God's Word Cannot Be Chained

1. The Biblical Principle: God's Word Cannot Be Chained:

    The core idea comes directly from Scripture, specifically 2 Timothy 2:9 (KJV): "Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound."

    

    9. ἐν ᾧ κακοπαθῶ μέχρι δεσμῶν ὡς κακοῦργος, ἀλλὰ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται

 

    Over against Paul’s own situation is set the ringing, contrasting affirmation. ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Tim 1:15; Tit 2:5; cf. the anarthrous form, 1 Tim 4:5) is almost personified, as in 2 Th 3:1; cf. 1 Th 2:13. The metaphor of fettering the word of God is found here only in NT (δέω**; cf. Büchsel, F., TDNT II, 60f.), and is obviously developed from the previous part of the verse. Brox, 243, observes that the point is not that other preachers are free to speak while Paul is in prison but that the word of God operates freely precisely in the suffering and bondage of its agents.^[1]

    Here, the Apostle Paul is imprisoned ("unto bonds"), physically chained. Yet, he declares that despite his physical confinement, "the word of God is not bound.

    This means God's message, truth, power, and purpose cannot be imprisoned, restricted, silenced, or ultimately controlled by human authorities, circumstances, or limitations. It accomplishes what God intends (Isaiah 55:11).

 

        Isaiah 55:11 states, "So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,"

 

2.  Can Anyone Chain the word of God?

        Humanly, people try: Throughout history, authorities (religious, political) have tried to suppress, ban, burn, distort, or control access to God's Word.

        Ultimately, they fail: The biblical testimony and history show that God's Word persists. It finds ways to spread. Translations multiply. People risk everything to share it. Its truth endures. No human effort can permanently chain or extinguish the living and active Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). God preserves His message.

 

3.  Can It Be Chained in KJV Only?

        The "KJV Only" View: This is a position held by some Christians who believe:

        The King James Version (KJV) of 1611 is the only accurate, authoritative, or inspired English translation of the Bible.

        Other modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, CSB, NKJV, etc.) are corrupt, inferior, or even dangerous because they use different underlying Greek/Hebrew manuscripts (primarily the Critical Text vs. the Textus Receptus used for the KJV) or different translation philosophies.

    Does this "chain" God's Word?

            In Practice, it Restricts Access: The KJV-Only view effectively says that God's Word is only reliably accessible in 17th-century English. This creates a significant barrier for modern readers unfamiliar with archaic language (thee, thou, besom, suffer, etc.), hindering understanding for millions.

            It Imposes a Human Limitation: It binds the living, powerful Word of God to one specific historical translation, implying God is incapable of preserving His truth accurately through other translation efforts based on older and often more reliable manuscripts discovered since 1611.

            Contradicts the Principle: The very verse that declares God's Word unchained (2 Tim 2:9) is used within the KJV itself to argue against binding it solely to the KJV. The principle that God's Word is not bound argues against restricting it to one translation.

            God Preserves His Message, Not Just One Translation: The biblical doctrine is that God preserves His truth and message (Matthew 24:35), not that He miraculously inspired one specific translation in one specific language centuries after the original autographs. Faithful translations into many languages (including modern English) demonstrate the unbound nature of God's Word.

 

Conclusion:

No, God's Word cannot be truly or permanently chained by anyone. Its power and truth transcend human attempts to suppress or control it (2 Timothy 2:9)

The "KJV Only" position attempts to chain God's Word by restricting its reliable accessibility and authority to a single, centuries-old English translation.

This attempt ultimately fails because:

It contradicts the biblical principle that God's Word is not bound.

God's Spirit uses many faithful translations (including the KJV!) to speak His truth to people in languages they understand.

The life-changing power of Scripture is evident through numerous translations worldwide.

 

The unchained nature of God's Word is demonstrated by its flourishing in many languages and translations, not by its confinement to one.

---

** After a Greek word or list of references two asterisks that all the references in the PE have been given

TDNT Kittel, G., and Friedrich, G., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Bromiley, G. W. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76).

^[1] I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 736–737.

What is wrong with "Perfect Textus Receptus" (TR) and "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP)?

The concepts of "Perfect Textus Receptus" (TR) and "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) are primarily associated with certain conservative Protestant theological positions (often within the King James Version Only or "KJV-Only" movement). While sincerely held by some, these ideas face significant criticisms from textual scholars, historians, and theologians across a wide spectrum. Here's a breakdown of the key problems:

The Textus Receptus (TR) is Not a Single, Perfect Text:

It's a Printed Edition, Not an Autograph: The TR (first compiled by Erasmus in 1516, then refined by others like Stephanus and Beza) is a printed Greek New Testament based on available late Byzantine manuscripts (mostly 12th-15th century). It is not the original autographs.

Based on Limited Manuscripts: Erasmus had access to only a handful of relatively late Greek manuscripts, and none contained the entire NT. For parts of Revelation, he even back-translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek when a Greek manuscript was missing.

Contains Undisputed Errors: The TR includes passages and readings widely recognized by scholars (including conservative evangelicals) as later additions not present in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. Key examples:

The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8): The Trinitarian formula ("the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one") is absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations by early Church Fathers. It appears to be a later insertion, likely from Latin sources. Erasmus only included it reluctantly under pressure.

The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20): Missing from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) and early patristic citations. Internal evidence also suggests it's a later summary.

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11): Missing from the earliest manuscripts and has significant stylistic differences. Its placement varies in manuscripts that do include it.

Variants Within the TR Tradition: The TR itself went through multiple editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, each with minor variations. Claiming one specific printed edition (e.g., Beza 1598, Stephanus 1550) as "perfect" is arbitrary.

Not Used by the Early Church: The manuscripts underlying the TR are centuries removed from the originals. The text type dominant in the earliest centuries (Alexandrian) often differs from the later Byzantine text type.

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is Theologically and Historically Problematic:

Definition: VPP typically asserts that God miraculously preserved every single word (verbal) and all parts (plenary) of the original autographs perfectly intact in a specific, identifiable line of transmission (usually culminating in the TR and KJV).

Lack of Biblical Promise: While the Bible affirms God's word endures forever (e.g., Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:23-25), it does not explicitly promise that every single word would be preserved without any variation in a single, specific manuscript tradition throughout history. Preservation is affirmed, but the method (VPP) is an inference.

Contradicted by Textual Evidence: The actual manuscript record overwhelmingly contradicts VPP:

Textual Variants Exist: There are hundreds of thousands of minor variants among the over 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts. While the vast majority are insignificant (spelling, word order), their existence challenges the idea of a perfectly preserved, singular text line.

No Single "Pure" Stream: Manuscripts show a complex history of copying, cross-pollination between text types (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western), and localized variations. There's no single, unbroken, "pure" stream demonstrably leading only to the TR.

Early Manuscripts Differ from TR: The oldest and generally most reliable manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, 4th century) often support readings that differ from the Byzantine/TR tradition, sometimes significantly (like the endings of Mark or the absence of the Comma Johanneum).

Implies God Failed for Centuries: If VPP requires the TR as the perfectly preserved text, it implies that God did not perfectly preserve His Word for the first 1400+ years of church history before Erasmus compiled the TR. This raises serious theological questions about God's faithfulness during that vast period.

Confuses Preservation with a Specific Text/Translation: VPP often equates preservation with one specific printed edition (TR) or even one translation (KJV). This confuses the original text (the autographs) with later copies and translations. Preservation refers to the substance of the text being recoverable, not the perfection of one specific late manuscript family or translation.

Practical Consequences:

Undermines Textual Scholarship: It dismisses the entire field of textual criticism, which uses scientific methods to compare thousands of manuscripts to reconstruct the most likely original text.

Divisiveness: VPP/TR positions often lead to unnecessary division within Christianity, accusing those who use modern critical texts (based on older manuscripts) or modern translations of rejecting God's word.

Misplaced Focus: Elevates a specific text/translation to a level of authority that belongs only to the original autographs (which we no longer possess physically, but can reconstruct with high confidence).

In Summary:

The core problem is that the historical and textual evidence does not support the claims of a "Perfect Textus Receptus" or a doctrine of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" that necessitates the TR as the exclusive, perfect representation of the autographs.

The TR demonstrably contains later additions and is based on a limited, late manuscript pool.

VPP, as defined by its proponents, lacks explicit biblical support and is contradicted by the reality of textual variants and the complex history of manuscript transmission.

Most evangelical scholars and theologians (who firmly believe in the divine inspiration and essential preservation of Scripture) affirm that God preserved His Word through the multiplicity of manuscripts, allowing textual criticism to reconstruct the original text with remarkable accuracy, without needing to affirm the perfection of one late compilation like the TR. They distinguish between the inerrancy of the autographs and the providential preservation evident in the manuscript tradition as a whole.

Praying in tongues can be "self-edifying"

The idea that praying in tongues can be "self-edifying" comes primarily from the Bible, specifically 1 Corinthians 14:4, which states, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church."

Here's a breakdown of why this is understood to mean that praying in tongues can be personally beneficial:

Speaking directly to God: 1 Corinthians 14:2 says, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit." This suggests that praying in tongues is a direct, spiritual communication with God that bypasses human understanding.

Building up one's spirit: The term "edify" means to build up, strengthen, or improve. When applied to the individual, it implies a spiritual strengthening or growth. This can involve:

Intimate communion: A direct and unhindered connection with God, fostering a deeper sense of His presence.

Spiritual release: It's seen by some as a way for the spirit to express itself to God in ways that the mind might not be able to articulate, especially in times of great joy, sorrow, or when one doesn't know what to pray for (Romans 8:26-27).

Refreshing the inner man: It can be a source of spiritual refreshment and renewal, helping believers to build up their "most holy faith" (Jude 1:20).

Bypassing the limitations of the mind: 1 Corinthians 14:14 notes, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." This indicates that while the mind may not understand what is being said, the spirit is actively engaged in prayer. This can be seen as a way to pray beyond one's intellectual limitations or preconceived notions.

It's important to note the context of 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul also emphasizes the importance of prophecy in public church settings because it edifies the church (the community) by bringing understandable instruction, encouragement, and comfort. While acknowledging the personal benefit of praying in tongues, he prioritizes that which benefits the collective body of believers in public gatherings.

In summary, the self-edifying aspect of praying in tongues is understood as a means of personal spiritual growth, intimacy with God, and a way for the spirit to pray beyond the limitations of the intellect.

Tongue Speaking

1 Corinthians 14:2

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (Tongue here is not a language!)

1 Corinthians 14:4-5

Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:13-14

For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 

1 Corinthians 14:18

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

1 Corinthians 14:22

Tongues, then, are a sign...

1 Corinthians 14:39-40

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Let's explore the words "tongue" and "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14 in terms of:

• Their Greek terms

• Contextual usage

• Theological implications

• Whether they refer to ecstatic, gibberish-like prayer languages or intelligible languages

---

🔍 Greek Word Study

Word: “Tongue” / “Tongues”

Greek: γλῶσσα (glōssa) — Strong’s G1100

• Occurs in singular: γλῶσσα = tongue

• Occurs in plural: γλῶσσαι = tongues

Semantic Range:

1. The physical tongue (organ)

2. Language or dialect (e.g., "foreign language")

3. Spiritual speech — often debated whether it refers to:

   • Known human languages (Acts 2 usage)

   • Ecstatic speech (incomprehensible to humans without interpretation)

---

📖 Usage in 1 Corinthians 14

Let’s trace the use of "tongue(s)" in this chapter:

1. Verse 2:

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God."

• γλώσσῃ (glōssēi) — singular, dative

• Describes a private or public utterance not understood by others.

• Speaker is not understood — implies unintelligible unless interpreted.

• Suggests a personal prayer or praise directed toward God.

2. Verse 4:

"He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself."

• Again, singular

• Focuses on personal edification

• No clear communication to others unless interpretation is given

• Implies a private, possibly ecstatic or mystical experience

3. Verse 5:

"I would like every one of you to speak in tongues..."

• γλώσσαις — plural

• Paul values the gift, but emphasizes prophecy as superior for corporate edification

• Plural suggests varieties of languages or multiple utterances

4. Verses 6–19:

• Repeated contrast: Tongue(s) vs. Prophecy

• Paul's concern: If there is no interpretation, the speech is unfruitful

• Emphasis on understanding for the sake of the church

“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church... I would rather speak five intelligible words…”

• Paul values the experience personally, but sees limited corporate value without interpretation

---

• No major theological distinction is made between the singular and plural forms in Greek beyond number.

• The plural often emphasizes diversity of expression.

• The singular often emphasizes the personal, individual experience.

---

🗣️ Are They “Ecstatic” or Real Languages?

1. Acts 2 vs. 1 Corinthians 14

• Acts 2 — "tongues" are clearly known languages understood by others (e.g., Parthians, Medes, etc.)

• 1 Corinthians 14 — context suggests unknown to the speaker and others unless interpreted

2. Nature of the “Tongues” in 1 Cor 14

• Incomprehensible to hearers without interpretation

• Paul never calls them nonsense, but insists they must be interpreted

• Likely refers to spiritual utterances, not learned languages

• Some scholars see parallels with Jewish apocalyptic or mystical prayer (e.g., 1 Enoch, Dead Sea Scrolls)

---

🙏 Conclusion: Are They Private Prayer Languages?

Yes — with qualification:

• In 1 Corinthians 14, "tongue(s)" often refers to a spiritual language, possibly unintelligible to both speaker and hearer.

• Paul acknowledges personal spiritual benefit (“edifies himself” – v4), especially in private prayer.

• However, corporate use must involve interpretation, otherwise it creates confusion, not edification (v9, v23).

So, the “tongue” here is a Spirit-enabled language meant for prayer or praise, not understood without divine interpretation.

John MacArthur

John MacArthur is a well-known critic of the modern Charismatic movement, particularly its practice of speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as seen today. His views are clearly outlined in his book “Charismatic Chaos” and more strongly in “Strange Fire.” He argues that the modern practice of "speaking in tongues" is:

1. Not biblical, because he believes the gift of tongues in the New Testament was always known human languages, not ecstatic or unknown utterances.
2. Not necessary, as the foundational signs of the apostolic age have ceased.
3. Dangerous or deceptive, attributing many Charismatic practices to emotionalism, psychological manipulation, or even demonic influence.

A Balanced and Biblical Response to MacArthur’s View

Here’s how a thoughtful response might be formed, grounded in Scripture, church history, and theological clarity:

1. What Did “Tongues” Mean Biblically?

John MacArthur:

Tongues were known languages only, given as a sign to unbelieving Jews (1 Cor 14:21–22, Acts 2).

Response:

It's true that in Acts 2, the tongues were known human languages.

However, 1 Corinthians 14 introduces a different kind of tongues, including "speaking mysteries to God" (v.2), "praying in the spirit" (v.14-15), and even a “tongue of angels” (1 Cor 13:1, perhaps hyperbolic, but notable).

Paul allows for tongues that require interpretation (1 Cor 14:5, 27–28), implying they were not immediately recognizable human languages.

Therefore, the NT reflects at least two expressions of tongues:

Human languages (e.g., Acts 2),

Spiritual utterances needing interpretation (e.g., 1 Cor 14).

2. Did the Gift of Tongues Cease?

John MacArthur:

Tongues and other sign gifts ceased with the close of the apostolic age (cessationism).

Response:

1 Corinthians 13:8–10 says tongues will cease, but also that knowledge and prophecy will pass away—when the perfect comes. Many interpret “the perfect” as the return of Christ, not the completion of Scripture.

Early church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen mention ongoing spiritual gifts—including tongues—in the early post-apostolic church.

Church history records continued occurrences of tongues, especially in revival movements (e.g., Moravians, Wesleyans, Pentecostals).

While abuses exist, the existence of counterfeit does not negate the genuine gift (same logic applies to prophecy, healing, etc.).

3. Are Charismatic Tongues Dangerous or Deceptive?

John MacArthur:

Much of modern tongues-speaking is emotionally driven or even demonic.

Response:

Certainly, discernment is needed (1 John 4:1), and there are false experiences.

But Paul doesn’t dismiss tongues because of abuse. He corrects and regulates (1 Cor 14:26–33).

He says: "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor 14:39).

Many sincere believers experience tongues as a private prayer language that edifies them spiritually (1 Cor 14:4, 14–15).

4. A Heart-Level Consideration

Rather than dismissing tongues outright, a more charitable and biblical approach is to:

Test all things by Scripture (1 Thess 5:21).

Allow for diversity in non-essential matters (Rom 14).

Discern by fruit: Are lives changed, Christ exalted, and love produced?

Conclusion: A Gracious Continuationist View

You don’t need to accept every Charismatic excess to believe that the gift of tongues may still be valid today.

The best response to John MacArthur is not to dismiss his concerns (many are valid), but to humbly correct his overreach:

“Yes, let’s be discerning—but let’s not deny what Scripture does not deny. Let’s regulate gifts, not reject them. Let all things be done decently and in order—but also, let all things be done (1 Cor 14:40).”

To make a good one better

The KJV, strictly speaking, is not a translation but a revision. In fact, it is a revision of a revision (Bishop’s Bible) of a revision (Great Bible) of a revision (Matthew’s Bible) of a revision (Coverdale’s Bible) of Tyndale’s translation. “A great deal of praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version.”1

Over the decades and even centuries, the process of review and revision has very likely eliminated gross translation errors from this line of Bibles. That is, if Tyndale made any errors, it would seem that they would have been corrected in the Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, Bishop’s, or King James Bible. How much more, then, should the RV, ASV, RSV, and ESV be perfected—or so one would think. 2

1. B. Metzger, The Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 76-77. D. Daniell points out that 83 percent of the KJV is from Tyndale; The Bible in English: History and Influence (New Haven: Yale, 2003), 152.

2. Ray E. Clendenen and David K. Stabnow, HCSB - Bible Translation: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2013).

Evidences of biblical text

The sincere Bible critic uses the manuscripts, the versions, and the writings of the early church fathers to determine the true wording that is closest to the original manuscripts.

1. The writings of the church fathers: The church fathers were the prominent leaders, theologians, teachers, and scholars during the first few centuries after Christ. They were dedicated Christians who wrote sermons, commentaries, and homilies. They contended for the faith amid the onslaught of false religions. The following are some of the better known names from a group said to number about 200 individuals during the first seven centuries:

  a) A. D. 96–150: Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp

  b) A. D. 150–325: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian and Tatian

  c) A. D. 325 and later: Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome and Augustine

These men quoted freely from the Bible, citing not only all 27 books of the New Testament but also virtually every verse in those books. Geisler and Nix asserted, “Five Fathers alone, from Irenaeus to Eusebius, possess almost 36,000 quotations from the New Testament.”15

Some years ago, Sir David Dalrymple was at a dinner with a group of scholars when the question was asked, “If the whole New Testament were destroyed in the fourth century, would it be possible for it to be put together from the writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries?” Two months later he said to one of the company, “The question aroused my curiosity, and having all existing works of the Fathers from the second and third centuries, I commenced to search. Up to this time I have found all the New Testament except eleven verses.” The testimony of the writings of the church fathers to the authenticity of the text is of significant importance. First, because of their devotion to God and His Word, they were careful in their copying of the Scriptures. Second, because they lived so close to the apostolic days, it is probable that they had access to manuscripts not in existence today. Some may have had access to the originals.

2. The Dead Sea Scrolls: In 1947 a Bedouin boy was herding goats near the northern end of the Dead Sea when he discovered these scrolls in a cave. Approximately 350 scrolls in all, the Dead Sea Scrolls are considered one of the greatest archaeological finds of the last century. Written by the Essenes between the first century before and the first century after Christ, the scriptural portions of the scrolls are hundreds of years older than any other previously known manuscripts. Portions of every book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, are contained in the scrolls. Of special interest is the scroll that contains the entire book of Isaiah. This Hebrew Isaiah manuscript is 1,000 years older than any previously discovered text. Even more remarkably, the scrolls confirm the accuracy of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament.

3. The Papyri: Of great interest to Bible scholars are the papyri found in Egyptian graves during the 1900s. Many assert these are the most important gains for New Testament textual criticism since Tischendorf announced the discovery of the Sinaitic Codes. Sir Arthur Chester Beatty (died 1968) acquired the papyri, now housed in the Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland. Others are in the possession of the University of Michigan and private individuals. They contain parts of the Old Testament in Greek, with considerable portions of Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy, as well as parts of Esther, Ezekiel and Daniel. Three manuscripts in the group are of New Testament books. These include portions of 30 leaves of the Gospels and Acts, 86 leaves of the Pauline Epistles and 10 leaves out of the middle section of the book of Revelation. This material is of great importance for it dates from the third century or earlier. The text is of such high quality that it ranks with the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices.

The John Rylands Fragment is a papyrus fragment that measures only 3½ by 2½ inches. Though small, it is the oldest recognized manuscript of any part of the New Testament. It was obtained in 1920, has writing on both sides, and contains portions of the Gospel of John (John 18:31–33; John 18:37; John 18:38). In 1956, Victor Martin, a professor of classical philology at the University of Geneva, published a papyrus codex of the Gospel of John called Papyrus Bodmer II. The manuscript contains John 1:1–14:26. Dated A. D. 200, it is probably the oldest book of the New Testament in substantial condition.

4. Textual criticism conclusions: Although textual critics have discovered variant readings, none of these have altered Christian doctrine. In fact, “Wescott and Hort, Ezra Abbot, Philip Schaff, and A. T. Robertson have carefully evaluated the evidence and have concluded that the New Testament text is over 99 percent pure.”16

15 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969) 357.

16 Geisler and Nix, From God to Us, 180.

Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, Revised & Updated, vol. 1 (Los Angeles, CA: Foursquare Media, 2016), 34–36.

They've clearly formed their view !

In writing articles arguing against Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJV-Onlyism as unbiblical, I've come to the sobering realization that I may now be perceived as an adversary by many of the bible teachers at FEBC. It is my sincere hope that they might thoughtfully reconsider the foundations of their teachings and extend their attention to dissenting voices, such as my own.

We aren't enemies of God's Word; we're wrestling with how best to understand its transmission and translation.

This has not been an easy path. It grieves me to know that my words may be received with suspicion or hostility, but I also believe that silence in the face of theological error is not love—it is complicity. I hope that my concerns are not dismissed merely as attacks, but as a sincere plea for re-examination and humility before God's Word.

I appeal to the teachers and leaders at FEBC, and those who follow in their theological footsteps: consider carefully what they are teaching and defending. Revisit the Scriptures with fresh eyes, and with a willingness to listen not just to their allies, but to voices like mine—those who raise difficult questions not to divide the Church, but to protect its unity in truth.

I do not wish to be their enemy. I long to be someone who can engage in honest dialogue for the sake of Christ and His gospel. I hope they will see me not as a threat, but as a concerned voice asking them to consider what is truly biblical, and what may have been elevated to dogma without scriptural warrant.

May God grant us all grace, clarity, and humility.

Christian Fundamental & Christian funny mental

"Christian funny mental" declares that fundamentalist ideology seems less like devout faith and more like delusional thinking.

It paints fundamentalism as an unintentional self-parody—where adherents are so committed to "biblical truths" that their stance appears detached from reality.

Fundamentalists are irrational or mentally extreme.

Some forms of Christian fundamentalism can come across as anti-intellectual, legalistic, or overly judgmental.

Outsiders (and sometimes even other Christians) may see certain behaviors or beliefs as exaggerated, unbalanced, or even fanatical, hence “funny mental.

It reflects how some people perceive extreme or rigid expressions of faith — as lacking love, grace, or reason.

Introduction to Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC)

Founded in 1962 by the late Timothy Tow in Singapore, Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) is an independent, conservative, Reformed theological institution. Its primary mission is to train pastors, missionaries, and Christian workers grounded in a staunchly fundamentalist and separatist interpretation of the Bible. FEBC adheres rigorously to the following core distinctives:

1. Biblical Inerrancy & Sufficiency: A strong commitment to the absolute authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture.

2. Reformed Theology: Emphasis on the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) and covenantal theology.

3. Ecclesiastical Separation: A commitment to separation from perceived apostasy, modernism, ecumenism, and worldliness, often leading to a position of separation not just from liberal churches but also from many evangelical groups deemed insufficiently pure.

4. King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Only / TR-Only): Perhaps its most defining and controversial stance, FEBC holds that the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text underlying the King James Version is the preserved, inerrant Word of God in the original languages, and that the KJV is the only accurate and acceptable English translation for preaching, teaching, and memorization. They reject modern critical Greek texts (like Nestle-Aland/UBS) and modern Bible translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) as corrupted.

5. Presbyterian Polity: Governed according to Presbyterian principles.

FEBC positions itself as a defender of "historic fundamentalism" and the "historic Christian faith" against perceived modern compromises.

Perceived Weaknesses and Controversial/Contested Positions:

FEBC's distinctives, while deeply held by its leadership and supporters, are the source of significant criticism and are considered weaknesses or false teachings by mainstream evangelical scholarship, other Reformed institutions, and many Christian denominations:

1. King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Only / TR-Only):

o   The Controversy: This is FEBC's most contentious doctrine. Mainstream biblical scholarship (evangelical, Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox) overwhelmingly rejects the idea that the Textus Receptus is superior to modern critical texts or that the KJV is the only acceptable English translation.

o   Criticisms:

§  Textual Basis: The TR is a late medieval/renaissance compilation based on a relatively small number of manuscripts, some of which contained errors later corrected by older and more numerous manuscript discoveries. Modern critical texts incorporate far more and older manuscript evidence.

§  Translation Imperfections: While a monumental achievement for its time, the KJV contains archaic language difficult for modern readers, known translation errors based on later textual discoveries, and passages where its rendering is less accurate than modern translations based on superior texts.

§  Lack of Scriptural Support: There is no biblical mandate that God would preserve His Word exclusively in one specific Greek text family or one specific English translation.

§  Divisiveness: This stance unnecessarily divides Christians and often leads to accusations of heresy against those using other faithful translations. FEBC frequently labels modern translations as "perversions."

o   Perceived as False: Critics argue FEBC elevates a specific historical text and translation to a level of inspiration and inerrancy that belongs only to the original autographs (which we no longer possess). This is seen as bibliolatry (worship of the KJV itself) or adding an extra-biblical requirement for orthodoxy by many outside the KJV-Only movement.

2. Extreme Ecclesiastical Separation (Secondary Separation):

o   The Controversy: While biblical separation from false teaching is a scriptural principle (2 Cor 6:14-18), FEBC often practices "secondary separation." This means separating not only from groups deemed apostate (e.g., liberal mainline denominations) but also from conservative evangelical groups, institutions, or individuals who associate with or are insufficiently critical of those deemed apostate, even if they otherwise hold sound doctrine.

o   Criticisms:

§  Undue Suspicion & Division: This can foster a spirit of suspicion, judgmentalism, and unnecessary division within the broader body of Christ. It can lead to isolation and a lack of fruitful cooperation with other gospel-preaching ministries.

§  "Guilt by Association": Criticized for condemning individuals or groups based on perceived associations rather than solely on their own stated doctrine and practice.

§  Impracticality & Inconsistency: Strict application can become practically impossible and is often applied inconsistently.

o   Perceived as Weakness: This stance is seen as a significant weakness hindering fellowship, cooperation in missions and evangelism, and creating a fortress mentality. While separation from clear heresy is essential, FEBC's application is viewed by many as overly rigid and schismatic.

3. Accreditation & Academic Isolation:

o   Weakness: FEBC is not accredited by mainstream theological accrediting bodies. While they argue this preserves their independence from perceived compromise, it means:

§  Degrees may not be recognized or transferable to other institutions.

§  Lack of external quality assurance checks common in accredited institutions.

§  Potential limitation of academic opportunities for graduates.

§  Reinforces theological isolation.

4. Specific Theological Distinctives:

o   Criticism of Other Reformed Views: FEBC strongly criticizes other Reformed theologians and institutions (even conservative ones like Westminster Theological Seminary historically) over issues like textual criticism, versions, and degrees of separation, sometimes portraying them as compromised.

o   Dispensationalist Leaning: While Reformed, FEBC (particularly under Tow) held some dispensationalist views regarding Israel and the church, which is atypical for classic covenant theology and sometimes creates tension within its own stated Reformed framework.

Conclusion:

Far Eastern Bible College is a significant institution within a specific niche of conservative, separatist, KJV-Only Reformed fundamentalism. Its strengths lie in its unwavering commitment to biblical authority and training preachers from that perspective. However, its most prominent weaknesses and the positions considered false by the vast majority of Christian scholarship and denominations are its dogmatic KJV-Only/TR-Only stance and its practice of extreme ecclesiastical separation (secondary separation). These positions are the primary sources of controversy and criticism directed towards the college, seen as creating unnecessary division, elevating a translation/text to an unwarranted status, and hindering broader gospel cooperation. Its lack of accreditation further contributes to its academic isolation.

About FEBC

Far Eastern Bible College: An Overview and Associated Criticisms

The Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) is a Reformed, fundamentalist, and separatist Bible-Presbyterian theological institution located in Singapore. Established in 1962 by Timothy Tow, it is one of the oldest Bible colleges in the country. FEBC subscribes to the Reformed system of theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and aims to train individuals for Christian ministry, adhering to a strict interpretation of biblical inerrancy and preservation. Its mottoes are "Holding forth the Word of Life" (Philippians 2:16) and "Holding fast the Faithful Word" (Titus 1:9).

FEBC is known for its strong emphasis on what it terms "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures. This doctrine asserts that God has providentially preserved every single word of the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible throughout history, down to the "jot and tittle." FEBC maintains that these perfectly preserved words are found in the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority manuscripts, which underlie the Reformation Bibles, best represented by the King James Version (KJV).

Weaknesses and Criticisms

While FEBC presents itself as a staunch defender of biblical truth, its specific theological positions, particularly regarding biblical preservation and the King James Version, have led to significant criticism and controversy within broader evangelical and fundamentalist circles.

1. Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and "King James Onlyism":

o   The Core Issue: FEBC's most notable and controversial doctrine is its unique interpretation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). While most conservative evangelicals affirm Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) of the original biblical manuscripts (autographs), FEBC extends this to argue for a perfect, word-for-word preservation of the copies (apographs) throughout history. They contend that the Textus Receptus (TR), the Greek text underlying the KJV, is the perfectly preserved text.

o   Criticism: Critics argue that this VPP doctrine goes beyond historical Reformed confessions and is a relatively new theological construct. It is often associated with "King James Onlyism," a position that asserts the KJV is the only true or authoritative English translation of the Bible. Many scholars and theologians disagree with this, pointing to the existence of numerous ancient manuscripts and textual variations, and arguing that while God has preserved His Word, He has not guaranteed a perfect, error-free transmission in every single copy or translation. Opponents suggest that FEBC's stance effectively elevates the KJV (or its underlying texts) to the status of a "new inspiration" or implies a miraculous restoration of texts by the KJV translators, which the KJV translators themselves did not claim.

o   Impact: This dogmatic adherence to VPP and the KJV has led to accusations of sectarianism and has caused divisions within Bible-Presbyterian churches, including a significant legal dispute between FEBC and Life Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore over doctrinal deviation.

2. Separatist Stance:

o   FEBC explicitly takes a separatist stance against what it perceives as liberalism, modernism, neo-orthodoxy, charismatism, ecumenism, neo-evangelicalism, and "all kinds of false isms of the day." While fundamentalism often involves separation from perceived error, FEBC's rigorous application of this principle can lead to isolation from broader Christian movements and a narrow definition of orthodoxy, potentially hindering collaborative efforts and wider theological discourse.

3. Academic Accreditation Concerns (Implied):

o   While not explicitly stated as a "falsehood," the strong emphasis on its unique VPP doctrine and its separatist nature might affect its recognition or accreditation by broader academic or theological bodies. Institutions with highly specific and exclusive doctrinal stances sometimes face challenges in gaining widespread academic acceptance, which could be seen as a practical "weakness" for students seeking to transfer credits or pursue further studies elsewhere.

In summary, while Far Eastern Bible College is committed to its interpretation of biblical authority and seeks to train ministers, its distinct and controversial doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation and its associated "King James Only" leanings are the primary points of criticism, leading to theological disputes and internal church divisions.