBC not to preach or teach the Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Holy Scriptures if she wanted to use the premises. This was impossible because FEBC cannot disobey God and act contrary to His Word. Verbal Plenary Preservation is a biblical doctrine (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35), and FEBC can neither deny the faith nor compromise on doctrine. To deny the faith and compromise on doctrine is sin.

(4) Since FEBC refused to sign this undertaking, LBPC ordered FEBC to vacate the premises by 30 June 2008. FEBC was deemed a “trespasser”. LBPC warned FEBC against advertising any of her classes and said that any attempt by FEBC to do so would be seen as an attempt by FEBC to instigate the public to trespass into LBPC’s property.

(5) The new FEBC term was about to open in two weeks’ time. It was not possible for FEBC to vacate for she had nowhere to go. Besides, Gilstead Road is FEBC’s birthplace and home since 1962. LBPC started to knock out and change the locks of the FEBC hall and classrooms.

(6) FEBC acknowledged LBPC’s right to use the premises, but LBPC denied FEBC any right. Pushed to the extreme, FEBC had no choice but to appeal to Caesar. The question of whether FEBC is also “owner” and has rights to the premises was a question of law. Romans 13:1-5 tells us that the government is a divine ordinance to maintain peace and order in a country, and to make sure its citizens are treated justly and fairly [See J O Buswell’s article, “Government as a Divine Ordinance,” in TLBPC Weekly, 20 July 2008]. Buswell said, “There are cases … in which one is a steward of a property for his own dependents and for others, cases in which it would be wrong to allow great loss without a protest. … Indeed with the intricacies of modern economic and social life, there are some disputes which require the expert authority of the secular courts.” What does the law say about our rights to the land? Having sought legal advice, the FEBC directors realised they had to act according to their fiduciary duty to seek the consent of the Attorney-General to apply for a declaration from the High Court concerning FEBC’s rights to 9, 9A and 10 Gilstead Road.

(7) While FEBC waited for the Attorney-General’s consent, LBPC went ahead to carry out her threat to commence action against FEBC. On 15 September 2008, LBPC filed a lawsuit to evict FEBC from the land. On 8 October 2008, the Attorney-General gave FEBC consent to seek a declaration from the High Court with regard to her rights to the premises at 9, 9A and 10 Gilstead Road.

(8) So, did FEBC sin against God? In light of the circumstances, No! John Calvin himself was not against the need to go to court when the situation requires it; he is only against those who initiate a lawsuit in order to do harm to their fellow brethren. Calvin, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 6, wrote, “Paul does not condemn here those who, by force of circumstances, must enter into legal proceedings before unbelieving judges, for instance anyone who is summoned to court; but he finds fault with those who, on their own responsibility, bring their brothers there, and do them injury, as it were, at the hands of unbelievers, when another remedy is available to them. It is therefore wrong to take the initiative in instituting proceedings against brothers in an unbelievers’ court. It is in order, however, to come into court and conduct your case, if a charge is made against you.” In the court proceedings, LBPC was the plaintiff and FEBC the defendant.

(9) Calvin also went on to say that a lawsuit is in and of itself not wrong if it is for a good and just cause, but believers must enter into a lawsuit not with a heart of hatred or vengeance but with a heart of love. He wrote, “Let us therefore remember that Paul does not disapprove of law-suits on the ground that it is wrong in itself to uphold a good case by having recourse to a magistrate, but because they are nearly always bound up with improper attitudes of mind, such as lack of self-control, desire for revenge, hostility, obstinacy and so on. … If a Christian therefore wants to prosecute his rights in a court of law, without going against God, he must take special care not to come into court with any desire for revenge, any bad feeling, any anger, or in a word any poisonous thing. In all this love will be the best guide.”

(10) FEBC had no choice but to defend her birthright, her birthplace and home. It was done out of love for God, His Word, and His people. FEBC affirms and upholds not just the past but also the present perfection of the Bible, and by the logic of faith, based on the twin doctrines of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation, identifies where the infallible and inerrant words of God are so that God’s people might subject their faith and practice to the sole, supreme and final authority of a sure and certain Scripture which is readily available and easily accessible. Surely such a biblical conviction and confession is good for the Church and all Bible-believers (Ps 19:7-14).

(11) FEBC was duty bound to protect the beneficiaries of the charitable purpose trust. FEBC did not seek the eviction of LBPC, but LBPC sought to deprive FEBC of her heritage and home. The apex court on 26 April 2011 judged that FEBC has rights to 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road and declared that “the College, in adopting the VPP doctrine, has not deviated from the fundamental principles which guide and inform the work of the College right from its inception, and as expressed in the Westminster Confession … It is not inconsistent for a Christian who believes fully in the principles contained within the Westminster Confession (and the VPI doctrine) to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine.”

(12) This whole process has brought about a healthy respect for the judiciary and the law. It is also a matter of public interest to know and understand what a charitable purpose trust is. All churches and charities should understand this principle of law. God can glorify His Name even in a secular court, because the secular court is an institution set up by Him.

“I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul.” (Ps 138:1-3). 

Jeffrey Khoo, FEBC