A REPLY TO REV TANG’S PAPER
“SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE” UNDATED
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FLOCK OF JESUS CHRIST!
20th January 2008
Dear Members of Calvary Pandan (English and Mandarin Congregations),
It is a very sad day to see the BIBLE come under attack from within the church. It is even sadder when these attackers of the perfect Word of God really believe that they are doing God a service by attacking God’s Word. Rev Tang’s paper is such a paper. His motive of “love” is between him and God, for no man can read hearts. But the “truth” that he claimed to write in his paper can be evaluated. Love without truth is dangerous for it is sincerity gone awry.
My prayer and hope for writing this paper is twofold. One is that since his paper is made public, a public response is necessary for the cause of truth and righteousness, the defense of God’s perfect Word and for the protection of the flock of Jesus Christ in Calvary Pandan. The second is that Rev Tang will come to see the truth and be converted to the doctrine of VPP and realize that it is a God honoring doctrine and not a “half truth” as he has misconstrued and perhaps been misled to believe.
The ten points in Rev Tang’s paper will be evaluated one at a time.
1. Rev Tang wrote in point # 1 that he believes that God has inspired His Word (2 Tim 3:16 ) and preserved it throughout the ages (preservation) – Rev Tang has failed to provide any biblical support/citation from the Scriptures for his belief of the doctrine of preservation. No Bible support, his view is only a theory.
Here are some Bible verses that teach clearly the doctrine of VPP. They are Deu. 8:3 ; Psalm 12:6-7 ; 19: 7 ; Prov. 30:5 ; Matthew 4:4 ; 5:18 ; 24:35 ; Luke 4:4 ; 16:1 ; 21:33 ; John 10:35 ; Rev 22:18-19 ; etc. If there are Bible verses that teach clearly the doctrine of VPP, then why does Rev Tang call it a “theory” (see his # 4)?
NOTE: The word “BIBLE” used here is the Word of God in the original languages – Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It is not a reference to a translation which is the Bible translated into another language.
2. Rev Tang refers to G I Williamson’s commentary of the WCF to support his view that preservation is in the totality of manuscripts and using textual criticism one can ascertain the meaning of Scriptures (Rev Tang’s point 2) -- Rev Tang’s reference to G I Williamson (point 2) is misleading, because Williamson in his commentary of the WCF did not write “There would be minute differences across manuscripts, but that have no bearing whatsoever on key doctrines and truth. Through careful textual criticism as well as meditation and study of the bible, we can ascertain the meaning of the Scripture.” Rev Tang has “put words into Williamson’s mouth”.
Williamson wrote, “The true text would be perfectly preserved within the body of witnesses.” (page 6) He then went on to explain and conclude, “Thus it is seen to be the sober truth, as declared by the Confession of Faith, that the infallible text of the Word of God has ‘by . . . singular care and providence (been) kept pure in all ages,’ so that we do now actually possess before our very eyes the ‘authentical’ text of the Word of the living God. We may say concerning the actual words that we see on the pages of the Greek New Testament, ‘Behold, these are the very words which have come forth from the mouth of God. Amen.” (page17).
THIS IS THE DOCTRINE OF VPP! WCF teaches the doctrine of VPP. The fact that the WCF is clearly stated in our Church’s Constitution means that the B-P Church from her very beginning believes in the doctrine of VPP!
Rev Tang is wrong to cite G I Williamson’s commentary of the WCF in this way, thus giving the reader the impression that the WCF teaches textual criticism.[1]
3. Rev Tang wrote that the KJV and the CUV are faithfully translated Bibles and he has complete faith in them as God’s reliable Word (Rev Tang’s point 3) – Those of us who can read both English and Mandarin would have these questions for Rev Tang: -
· Because he has distributed the paper by Rev Tan Eng Boo which promotes the New KJV, NASB, ESV, and other modern versions, on what basis does Rev Tang say that the KJV is God’s reliable Word?
· On what basis does Rev Tang say that the CUV is God’s reliable Word for there are at least 19 versions of the Chinese translation and more are coming out?
· Furthermore what do we do with the differences between the KJV and the CUV? How do we know which one is correct?
A translation is only reliable if there is a perfect Bible to compare with. We say that the KJV is the most faithful translation today because we have the perfect Bible to compare with. We say that the KJV is the most faithful and reliable and trustworthy Bible because it is the English translation closest to the perfect Bible. It is the same with the CUV. At present it is the most faithful and reliable translation in the Mandarin language that we have today. This is the guideline used in the choice of any translation in any language. If there is a difference between the KJV and the CUV or any translation, then check it against the PERFECT BIBLE. But the perfect Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - these are the languages of inspiration. If you can’t read the original languages, then the next step is to check it against a translation you can read which is closest to the Bible. For example, if you can read Mandarin and English, then use the KJV to check against the CUV since the KJV is translated completely from the perfect Bible.
4. Rev Tang wrote that “VPP will undermine and destroy Christians’ faith in the CUV and even the KJV.” (Rev Tang’s point 4) -- This is a diabolical pontification on Rev Tang’s part. It is Rev Tang’s rejection of the doctrine of VPP that undermines both the CUV and the KJV, not the belief of it. Rev Tang claims that it is wrong to identify the perfectly preserved words of God. If it is wrong to identify the perfectly preserved words of God, then by the same reasoning would it also be wrong to identify the perfectly inspired word of God? But Rev Tang believes that we have only perfectly inspired words in 39 OT books and 27 NT books. On what basis then does he believe in the 66 books of the Bible? The Bible did not say that there would be only 66 books.
The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) demands the identification of the inspired words. The church fathers identified these books for us in 397 A.D. But if one believes Rev Tang’s argument that it is wrong to identify, then it would probably be called a new theory at that time since they never had it for the past 300 years! Rev Tang’s line of reasoning is wrong on both counts. The perfect words of God were already in circulation then. What the church fathers did in 397 AD was to identify and compile them together into ONE Book. They understood the importance of the vanity of believing in inspiration without identification. Likewise, the doctrine of preservation is vanity without identification. The perfectly preserved texts have to be the texts identified for us by the translators of the KJV Bible. These were the texts in continuous circulation (kept pure by God) throughout the ages and NOT the modern texts promoted by Westcott and Hort who were devil worshippers and whose texts contradict one another and have in them many corrections by different scribes as seen by different handwritings on the manuscripts.
When the doctrine of inspiration came under attack by the liberals in the early 20th Century, the fundamentalists at that time defended the doctrine. They coined the term verbal (words) plenary (all) inspiration (VPI) which means all the words of God are inspired and therefore perfect. Again, if we were to use Rev Tang’s argument that it is a “new” teaching, then the fundamentalists would be wrong to coin the phrase VPI! But the doctrine is taught clearly in the Bible even though we might have only one verse that explicitly teaches it. One verse is enough! It is not a new doctrine but a new attack on an old doctrine. This doctrine is as old as the Bible itself.
The doctrine of VPP is not a new doctrine because like the doctrine of VPI, it is clearly taught in the Bible in nearly 50 verses of the Bible. It is a new attack on an old doctrine. Like the fundamentalists in the early 20th Century, we today in the 21st Century borrow their term verbal plenary preservation (VPP) to defend God’s perfect Word.
There is no deviation at all. Our church has always believed that we have a perfect Bible. Have you ever come across any BBK notes or writings in the past that teach that we have a Bible with mistakes? Would you believe in a gospel that comes from a Bible with mistakes? Would you want your Sunday School teachers to teach your sons and daughters that the Bible has mistakes? This is precisely what the rejection of the doctrine of VPP results in.
All the doctrines in the Bible would be doubted. It is NOT as Rev Tang wrote, “VPP will undermine and destroy Christians’ faith in the CUV and even the KJV.” Let it be known that we are not defending a translation but the Bible. Rev Tang’s way of defending the CUV and KJV would actually destroy the Bible. Rev Tang’s view is not only wrong but very dangerous. It will undermine our faith in God and His perfect Word. Every time you read God’s Word the first thing that comes into your mind is, “Is there any mistake in this verse?” For example I would like to ask Rev Tang whether 2 Timothy 3:16 is perfect or has any mistakes.
Rev Tang’s view of “no perfect Bible today” must be rejected completely because it stumbles our faith and it is against the clear teaching of God’s perfect Word.
5. Rev Tang’s misquotes of Dr Tow’s writing (Rev Tang’s point 5) – That Rev Tang would quote Dr Tow’s writing out of context to support his case is most demeaning. Dr Tow’s statements were made at the inception of the attack on the perfect Bible, to express our church’s stand on the exclusive use of the KJV. The doctrine of VPP was the defense against this new and latest attack on God’s perfect Word. At that time the Calvary churches including Calvary Jurong had not made a definitive stand on the doctrine of VPP. Dr Tow’s statements were written to calm the waters so that members who were not taught yet would not be confused by the rumours that were so rampant at that time. Dr Tow’s statements were written to calm the members so that they might be taught the doctrine of VPP which has succeeded very well within the Pandan English congregation. For Rev Tang to use the writings of Dr Tow in this bad light is underhanded. Even if Rev Tang is right to say that Dr Tow had written them according to Rev Tang’s interpretation, is Dr Tow not entitled to change his mind? The only person who never changes his mind is God who is perfect and immutable. It is what Dr Tow stands for today on the same issue that matters, not what he had written in the past.
6. Article 4.2.1 (Rev Tang’s point 6) – Article 4.2.1 states -- “We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and, as the Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life.”
This article teaches the doctrine of inspiration explicitly and the doctrine of preservation implicitly [note-“their consequent inerrancy and infallibility”). We cannot have a teaching that God has inspired a perfect Bible in the past from a present Bible with mistakes. A corrupt tree cannot give us good fruit. Jesus says in Matthew 7:17-18 , “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) is dependent on the doctrine of verbal plenary preservation (VPP). Without one we cannot have the other.
7. The four documents distributed by Rev Tang (Rev Tang’s point 7 & 8) -- To demonstrate that Rev Tang and the Mandarin Session have truly fallen into the ecumenical snare as Dr Tow had written in the weekly dated 16th December 2007, we shall examine the four papers that Rev Tang and Mandarin session had distributed to the Mandarin Congregation. They have been asked by Dr Tow and the BOE to withdraw the four papers and stand with Dr Tow and the BOE on the doctrine of VPP but they have adamantly refused.
Paper # 1 by Rev Tan Eng Boo “The Perfect Bible or The Perfect Translation” -- Rev Tan Eng Boo was an FEBC graduate and is the pastor of Grace BPC. Rev Tan Eng Boo wrote his paper to explain to his congregation why he rejects the KJV and replaced it with the New KJV. In his paper Rev Tan Eng Boo attacks the KJV and at the same time promotes modern versions. Quoting Rev Tan Eng Boo, “There are many good Bible versions today, like the New King James Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), etc. . . . . The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in the days of the dark ages refused to let their church members read the Bible in other languages except in Latin (Vulgate Bible). This is similar with what is happening in Christendom today with the KJV-only proponents. . . . My greatest fear for such people is that they will become a KJV-only cult.” [emphasis added]
On one hand Rev Tang says that he supports the KJV, calling it God’s reliable Word, and in the same breath he undermines it by distributing this paper by Rev Tan Eng Boo who ridicules the KJV, our church’s stand on the KJV-only, promotes the modern versions and even compares us to the Roman Catholic Church, implying that we might become a cult!
Paper # 2 by 11 B-P ministers “A Statement on the Theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation” – This document caricatures the doctrine of VPP as “exact replica” which implies written in the handwriting of the prophets and apostles. After they have done that, then they say they reject this doctrine of VPP. What the 11 B-P ministers have caricatured is NOT the doctrine of VPP that we teach in Calvary Pandan! For Rev Tang to distribute this paper by the 11 B-P ministers, is to mislead us and it is most unkind and unbecoming of a pastor. I have checked and confirm that Rev Tan Eng Boo uses the New KJV.
Paper # 3 by the Singapore Council of Christian Churches (SCCC) – One of the reasons Calvary Pandan did not want to have anything to do with the Singapore Council of Christian Churches is because Rev Dr Quek Swee Hwa has in his Bible College (called Biblical Graduate School of Theology) faculty members who graduated from Fuller Theological Seminary and also a faculty member from Fuller Theological Seminary teaching in his Bible College. This same faculty member also teaches in a Charismatic Bible College in Singapore. Dr Quek Swee Hwa is not practising the doctrine of biblical separation. Furthermore Zion B-P Church, of which Dr Quek Swee Hwa is the senior pastor has just employed Rev David Wong, former pastor of Mount Carmel B-P Church and graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary, who had been teaching in Haggai Institute as their pastor. Haggai Institute has Roman Catholic teachers in their faculty.
This SCCC paper also caricatures the doctrine of VPP like the previous paper signed by the 11 pastors. They also describe it as an exact replica. This paper also explicitly states that the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV is translated from have mistakes. This is to attack the foundation of the KJV.
For Rev Tang to use a paper from such a compromising body to support his view against the doctrine of VPP is unconscionable. On the one hand Rev Tang says that the KJV is God’s reliable Word and then in the next breath he says that the foundation of the KJV has mistakes! Is this not double talk? How can a pastor speak like this?
Paper # 4 by Rev Tang “An Explanation concerning Calvary Pandan Mandarin Congregation’s not supporting the stand on VPP” (dated 8th July 2007) –
· Rev Tang wrote in the paper, “We believe the King James Version is the most faithful version in the English Language. (i) We believe the KJV has been translated by a group of Spirit-filled translators, using the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in their translation, and it’s the most complete and closest to the original languages. (ii) We can trust and depend on the KJV, because all the doctrines, miracles, prophesies, historical facts, geographical and scientific facts to be accurate and without mistake, moreover, all the promises given by God to his people are trustworthy and reliable. (iii) We can with full confidence and without doubt preach, teach, study and believe the contents of the KJV.” [Emphasis added]
CRITIQUE – There is a problem with Rev Tang’s words and actions. They contradict one another. He says here that the KJV is “accurate and without mistakes” and then he distributes the above papers # 1, 2 and 3 which say that the KJV has mistakes and the Greek and Hebrew Texts from which the KJV is translated have mistakes! This does not make any sense at all. How can the KJV be without mistakes when the Bible from which the KJV is translated from has mistakes? “A corrupt tree can give me good fruit” is what Rev Tang is claiming! How can that be! Surely our Lord Jesus cannot be wrong. Jesus says in Matthew 7:17-18 , “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
· Rev Tang also wrote, “We believe that God has divinely preserved his Word, and through the ages God has through the writing of many apograph to preserve his Word, such that it is pure and reliable.”
CRITIQUE -- Now if God has divinely preserved His Word as Rev Tang says here, then all the inspired words have to be preserved perfectly right? God cannot make mistakes! This means that Rev Tang also believes in the doctrine of VPP! If this is true, then why did he send the above 3 papers denying VPP? This is most confusing! It appears that Rev Tang’s right hand does not know what his left hand is doing. It is most puzzling.
I would also like to ask Rev Tang which Bible verse or verses he would cite as the basis for his claim that “God has divinely preserved his Word through the ages”. This is most important because Calvary Pandan believes in Sola Scriptura, only the Bible.
· Rev Tang said that the doctrine of VPP is a theory and that the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the KJV have mistakes. Then in the conclusion of his paper Rev Tang quotes, " 2 Timothy 2:23-25 ‘But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strife. And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle, unto all men "
CRITIQUE – If Rev Tang says that the Greek texts underlying the KJV have mistakes, may I know from Rev Tang if there are mistakes in 2 Timothy 2:23-25 or are the verses perfect? If not perfect, how does he know since he has not seen the original, what authority is left in a imperfect Bible? If he says yes the verses are perfect, then how does he know since he has again not seen the original? THAT IS WHY THE REJECTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF VPP IS A DEADLY ATTACK ON EVERY DOCTRINE OF THE BIBLE!
· Rev Tang repeatedly calls the doctrine of VPP a new theory.
CRITIQUE – How can this be a new doctrine when it is taught clearly in Holy Scriptures? In fact it is Rev Tang’s view “that the Bible has mistakes,” that is a theory because he has not cited ONE Bible verse to support his case.
God Himself testified and said in Psalm 19:7 , “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” Psalm 12:6-7 , “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Deuteronomy 8:3 , “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.” Proverbs 30:5 , “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.”
The doctrine of VPP is as old as the Bible itself which is more than 3,400 years old. For example, the moment the Pentateuch was inspired by God through Moses, preservation began. That is why today we have in our hands Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy perfectly preserved by God for us. Rev Tang’s suggests to “find” the Bible by using textual criticism which originated in the late 19th Century by German rationalists who rejected inspiration and the perfect Bible. Rev Tang’s proposal is to use textual criticism which is slightly over 100 years old whereas the doctrine of preservation is over 3,400 years old. Which one is the “new” doctrine and which one is the new “theory”?
Conclusion– Rev Tang and the Mandarin Session members who stand with Rev Tang have indeed fallen into the ecumenical snare! They have taken the side of those who attack Calvary Pandan’s stand on the perfect Bible and our exclusive use of the KJV.
8. Rev Tang asking Dr Tow to leave the church if Dr Tow continues to teach the doctrine of VPP (Rev Tang’s point 9) – Rev Tang’s paper is crystal clear. It was not taken out of context at all as Rev Tang claimed. He said that those who teach the doctrine of VPP should leave the church and follow in the footsteps of Truth and True Life B-P Churches. He hides behind the congregation by getting the people to do it!
How dare Rev Tang even suggest to the founding father who is Dr Tow to get out of the church following in the footsteps of True Life BPC and Truth BPC? Rev Tang’s suggestion is like an ungrateful son who now thinks he is better than his own father and wants to kick his own father out of his house after having been brought up by the father! Dr Tow is the LORD’s anointed whom God used to found the Calvary group of churches, not Rev Tang.
Dear Reader, if Rev Tang disagrees with Dr Tow, would not the honourable thing for Rev Tang to do be to leave? He suggested that the footsteps of Truth BPC be followed. Truth BPC came out when Rev James Chan openly taught that Calvary Jurong rejects the doctrine of VPP, which means that Calvary Jurong believes the KJV has mistakes. The members of Truth BPC kept their membership vow and as Christians behaved honourably and did not ask Rev James Chan to leave the church. They left quietly and founded Truth BPC. If Rev Tang disagrees with Dr Tow, the founding pastor of Calvary Pandan and the Lord’s anointed, why then does he not follow in the footsteps of Truth BPC? Instead he suggested that Dr Tow leave!
How dare he suggest that the steps of True Life BPC be followed? Did he not know that Rev Timothy Tow, who is the LORD’s anointed in the founding of the B-P movement and Life BPC, was harassed into resigning from his own ministry of more than 50 years and he then had to start a new church at the age of 83? Is Rev Tang suggesting that his congregation do the same and take this rebellious path? How can you stand before God and sleep at night and look at your own children and tell them about the love and truth of God if you were to do what Rev Tang has suggested . . . to kick out Dr Tow, your own spiritual father and the Lord’s anointed.
Dear Readers, decide for yourself what you think is the honourable thing for Rev Tang to do – don’t you think that the honourable thing to do is, if you disagree with the founding father, to leave quietly and found your own church and teach the doctrine of no VPP i.e. all the Bibles today have mistakes?
Exodus 20:12 , “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
9. Rev Tang wrote that the Church may lose its witness (Rev Tang’s point 10) – The witness of Calvary Pandan is not sentimentalism. It is never peace at any cost including destroying our own Bible. To defend God’s perfect Word is to maintain our witness. We have no witness if we do not have a perfect Bible in our hands. If we do what Rev Tang suggests and DO NOT defend God’s perfect Word we have no witness at all. Our witness is the perfect Word of God.
How can Rev Tang even suggest that he “was not trying to raise any conflict with the BOE or appear unreasonable” when he distributed his 4 papers attacking the KJV and the foundation of the KJV and the very Bible itself saying that it has mistakes. To add salt to open wounds he has the audacity to demand that those who teach the doctrine of VPP i.e. we have a perfect Bible in our hands, leave Calvary Pandan, knowing full well that Dr Tow believes and teaches it!
10. My sincere appeal to Rev Tang, and every member, is that we obey the truth of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures. Like all our doctrines in the Bible it is by FAITH that we believe in the doctrine of VPP. There is no other way outside of faith. Hebrews 11:6 , “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
The implications of rejecting the doctrine of VPP are frightening for they include: Sunday School teachers telling our children that the Bible they are learning from has mistakes! Our BBK notes will have to teach that the Bible we believe in has mistakes! When you preach the gospel to sinners you will have to tell them that the gospel which you preach is taken from a Bible with mistakes! Every time you read the Bible you will begin to doubt and ask yourself whether the passage you are reading or verse you are memorizing has mistakes! The list goes on and on! Soon you will surrender your faith! Survey Christendom today and you will find a graveyard of dead Seminaries and Bible Colleges and churches whose demise began first with a dilution of God’s Word. The greatest dilution you can have of God’s Word is that the Bible you hold in your hands has mistakes! THIS IS A DEADLY LIE of Satan - DO NOT BELIEVE IT! YOUR SOUL AND THE SOULS OF YOUR CHILDREN ARE AT STAKE. Remember what the serpent said to Eve at the Garden of Eden . . .”Yea hath God said? . . “ (Genesis 3:1 )
Rev Tang might be speaking in love as he says but when it is not in truth sincerity alone is not enough because he is sincerely wrong as the above reply to Rev Tang’s paper has shown very clearly.
May God grant to all of us the eyes to see and the heart to do what is right for the battle of the Bible in these last days of compromise and deception. Stand on the side of the LORD and defend the inerrant and infallible and divinely inspired and preserved Word of God. Without His perfect Word with us we perish!
May God have mercy on us all in these last days of compromise and deception.
Sincerely yours in Christ’s service and for the defense of God’s perfect Word,
Rev Dr Quek Suan Yew
Pastor of Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church