A Call to Open Hearts: Unity and Forgiveness in Christ

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the Bible-Presbyterian Church and BPC,

The Apostle Paul once wrote to a divided church, “We have spoken openly to you, and our heart is wide open. There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. In return … open wide your hearts also” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). These words are not just ancient advice—they are a living challenge for us today.

Christ’s love calls us to open our hearts fully to one another.
Paul’s “open wide” heart wasn’t just a feeling—it was a choice to love boldly, even when others doubted him or caused him pain. Like Paul, we’re called to drop our defenses, tear down walls of distrust, and welcome one another—not just with words, but with vulnerable, Christlike love. This means:

1. Embrace vulnerability.
   True unity begins when we stop hiding our struggles, doubts, or past hurts. Let’s create safe spaces in our churches to share honestly, pray for one another, and say, “I need your help.” Paul didn’t pretend to be perfect—he let Christ’s strength shine through his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). Let’s do the same.
2. Choose forgiveness over division.
   Holding onto grudges or past disagreements shrinks our hearts. Jesus said, “If you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:15). Whether it’s a misunderstanding between members, tension between churches, or old wounds from the past—let’s lay it down. Forgive as Christ forgave you (Colossians 3:13).
3. Welcome each other’s gifts and callings.
   Some of us lead; some serve quietly. Some love deep tradition; others hunger for new ways to reach the lost. But Christ’s body only thrives when every part belongs (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Let’s honor each other’s roles in ministry, share resources joyfully, and refuse to let differences become divisions.
4. Reach beyond your circle.
   An “open wide” heart doesn’t just love those who agree with us. Jesus’ love stretches to the outsider, the hurting, and even those we’re tempted to label “other.” Let’s ask: Who in our church family feels overlooked? Which sister church could we support instead of compete with? Who needs to hear, “You belong here”?

This is how the world will know we are His.
Jesus said His followers would be recognized not by perfect doctrine or impressive programs, but by love (John 13:35). That love starts with us—choosing to open our hearts wide, just as Christ opened His arms to us on the cross.

Let’s pray boldly for the Holy Spirit to soften our hearts, heal our divisions, and unite us in our mission. May the Bible-Presbyterian Church and BPC be known not for rigid walls, but for radical love, forgiveness, and a family where every heart has room.

“Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8)

A Message of Reconciliation and Hope: Learning from Paul, Peter, and Mark

Beloved in Christ,

The apostle Paul’s life teaches us a profound lesson in grace and reconciliation. Though he once rebuked Peter for hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14), he later acknowledged Peter as a fellow apostle and “pillar of the church” (Galatians 2:9). Similarly, when John Mark, who had abandoned Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:38), later repented and proved faithful, Paul declared him “very useful to me for ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11). Paul’s journey mirrors Christ’s heart: “Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Romans 15:7).

The Church: A House of Mercy, Not Merit

The church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners. Christ’s flock is called to unity, not uniformity. Paul urges us to “bear with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Even when we stumble, the door of repentance remains open, for “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Peter, who denied Jesus three times, was restored to feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17). Mark, once deemed unreliable, became a vessel of God’s Word. Let us lay down pride and remember: “Love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).

Heaven’s Feast: Our Eternal Unity

In this broken world, we see dimly, but in heaven, “we shall see face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12). There, every tear, rivalry, and division will dissolve before the Lamb’s throne. Let us prepare for that feast by embracing grace here and now. Paul’s final exhortation rings urgent: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32).

A Prayer to the Father:

Heavenly Father, You are the God of all mercy, who reconciles us to Yourself through Christ and calls us to reconcile with one another. Forgive our childish quarrels, our hunger for earthly fame, and our delusions of superiority. We confess how often we’ve fractured Your body over trifles, forgetting that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome” (2 Timothy 2:24).

Bind Your church in the unity only Your Spirit can give. Help us to love as Paul loved Peter and Mark—not excusing error, but extending hope to the repentant. May we “put on then, as God’s chosen ones, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience” (Colossians 3:12-13).

Prepare us for the eternal feast where every tribe and tongue will gather, not as Calvinists, Lutherans, or Arminians, but as redeemed children, “from every nation, tribe, people, and language” (Revelation 7:9). Until that day, keep us faithful to the gospel’s core: Christ crucified, risen, and returning. In Jesus’ name, who makes all things new, Amen.

Let us press onward, brothers and sisters, “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2). The feast awaits—let no strife rob us of joy here or there. Grace be with you.

A Plea for Grace and Mission

The pain of witnessing Reformed churches fracture over issues like Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-onlyism is deeply felt, as such conflicts often obscure the gospel’s centrality and fracture the unity Christ prayed for (John 17:20-23). Here’s a reflection on the tensions and a call to realignment:

1. The Tragedy of Division Over Non-Essentials

Reformed theology has historically prioritized sola Scriptura and the sovereignty of God, yet divisions over secondary issues like VPP (the belief that every word of Scripture has been divinely preserved) or KJV-onlyism (elevating a specific translation as inerrant) risk idolizing doctrinal precision at the expense of love. These matters, while important to some, are not core to salvation or the Reformed confessions. Paul’s warning against “quarreling over opinions” (Romans 14:1) and his plea for unity in Ephesians 4:3-6 remind us that secondary issues should not fracture the body.

2. A Call for Humility and Reconciliation

Leaders are urged to embody Philippians 2:3-4, valuing others above themselves. The Reformed tradition has long distinguished between essential doctrines (e.g., justification by faith) and adiaphora (non-essentials). While textual criticism and translation preferences matter, they should not eclipse charity. Calvin himself cautioned against “contentiousness” that breeds division (Institutes, IV.1.12). Reconciliation requires humility to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3), even when disagreements persist.

3. Suffering for God—or Self-Inflicted Wounds?

Suffering for the gospel (1 Peter 4:14-16) is honorable, but infighting over non-essentials is a self-inflicted wound that weakens our witness. Jesus reserved sharpest criticism not for doctrinal errors but for loveless religiosity (Matthew 23:23-24). Strife over tertiary issues risks turning “militant fundamentalism” into a prideful pursuit of purity, alienating seekers and dishonoring Christ’s command to love (John 13:35).

4. Glorifying God Without Militancy

Zeal for truth must be tempered by the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Reformed theology’s strength lies in its robust, grace-centered confession—not in combative dogmatism. To glorify God is to pursue truth and peace (Psalm 85:10), defending essentials while extending liberty on secondary matters. As Luther said, “Unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things.”

5. Reformed Theology’s Core vs. Peripheral Battles

The Reformed tradition’s richness—God’s sovereignty, covenant theology, the centrality of Christ—is overshadowed when battles over textual preservation or translations dominate. Returning to the solas (sola fide, sola gratia) and the mission of discipleship (Matthew 28:19-20) recenters the church on what truly transforms lives.

Conclusion: A Plea for Grace and Mission

This is not the time to abandon Reformed theology but to reclaim its heart: grace. Leaders must model grace-driven unity, prioritizing reconciliation and mission. Let disagreements on secondary issues prompt vigorous debate but not schism. As the Westminster Confession urges, “Truth is in order to goodness” (1.5)—truth must always lead to love. May the church rise above factionalism, proving itself “a city on a hill” (Matthew 5:14) by embodying the reconciling love of Christ.

Future plan for Bible-Presbyterian Church

To become a church that better pleases and glorifies God, the Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) and its descendants would need to address its historical weaknesses while reaffirming its commitment to biblical faithfulness, unity, and Christlike love. Here are key areas for growth, grounded in Scripture and Reformed theology:

1. Prioritize Gospel-Centered Theology Over Legalism

Reject Extrabiblical Rules: Return to the Westminster Confession’s emphasis on sola Scriptura by avoiding legalistic mandates (e.g., total alcohol abstinence, dress codes, perfect Bible) that go beyond Scripture (Colossians 2:20–23).

Focus on Essentials: Distinguish core doctrines (e.g., salvation by grace, authority of Scripture) from secondary issues (eschatology, cultural preferences, verbal plenary preservation) to foster unity (Romans 14:1–6).

Preach Grace, Not Just Law: Balance doctrinal rigor with the freedom and joy of the Gospel (John 1:17; Galatians 5:1).

2. Cultivate Humility and Unity

Repent of Schismatic Tendencies: Acknowledge past divisions driven by personality clashes and secondary issues. Pursue reconciliation with former allies (Ephesians 4:3; Psalm 133:1).

Embrace Humble Orthodoxy: Teach truth with love, avoiding pride in doctrinal purity (1 Corinthians 13:1–2; Philippians 2:3).

Partner with Other Believers: While maintaining theological integrity, cooperate with other Reformed or evangelical churches on shared goals (e.g., missions, justice) rather than isolating (John 17:21).

3. Reform Leadership Practices

Reject Authoritarianism: Replace top-down control with servant leadership modeled on Christ (Mark 10:42–45). Implement accountability structures (e.g., elder boards, term limits to 10 years) to prevent abuses.

Invest in Pastoral Training: Equip leaders to shepherd with wisdom, compassion, and theological depth (1 Peter 5:2–3; Titus 1:7–9).

4. Reengage Mission and Evangelism

Shift from Separatism to Mission: Redirect energy from internal disputes to proclaiming Christ locally and globally (Matthew 28:19–20).

Serve the Marginalized: Reflect God’s heart for justice by addressing poverty, racism, and oppression (Micah 6:8; James 1:27).

Model Christlike Love: Let outreach be marked by grace, not condemnation (John 13:35; 1 Peter 3:15).

5. Foster Spiritual Vitality Over Traditionalism

Emphasize Prayer and Worship: Cultivate dependence on the Holy Spirit rather than rigid traditionalism (Zechariah 4:6; Philippians 3:3).

Encourage Relational Discipleship: Move beyond doctrinal lectures to mentorship that nurtures faith, doubt, and growth (2 Timothy 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:8).

Celebrate Diversity in Unity: Welcome believers from varied backgrounds while holding to Reformed distinctives (Revelation 7:9).

6. Address Cultural Engagement Wisely

Avoid Reactionary Politics: Refuse to align the church with partisan agendas. Instead, critique culture through a biblical lens that prioritizes Christ’s lordship (Colossians 3:17).

Engage Thoughtfully with Modern Issues: Address topics like technology, mental health, and science with scriptural wisdom rather than fear or dismissiveness (Acts 17:22–28).

7. Pursue Reconciliation and Legacy Healing

Public Repentance: Acknowledge harm caused by past legalism, schisms, and harsh rhetoric (James 5:16). Seek forgiveness from those wounded by the BPC’s history.

Honor the Broader Church: Recognize the validity of other Reformed bodies as part of Christ’s universal Church (1 Corinthians 12:12–13).

8. Commit to Continual Reformation

Semper Reformanda: Regularly test traditions and practices against Scripture, not mere nostalgia (Acts 17:11).

Confessional Fidelity, Not Rigidity: Affirm the Westminster Standards while allowing room for charitable debate on non-essentials.

Conclusion

The BPC’s legacy of zeal for truth need not be discarded but must be tempered with humility, love, and a renewed focus on Christ’s mission. By repenting of division, legalism, and pride, and by embracing grace-driven faithfulness, the BPC (or its successors) could become a church that truly glorifies God—not through separatist purity, but through sacrificial love, unity in essentials, and joyful proclamation of the Gospel. As Paul urges, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Just Do It!

Carl McIntire quarrelled and fought with J. Gresham Machen

The relationship between J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) and Carl McIntire (1906–2002) evolved from allies in the fight against theological liberalism to bitter adversaries over doctrinal, practical, and personal differences. Here’s a breakdown of their relationship and eventual split:

---

1. Initial Alliance Against Liberalism

• Shared Opposition to Modernism:
  Both Machen and McIntire were staunch conservatives who rejected the growing theological liberalism in the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA). Machen, a Princeton Theological Seminary professor and scholar, became a leading voice against modernism through works like Christianity and Liberalism (1923). McIntire, a younger minister, admired Machen and joined his cause.
• Key Collaborations:
• Westminster Theological Seminary: Machen founded Westminster in 1929 after Princeton shifted toward liberalism; McIntire supported the seminary and briefly served on its board.
• Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions: In 1933, Machen led the creation of this alternative mission board to counter the PCUSA’s "modernist" missions. McIntire joined the board, and both were later suspended from the PCUSA for insubordination (1935).

---

2. Growing Tensions

Differences emerged over secondary doctrines, ecclesial strategy, and leadership style:

A. Theological Disputes

• Eschatology:
  Machen and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), formed in 1936 after leaving the PCUSA, tolerated both amillennialism (the dominant Reformed view) and premillennialism. McIntire, however, insisted on premillennial dispensationalism (a literal 1,000-year earthly reign of Christ) as non-negotiable, accusing amillennialists of compromising Scripture.
• Legalism vs. Confessionalism:
  McIntire pushed for strict behavioral rules (e.g., total alcohol abstinence, dress codes) beyond the Westminster Confession. Machen opposed such extrabiblical legalism, emphasizing Reformed confessionalism over personal piety mandates.

B. Separatism vs. Engagement

• Ecumenical Separatism:
  McIntire demanded complete separation from any group tainted by liberalism, including the newly formed OPC. He cited 2 Corinthians 6:14 (“Do not be unequally yoked”) to justify breaking ties even with conservative allies. Machen, while opposing liberalism, sought to engage broader Reformed networks without isolationism.

C. Leadership Styles

• Machen: A scholarly, principled leader focused on doctrinal integrity and institutional reform.
• McIntire: A confrontational activist who embraced militancy, media campaigns (e.g., his Christian Beacon newspaper), and personality-driven leadership.

---

3. The Break (1936–1937)

• OPC Formation: In 1936, Machen led conservatives out of the PCUSA to form the OPC. McIntire initially joined but quickly clashed with OPC leaders over his premillennialism and separatism.
• Machen’s Death: Machen died suddenly in January 1937, leaving the OPC without its founding leader. McIntire seized the opportunity to push his agenda.
• Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC): By 1937–1938, McIntire and his followers split from the OPC to form the BPC, citing the OPC’s “compromise” on eschatology and ecumenism. The BPC enforced premillennialism, teetotalism, and strict separatism.

---

4. Aftermath and Legacy

• OPC vs. BPC: The OPC maintained Machen’s confessional Reformed focus, while the BPC became a hub for McIntire’s fundamentalist activism. The BPC later fragmented further, with remnants merging into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).
• McIntire’s Downfall: McIntire’s authoritarianism, financial scandals, and far-right political activism (e.g., anti-communist crusades) alienated many, leading to his eventual marginalization.
• Machen’s Enduring Influence: Machen’s defense of Reformed orthodoxy and intellectual rigor left a lasting legacy in conservative Presbyterianism, particularly through Westminster Seminary and the OPC.

---

Key Points of Contention

Issue	Machen’s Position	McIntire’s Position
Eschatology	Tolerant of amillennialism/premillennialism	Premillennial dispensationalism required
Alcohol	No teetotalism mandate (moderation allowed)	Total abstinence enforced
Separatism	Engage cautiously with other conservatives	Complete separation from "compromised" groups
Leadership	Collegial, scholarly	Authoritarian, media-driven

---

Conclusion

Machen and McIntire began as allies in the battle against modernism, but their partnership fractured over secondary doctrines, strategies for engagement, and conflicting leadership styles. Machen’s death in 1937 accelerated the split, with McIntire’s fundamentalist zeal and legalism driving him to form the BPC. Their rift illustrates tensions within conservative Protestantism between confessional traditionalism and militant separatism, a dynamic that continues to shape Reformed and evangelical movements today.

 

Red flag - Carl McIntire

Carl McIntire (1906–2002), a polarizing figure in 20th-century American Presbyterianism, was frequently criticized for theological rigidity, authoritarian leadership, and extrabiblical legalism, which led many to question his credibility and label his teachings as "false" or harmful. While he framed himself as a defender of biblical orthodoxy, critics—including former allies—accused him of distorting Reformed theology, fostering division, and prioritizing personal power over unity. Below are key critiques of McIntire’s legacy:

1. Theological and Ethical Legalism

McIntire enforced strict behavioral rules (e.g., total alcohol abstinence, dress codes) that went beyond the Westminster Confession, leading critics to accuse him of "adding to Scripture" (Revelation 22:18).

Example: He split from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in 1937 partly over his insistence on premillennialism and teetotalism, which the OPC deemed non-essential.

Critics likened his approach to the Pharisees’ legalism (Matthew 23:4), arguing he burdened believers with human traditions rather than gospel freedom.

2. Authoritarian Leadership and Cult of Personality

McIntire’s leadership style was marked by centralized control and intolerance of dissent:

He expelled pastors and congregations that questioned his authority, framing criticism as rebellion against God (e.g., citing Romans 13:1–2).

In 1956, he was deposed as moderator of the Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) after clashes with leaders like J. Oliver Buswell, who accused him of autocracy.

His International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC), founded in 1948, became a platform for his agenda, alienating mainstream evangelicals.

3. Militant Separatism

McIntire’s "no fellowship with unbelievers" stance (based on 2 Corinthians 6:14–17) extended to condemning even conservative groups like Billy Graham’s crusades and the National Association of Evangelicals.

Critics argued his separatism devolved into sectarianism, isolating the BPC and ICCC from broader Christian unity.

His attacks on Reformed leaders like J. Gresham Machen (who had mentored him) as "compromisers" were seen as uncharitable and divisive.

4. Political Activism Over Gospel Mission

McIntire fused far-right politics with his ministry, promoting conspiracy theories (e.g., anti-communist paranoia) and organizing rallies that equated liberalism with Satanic influence.

He founded the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) to counter the National Council of Churches but used it to advance partisan agendas.

Critics accused him of "weaponizing Scripture" to justify political extremism, diverting focus from spiritual renewal to culture-war battles.

5. Financial Scandals and Questionable Practices

McIntire’s ventures, such as the Christian Beacon newspaper and Faith Theological Seminary, faced accusations of financial mismanagement.

His "Radio Free America" broadcasts and hotel projects (e.g., the Christian Admiral Hotel) ended in bankruptcy, damaging his reputation.

Detractors saw these failures as evidence of misplaced priorities and poor stewardship.

6. Eschatological Fixation

McIntire’s dogmatic premillennial dispensationalism led him to interpret global events (e.g., Cold War tensions) through apocalyptic lenses, often predicting Christ’s imminent return.

When his prophecies failed (e.g., claims about the European Union as a "revived Roman Empire"), critics dismissed his theology as sensationalist and unfounded.

7. Legacy of Fragmentation

By the 1970s, McIntire’s influence collapsed as most BPC congregations left to join the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).

His remaining followers dwindled into obscurity, with the Bible Presbyterian Church (Collingswood Synod) surviving as a tiny sect.

Reformed theologians like R.C. Sproul later criticized McIntire’s legacy as a cautionary tale of how dogmatism and personal ambition fracture churches.

Was McIntire a "False Prophet"?

While McIntire’s defenders praised his stand against liberalism, critics argue his methods and extrabiblical demands disqualified him as a trustworthy leader:

False Teachings: His legalism, apocalypticism, and political syncretism strayed from Reformed confessional norms.

Fruit of Division: His ministries bred strife, not spiritual growth, violating Jesus’ call for unity (John 17:21).

Moral Failings: Scandals and authoritarianism undermined his moral authority.

However, labeling him a "false prophet" depends on theological interpretation. More commonly, he is remembered as a cautionary figure who conflated personal convictions with divine truth, harming the very orthodoxy he sought to protect.

McIntire’s legacy is a mix of rigid zeal and self-inflicted decline, illustrating the dangers of equating human tradition with biblical fidelity.

In Singapore, history is repeated.

The Bible was weaponized in Bible Presbyterian Church

The Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC), founded in 1937 by Carl McIntire after splitting from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), became a crucible for internal conflicts where the Bible was weaponized to attack theological opponents, enforce doctrinal purity, and justify schisms. These clashes often revolved around divergent interpretations of Scripture, secondary doctrinal issues, and personality-driven power struggles, all framed as battles for biblical fidelity. Here’s how the Bible became a tool for division:

1. Debates Over Eschatology

Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism:

The BPC insisted on premillennial dispensationalism (a literal 1,000-year earthly reign of Christ) as a non-negotiable doctrine. Members used apocalyptic passages (e.g., Revelation 20) to accuse those with amillennial views (symbolic interpretations of Christ’s reign) of "compromising Scripture."

Consequence: Critics within the BPC labeled amillennialists as "unbiblical," even though the OPC and broader Reformed tradition historically tolerated amillennialism. This created an "us vs. them" dynamic.

2. Secondary Issues Elevated to Doctrinal Status

Alcohol Abstinence:

The BPC mandated total abstinence from alcohol, citing verses like Proverbs 20:1 ("Wine is a mocker") and Romans 14:21 ("It is good not to drink wine"). Those who argued for moderation (citing Jesus’ wine-making in John 2 or Paul’s advice to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:23) were accused of "licentiousness" or undermining biblical authority.

Ecumenical Separatism:

McIntire’s strict separatism—forbidding cooperation with non-fundamentalist groups—relied on 2 Corinthians 6:14–17 ("Do not be yoked with unbelievers"). Dissenters seeking broader evangelical alliances were branded as "disobedient" to Scripture.

3. Personality Conflicts Masked as Doctinal Disputes

Carl McIntire vs. Opponents:

McIntire’s authoritarian leadership style led to clashes with figures like J. Oliver Buswell, president of Faith Theological Seminary. Buswell criticized McIntire’s divisive tactics, but McIntire framed dissent as rebellion against "God’s Word," using passages like Hebrews 13:17 ("Obey your leaders").

Power Struggles:

Disagreements over church governance (e.g., centralized control vs. congregational autonomy) were justified using selective biblical proof-texts. For example, McIntire’s critics accused him of violating Presbyterian polity, citing Acts 15’s model of collective decision-making.

4. Cessationism and Anti-Charismatic Polemics

The BPC rigidly opposed charismatic practices (e.g., speaking in tongues), citing 1 Corinthians 13:8 ("prophecies will cease") to attack Reformed groups open to spiritual gifts. This stance alienated members influenced by mid-20th-century charismatic renewal movements, leading to accusations of "quenching the Spirit" (1 Thessalonians 5:19).

5. Social and Political Battles

Anti-Communism:

McIntire tied the BPC to far-right politics, using Revelation’s imagery of "Babylon" to equate communism with Satanic influence. Critics who resisted politicizing the church were labeled "soft on evil," with verses like James 4:4 ("friendship with the world is enmity with God") weaponized against them.

Moral Campaigns:

The BPC’s opposition to cultural trends (e.g., rock music, Hollywood) relied on verses like Romans 12:2 ("do not conform to the world"). Internal dissenters were accused of "worldliness," even over minor issues.

6. Fragmentation and Schism

1940s–1950s Splits:

The BPC fractured repeatedly, with breakaway groups like the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (1961) accusing McIntire of "Pharisaical legalism" (Matthew 23:4) for adding extrabiblical rules (e.g., dress codes) to Reformed confessional standards.

Collapse of McIntire’s Influence:

By the 1970s, many congregations rejected his combative style, joining the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). These departures were justified as a return to "Reformed biblicism" free of personality cults.

Legacy of Weaponization

The BPC’s internal strife illustrates how biblicism—the insistence on strict literalism and inerrancy—can fuel division when paired with rigid dogmatism. By treating every disagreement as a test of biblical loyalty, the church turned Scripture into a tool for exclusion rather than unity. This pattern persists in many conservative Reformed circles today, where debates over race, gender, and sexuality are similarly framed as battles for the Bible’s "true" meaning.

Jeffrey Khoo betrayed Jesus Christ and John Calvin, disturbing the peace of the Church.

Jeffrey Khoo, a proponent of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-Onlyism, is betraying Jesus Christ, John Calvin, and disturbing church peace.

---

1. Jeffrey Khoo’s Betrayal of Jesus Christ

a. Elevating Translation Over Scripture’s Essence
VPP asserts that God perfectly preserved every word of Scripture in specific manuscripts (often the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV). KJV-Onlyism further claims the KJV is the only legitimate English translation. Critics argue that this elevates a translation to the level of inspired text, potentially shifting focus from Christ’s teachings to textual formalism. Jesus emphasized the spirit of Scripture (e.g., love, mercy, faith) over rigid adherence to texts (Matthew 23:23–24). By prioritizing translation debates, proponents risk obscuring the Gospel’s core message.

b. Creating Barriers to Faith
If KJV-Onlyism is presented as essential for salvation or true discipleship, it could add a human-made requirement to faith, contradicting Jesus’ emphasis on grace (Ephesians 2:8–9). This might alienate believers who use other translations, fracturing unity in the Body of Christ (John 17:20–23).

c. Divisiveness vs. Unity
Jesus prayed for unity among believers (John 17:21). Promoting KJV-Onlyism as a litmus test for orthodoxy can breed judgmentalism and division, undermining the church’s witness—a betrayal of Christ’s call for love and reconciliation.

---

2. Jeffrey Khoo’s betrayal of John Calvin

a. Misrepresenting Calvin’s View of Scripture
Calvin upheld sola Scriptura but recognized textual variants and the need for careful exegesis. He used the best available manuscripts (e.g., the Textus Receptus was not yet standardized in his time) and emphasized the Holy Spirit’s role in illuminating Scripture. By rigidly insisting on KJV-onlyism, Jeffrey Khoo’s stance conflicts with Calvin’s openness to textual scholarship and his focus on Scripture’s substance over specific translations.

b. Rejecting Calvin’s Hermeneutical Principles
Calvin prioritized Christocentric interpretation and theological coherence over strict literalism. VPP/KJV-Onlyism risks reducing Scripture to a static text rather than a living revelation, potentially neglecting Calvin’s emphasis on its transformative purpose (Hebrews 4:12).

---

3. Disturbing the Peace of the Church

a. Factionalism Over Non-Essentials
KJV-Onlyism often sparks contentious debates about secondary issues (e.g., translation preferences), diverting energy from evangelism and discipleship. Paul urged churches to avoid quarrels over "disputable matters" (Romans 14:1). Such disputes can split congregations, eroding trust and fellowship.

b. Undermining Scholarly Consensus
Most biblical scholars reject VPP/KJV-Onlyism due to advances in textual criticism (e.g., older manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus). Dismissing scholarship as "liberal" or "unfaithful" alienates educated believers and fosters anti-intellectualism, weakening the church’s engagement with modern challenges.

c. Legalism vs. Gospel Freedom
Insisting on KJV-Onlyism can breed a culture of legalism, where adherence to a translation becomes a measure of spirituality. This contradicts Paul’s warning against "yokes of bondage" (Galatians 5:1) and distracts from the Gospel’s liberating truth.

---

Conclusion

Jeffrey Khoo and other VPP/KJV-Only advocates may sincerely seek to uphold biblical authority, we argue that their approach risks:

• Distorting Jesus’ message by prioritizing textual formalism over Gospel substance.
• Misrepresenting Calvin’s balanced view of Scripture’s authority and interpretation.
• Fracturing church unity through divisive debates on non-essential issues.

We call on Jeffrey Khoo, whether preserving a specific translation aligns with Scripture’s call for unity, grace, and fidelity to its redemptive purpose.

Jesus calls believers to love one another (John 13:34–35), even amid disagreements. "We must speak the truth in love, growing into Christ who is the head (Ephesians 4:15). Let’s address doctrinal differences without compromising kindness." The core Gospel (Christ’s death, resurrection, and salvation by grace) is non-negotiable. Translation preferences, while important, are secondary. We must avoid elevating them to tests of fellowship (Romans 14:1–6).

Calvin prioritized the substance of Scripture over textual minutiae. He wrote, “The Word is not apprehended by the intellect alone, but by the illumination of the Holy Spirit” (Institutes 3.2.33). Furthermore, Christ rebuked legalistic focus on external adherence (Matthew 15:3–9) and called believers to the heart of Scripture: love for God and neighbor (Matthew 22:37–40).

Again, we warn Jeffrey Khoo. "Is this issue worth splitting the body of Christ? Let us pursue what makes for peace and mutual edification (Romans 14:19)." Let us pray for humility, clarity, and repentance—for ourselves and others (James 1:5). Trust the Holy Spirit to convict and guide us (John 16:13). "Let us major on the majors: preaching Christ crucified, not quarreling over words (2 Timothy 2:14). Reformers’ “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture is the final authority, not that one translation is divinely dictated. Let us honor Jesus’ call to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

We pray that the Lord cut off the head of the snake in BPC.

Prabudass Koshy betrayed Eramus

Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536), the Renaissance scholar who compiled the first published Greek New Testament (1516), did not promote a "perfect" Greek Textus Receptus (TR). His work was groundbreaking but pragmatic, and he openly acknowledged its limitations. Here’s a breakdown of his approach and legacy:

---

1. Erasmus’s Goals and Methods

• Primary Aim: To create a critical Greek New Testament to improve upon the Latin Vulgate, which he criticized for inaccuracies.
• Sources: He used a small handful of Greek manuscripts available to him (mostly 12th–15th century Byzantine texts), along with the Latin Vulgate. Notably, he improvised in places (e.g., retranslating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation, as his Greek manuscript lacked them).
• Revisions: Erasmus updated his text in later editions (1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), incorporating feedback and new manuscripts. For example, his 3rd edition (1522) included the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8) under pressure from critics, despite its absence in most Greek manuscripts.

---

2. Erasmus’s View of "Perfection"

• Scholarly Humility: Erasmus recognized the provisional nature of his work. In his annotations, he discussed textual variants and uncertainties, showing he did not consider his edition flawless.
• Criticism of the Church: His goal was to reform medieval Catholic practices, not to enshrine a "perfect" text. He even wrote, "No one is prohibited from emending [my work]."
• No TR "Advocacy": The term Textus Receptus ("Received Text") was coined in 1633 (by the Elzevir publishers) to market later Greek NT editions. Erasmus died long before this label emerged and never claimed his text was divinely preserved or final.

---

3. The TR’s Evolution After Erasmus

Later editors like Robert Estienne (Stephanus) and Theodore Beza refined Erasmus’s work, incorporating older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Bezae) and expanding textual notes. By the 1630s, the Elzevir editions standardized the TR, which became the basis for the KJV New Testament (1611). However, the TR itself was a moving target, revised over 150 years.

---

4. Key Misconceptions

• KJV-Only Claims: Modern KJV-only advocates (19th/20th century) often retroject the idea of a "perfect TR" onto Erasmus, but this contradicts his own writings.
• Erasmus vs. TR Idealism: Erasmus sought to make Scripture accessible and accurate for reform, not to create an unchanging text. He would have rejected later polemics about TR "perfection," as he prioritized scholarship over dogma.

---

Conclusion: Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was a scholarly tool, not a declaration of textual perfection. His work was foundational for the TR tradition, but he openly revised it and admitted its flaws. The notion of a "perfect TR" is a later theological construct, alien to Erasmus’s humanist, reform-minded ethos.

By propagating VPP and teaching in the church that TR is kept pure and perfect, Prabudass Koshi betrayed Eramus. The Filipino counterpart was intimidated by this man from Kerela, India, who forced them to join VPP and assembled a team of enslaved Filipino pastors. The Filipino had to submit to him in order to get funding from the mother church. Dare him, to do this on the Chinese counterpart. 

Quek Suan Yew betrayed Dr. John Sung

John Sung (1901–1944), a prominent Chinese evangelist and revivalist, held a conservative and pragmatic view of Bible translations, shaped by his theological convictions and evangelistic focus. Key aspects of his perspective include:

Emphasis on Vernacular Accessibility: Sung prioritized making the Bible accessible to ordinary people in their native language. He ministered during a time when the Chinese Union Version (CUV, completed in 1919) became the standard Protestant Bible in China. He likely supported this translation as it allowed widespread understanding and use among Chinese believers, aligning with his evangelistic goals.

John Sung advocated for Bible translations that were both theologically rigorous and linguistically accessible, supporting the Chinese Union Version as a vital tool for evangelism and discipleship in early 20th-century China. His views reflected a blend of conservative doctrine, practical missiology, and a commitment to empowering lay believers through Scripture.

in 2010s Quek Suan Yew attacked and chased out the Mandarin speaking pastor and members who are using CUV in his church. What a betrayal! I should ask Quek Suan Yew, "Loved thou God?"

Timothy Tow betrayed Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.

Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. (1895–1977), a prominent theologian, philosopher, and president of Wheaton College, was a conservative evangelical scholar who engaged deeply with questions of biblical authority, inerrancy, and the nature of Scripture. His stance on the "perfect Bible" reflects a nuanced commitment to the inerrancy of the original autographs, combined with a cautious openness to textual criticism and modern scholarship. Here’s an overview of his position:

---

1. Affirmation of Biblical Inerrancy

Buswell firmly upheld the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, aligning with the Princeton Theological Seminary tradition (e.g., B.B. Warfield). He taught that the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture were free from error in all they affirmed, whether theological, historical, or scientific. This view was rooted in his belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, with God as its ultimate author.

• Key Quote:

"The Bible, as originally given, is in all its parts the Word of God written, and therefore in all its parts is free from error" (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 1962).

---

2. Distinction Between Autographs and Copies

Like Warfield, Buswell distinguished between the inerrancy of the original manuscripts and the reality of minor textual variations in copies. He acknowledged that scribal errors and variants exist in surviving manuscripts but argued these do not undermine the Bible’s overall reliability or doctrinal clarity.

• His View:
  Textual criticism is a legitimate tool to approximate the original text, and no doctrine hinges on disputed passages.

---

3. Rejection of KJV-Onlyism

Buswell did not support KJV-Onlyism or the idea that the Textus Receptus (TR) was a "perfect" text. He recognized the value of modern textual criticism and newer translations based on older, more reliable manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus).

• Example:
  He endorsed the Revised Standard Version (RSV) despite criticism from some fundamentalists, arguing that modern translations could improve accuracy.

---

4. Engagement with Textual Criticism

Buswell accepted the findings of textual scholarship while maintaining confidence in Scripture’s preservation. He believed God’s providence ensured the essential integrity of the biblical text across history, even as scholars worked to resolve minor uncertainties.

• Key Point:
  He saw no conflict between rigorous scholarship and a high view of Scripture’s authority.

---

5. Opposition to Hyper-Fundamentalism

Buswell critiqued hyper-fundamentalist trends that rejected all critical scholarship or elevated traditional interpretations (e.g., KJV-Onlyism) over evidence-based study. He argued that such approaches risked undermining the credibility of biblical inerrancy by conflating human traditions with divine truth.

---

6. Emphasis on Practical Authority

For Buswell, the Bible’s perfection was not an abstract doctrine but a foundation for Christian life and practice. He stressed that Scripture’s authority and sufficiency guide believers in faith, ethics, and worship.

---

Comparison to Contemporaries

• B.B. Warfield: Buswell shared Warwell’s focus on the inerrancy of the autographs but was more willing to engage with modern scholarship.
• Cornelius Van Til: Both affirmed inerrancy, but Buswell avoided Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics, favoring evidentialist approaches.
• KJV-Only Advocates: Buswell explicitly rejected their claims, viewing them as anti-intellectual and theologically misguided.

---

Key Works Reflecting His Views

1. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (1962): Outlines his inerrancy stance.
2. The Bible Today (1940s–1950s): Addresses textual criticism and translation issues.
3. Articles in Christianity Today and The Evangelical Quarterly: Defend biblical authority against both liberal and fundamentalist extremes.

---

Conclusion

Dr. Buswell’s stand on the "perfect Bible" can be summarized as:

1. Inerrancy of the original autographs: The Bible is God’s errorless Word in its original form.
2. Openness to textual criticism: Variants in copies do not negate Scripture’s authority.
3. Rejection of KJV-Onlyism: Modern translations and scholarship are valid tools.
4. Balanced conservatism: A commitment to both biblical authority and intellectual integrity.

His approach sought to uphold the Bible’s divine inspiration while engaging constructively with scholarly advances—a stance that remains influential in evangelical theology today.

 

The Westminster Confession of Faith does not promote VPP and "KJV-Onlyism."

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) does not promote the perfection of the Textus Receptus (TR), a specific translation like the KJV, or "KJV-Onlyism." Instead, it affirms the perfection of the Bible in its original manuscripts (autographs) and the authority of Scripture as God’s Word. Here’s a breakdown:

---

1. The Confession’s View of Biblical Perfection

• Original Autographs: The Westminster Confession (WCF) teaches that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were "immediately inspired by God" and "kept pure in all ages" by His providence (WCF 1.8). This affirms the perfection (inerrancy/infallibility) of the Bible in its original languages.
• No Mention of the TR or KJV: The WCF does not reference the Textus Receptus (TR) or the King James Version (KJV) by name. The TR was the standard Greek New Testament text of the Reformation era, and the KJV (published in 1611) was widely used, but the Confession’s focus is on the theological principle of Scripture’s divine origin, not textual or translational debates.

---

2. Translations and the Role of the Church

• Translations as Necessary: The WCF acknowledges that Scripture must be translated into the "vulgar [common] language" of people (WCF 1.8). It affirms the value of translations but insists they must be faithful to the original languages.
• No Exclusive Translation: The Confession does not endorse the KJV (or any translation) as uniquely perfect or binding. It states that if a translation’s meaning is disputed, the issue must be settled by "the original Hebrew and Greek" (WCF 1.8), not by elevating one translation over others.

---

3. Rejection of "KJV-Onlyism"

• KJV-Onlyism Is Modern: The "KJV-Only" movement (which claims the KJV is uniquely inspired or superior to all other translations) arose in the 19th–20th centuries, long after the WCF. The Confession’s authors could not have anticipated this debate.
• The WCF’s Principles Contradict KJV-Onlyism:
• The Confession prioritizes the original languages, not a translation.
• It allows for revisions of translations as scholarship advances (WCF 1.8).
• It rejects the idea that any translation is "kept pure" in the same way as the original autographs.

---

4. The TR in Historical Context

• TR as the Era’s Standard Text: The TR was the Greek New Testament text used by Reformed theologians in the 17th century, including the Westminster divines. However, the WCF does not declare the TR itself "perfect." Instead, it assumes the TR (and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament) as the best available witnesses to the original autographs.
• Modern Scholarship: If alive today, the Westminster divines would likely approve of using older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) and critical editions (e.g., NA28) to refine our understanding of the original text, as the Confession’s logic prioritizes the original languages over any printed text.

---

5. Key Quotes from the Westminster Confession

• WCF 1.8:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew [...] and the New Testament in Greek [...] being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."
(Note: "Authentical" here means "authoritative," not "perfectly preserved in every copy.")

• WCF 1.10:

"The Supreme Judge [...] can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
(Emphasis on Scripture’s authority, not a specific translation.)

---

Conclusion

The Westminster Confession promotes:

1. The perfection of the Bible in its original manuscripts (Hebrew/Greek).
2. The authority of Scripture over tradition or human authority.
3. The necessity of faithful translations into common languages.

It does not:

• Declare the Textus Receptus perfect.
• Elevate the KJV (or any translation) as exclusively authoritative.
• Support "KJV-Onlyism," which is a later, extra-confessional movement.

The WCF’s framework allows for textual criticism and updated translations, provided they align with the original languages. Its focus is on Scripture’s divine inspiration and sufficiency, not defending specific textual traditions or translations.

May the true Church of God lives in peace.