Bible Presbyterian churches (Singapore)

History

The BPC was founded in 1955 by Timothy Tow. Tow had been influenced first by John Sung, and later by Carl McIntire. He was strongly opposed to liberal theology and ecumenism, and the Chinese Presbyterian Synod was connected to the World Council of Churches. A conflict ensued, and a number of churches left the Synod. Tow had been the pastor of the Life Church English Service at Prinsep Street Presbyterian Church, and left to form Life Bible-Presbyterian Church ("Life B-P Church").

In 1988, after experiencing a period of significant dissension, the Synod of the BPC voted to dissolve itself. According to Roland Chia, it was "mainly due to strong differences in interpreting the Doctrine of Biblical Separation, Fundamentalism, and Neo-Evangelicalism"– as in the statement issued by the BPC on 30 October 1988 describing the dissolution.

Fundamentalist and Evangelical

The B-P churches are essentially divided into two factions. One group of churches subscribes to the fundamentalist stance of the founders; the other considers itself to be evangelical. This latter group of churches is denounced by the former to be "neo-evangelical" or "liberal", and are often called "the new B-Ps" because of a different interpretation on the doctrine of "Biblical Separation". The evangelical branch of B-P churches embraces the fellowship of any church and seminary that professes evangelical Protestant Christianity and extends cooperation with para-church organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ International. Thus, many aspiring ministers prefer an evangelical seminary (such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Temple Baptist Seminary, Singapore Bible College, Trinity Theological College, Singapore or University of Nottingham) over the B-P's own seminary, Far Eastern Bible College ("FEBC"), which is fundamentalist.

Genesis of Debate

In the early 2000s, following the publication of Jeffrey Khoo’s Kept Pure In All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the Doctrine of Providential Preservation, there was a debate in the denomination over Verbal Plenary Preservation ("VPP"), which argues that the bible is 100% preserved to “jot and tittle” perfection based on Jesus’ promise that “[t]ill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18, the proof text cited by the Westminster divines to support the doctrine of the divine preservation of God’s Word in Chapter 1, Article 8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Another book, One Bible Only? – Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, General Editors)” was promoted by Lim Teck Chye among leaders in Life B-P Church and culminated in him distributing a paper entitled “Preserving Our Godly Path” (endorsed by 21 leaders) when he spoke at the Adult Sunday School on 1 December 2002. The copy of this paper currently on Life B-P Church’s website is undated, and the copy accessed by Khoo on 1 June 2006 had been amended from the original which was first distributed to the church’s Sunday School on 1 December 2002 when Tow, who did not endorse the paper, was still the pastor of the church. Khoo, who was in attendance at the Sunday School on 1 December 2002, raised his hand to clarify matters at the end of Lim’s speech but was not given a chance to respond; however, Khoo published in January 2003 in The Burning Bush (Vol 9 No 1) his article “A Plea for a Perfect Bible,” first presented on 3 October 2002 at his Soteriology Class at the FEBC.

New Division

The fundamentalist faction supported VPP and, from there, claimed that the Greek Textus Receptus ("TR")/Majority Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text underlying the King James Bible were the supernaturally, perfectly preserved texts since they were made available throughout church history without corruption, unlike the older texts underlying the modern versions. They point out how God would preserve his truth throughout all ages without needing his followers to excavate for them and thus, the Byzantine Text and the Masoretic Text which were made available to Christians throughout church history were to be favoured.

On the other hand, the evangelical camp denounced VPP and felt that in reinforcing KJV-Onlyism, it is unscriptural. The camp views VPP proponents as erroneously combining the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture and divine preservation of only one particular type of text. The fundamentalist's conclusion is that all New Testament and Old Testament manuscripts are corrupted, except for the perfectly preserved text that underlies the KJV. But the accuracy over the TR underlying the KJV is doubted, since there are close to 2,000 areas whereby Erasmus's TR differs from the Majority Text (the text which he compiled from) and 52 variations have been found within just two verses within the Majority Text. Therefore, the Evangelicals conclude that the TR is seen to be not the perfect copy of the original autograph.

Misconception and Clarification

The fundamentalist camp did not err, as viewed by the evangelical camp, as they believe that God has preserved His inspired words in the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority Text. However, as this has more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, they do not deny that God allowed copyist errors or variations to enter into the transmission process through the pen of fallible scribes. They also believe that God’s providential hand kept the inspired words of Scripture from being lost or corrupted so that in the fullness of time – in the most opportune of time of the Reformation when the true church separated from the false, when the study of the original languages was emphasized, and the printing press invented (which meant that no longer would there be any need to handcopy the Scriptures thereby ensuring a uniform text) – God restored from out of a pure stream of preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the purest Hebrew and Greek Text of all—the Text that underlies the KJV—that accurately reflects the original Scriptures.

Why the TR Underlying the KJV?

Although there were other TRs – which were also compiled from manuscripts in the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority Text and from which were translated other excellent Bibles such as Luther’s German Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera, the Polish Biblia Gdanska and the French Martin Bible – the TR underlying the KJV was a corporate effort of 57 of the most outstanding biblical-theological, and more importantly, Bible-believing scholars of their day. Consistent with Prov 11:14 that “in a multitude of counsellors there is safety,” the KJV translators – who had all the various editions of the TR to refer to – were providentially guided by the Holy Spirit to make the right textual decisions. No one should play textual critic and be a judge of God’s Word today as God is His own Textual Critic (“Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4)).

On the issue of why the TR underlying the KJV – and not Luther’s German Bible, or the Spanish Reina Valera, or the Polish Biblia Gdanska, or the French Martin Bible, or some other language Bible – is chosen (while VPP proponents do not deny such Bibles to be faithful and reliable versions that are accurately translated and based on the TR), God’s stamp of approval is clear from the fruits (Matthew 7:17-20). Helped along by the course of history (under the control of God) which has made English a worldwide language used by at least 300 million people who have English as their native tongue and by many more millions whose second language is English, the KJV is known the world over and more widely read than any other translation of the holy scriptures and it has been used by many missionaries (not proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) as a basis and guide for their own translation work into other foreign languages to reach converts who know no English.

On the evangelical camp’s objection that there is no Scripture verse pointing to the Greek Text underlying the KJV being an exact copy of the original Scriptures, VPP proponents can point them to the canonisation of Scriptures (which consist of 66 books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament)) at the Council of Carthage in AD 397 being also not supported by any Scripture verse.

What is the TR Underlying the KJV?

The TR underlying the KJV is not completely Erasmus’s, Stephen’s, or Beza’s but a new edition of the TR, which is purest and reflects the textual decisions of the KJV translators as they prayerfully studied and compared the manuscripts in the preserved Traditional/Byzantine/Majority Text before them. And according to the Trinitarian Bible Society, “The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the English Authorised Version of 1611. … The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza’s 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version,’ edited by F H A Scrivener.”

Started by Zion-Carmel faction

With the denomination divided following the dissolution of the Synod in 1988 and the VPP issue in 2002/2003, Tan Eng Boo in “A Very Sad State of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore Today” posed the question, “Who is the original B-P Church?” and followed up immediately with another, “Are we not the ones?” Tan’s 2009 article, which first appeared in the weekly of his church Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church (“Grace B-P Church”), was posted on a blogspot http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg that was started in 2008 but removed in November 2016. The blogspot resurfaced in January 2017 with a new name “febcbpc.blogspot.com” and a seemingly deceptive title/header “Far Eastern Bible College” (previously “Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) and Bible-Presbyterian Churches”) as it has many articles, including Tan’s 2009 article, critical of FEBC re-posted on the new blogspot. Regardless of whether Tan’s article remains or disappears (again), the questions posed by him on the B-P Church remain pertinent.

Tan attended the 3rd annual retreat of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore (“BPICS”) on 11–12 July 2016. Although his church Grace B-P Church is not yet a member of the BPCIS, he spoke and lamented about churches in the old BPC (Synod), which dissolved in 1988, “fighting over demon-possession, bible versions, charismatic issues, and the use of instruments for worship” all of which he considered to be non-essentials.

The BPCIS was started by the Zion-Carmel faction whose stand of "tongues being ecstatic utterances which have not ceased" was one of the issues which had caused the dissolution of the B-P Synod in 1988.

New B-P Presbytery

Inaugurated in September 2011 but yet to be legally constituted or registered (as of 12 June 2016), the BPCIS sees itself as the B-P Presbytery although it currently has only six B-P churches (Zion-Serangoon, Zion-Bishan, Emmanuel, Herald, Mount Carmel and Mount Hermon) as members but Life B-P Church, the first B-P church, is not one of them. Life B-P Church also did not send any participant to the third annual retreat of the BPCIS which had participants from seven other B-P churches (Sembawang, Grace, Shalom, Galilee, Hebron, Moriah and Mount Horeb), besides those from the six members.

Bible Version Non-essential in BPCIS

Churches in the BPCIS take the view that their “belief in the infallibility/inerrancy of the Bible in its original autograph is an essential doctrine which is non-negotiable” but “the choice of Bible version is a non-essential.”

If the BPCIS proceeds to register itself with a constitution based on the understanding at its third annual retreat, it will not be like the original BPC founded by the late Tow (as founding pastor) whose younger brother Siang Hwa, a stalwart of the BPC, wrote in 2006: “From the day of its founding in 1950 [when the Church started as the English service of Life Church before becoming Life B-P Church in January 1955], the King James Bible (KJB) has been our Bible, the one Bible which we held to be the Word of God. To me, this was a crucial issue, to be able to substantiate our Doctrine (Constitution 4.2.1) that "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," with a tangible BOOK.”

Non-VPP Stand

Despite breaking ranks with Tow, the leaders of Life B-P Church claimed to be preserving the original B-P Church’s godly path when they issued on 1 December 2002 a paper entitled “Preserving Our Godly Path.” Not approved by Tow, as mentioned in “Genesis of Debate” above, the paper also did not have the approval of the then Board of Elders (“BoE”) which needed to act by consensus, as six VPP elders did not assent to the paper. The two then Assistant Pastors, Charles Seet and Colin Wong, had the support of four elders only in the BoE for the paper.

Seet, Wong and the four elders went on to issue a VPP-like statement entitled “Our Statement of Faith on the Preservation of God’s Word” (the “Statement”) at the Annual Congregational Meeting (“ACM”) of Life B-P Church held on 25 April 2004 to help them in their bid to oust the six VPP elders as the congregation was asked to unconstitutionally vote en bloc (without the constitution providing for such voting) which group of elders should rule the church before their 3-year term of office expired at the next ACM in April 2005. The current version of the Statement on Life B-P Church’s website is dated as of 8 November 2005 when the names of three deacons elected to eldership at the ACM in April 2005 were added as signatories.

Jack Sin Joins the Debate

Claim to be biblical and objective

Sin joined the debate with his article entitled “A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity and Clarity in the Textual Debate,” a copy of which is posted on Life B-P Church’s website under “Our Stand.” Although not dated, the article was written in or after 2007 as it made reference to the 2007 Membership Handbook of Maranatha Bible-Presbyterian Church (“Maranatha B-P Church”) on page 1.

Sin began his article by stating on page 1 that “[a]n objective and biblical appraisal of the debate is warranted for a time such as this.” However, Biak Lawm Thang, in “A Review of Jack Sin’s Article, “A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity and Clarity in the Textual Debate”” in the July 2008 issue of The Burning Bush, concluded that “[n]either was [Sin] fair in his quotation of the works of others nor unbiased in his presentation of the opposing view” and “[h]is appraisal which is destitute of biblical proof, citing only human authorities with partial quotations, cannot be considered “biblical,” or “objective” or “honest.””.

Use of bible verses

Sin states on page 4 of his article that “the frequent quoting of the scripture verses like Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Psalm 19:7; 1 Corinthians 13:8, Isaiah 40:8 and Psalm 119:89 [by FEBC] do not support the VPP teaching of a perfect TR of 1611.” But these verses were never used by FEBC, where Sin had served as a faculty member until 2007, or VPP proponents to identify the TR of 1611 but only used as a prelude or a foundational argument against VPP opponents who do not believe that God’s words have been fully preserved before they are pointed to “the common faith” or “the logic of faith” that the perfectly preserved words are found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text underlying the English KJV (see “Preserved words – which and where?” below).

While Sin decried that the verses quoted by VPP proponents do not support a perfect TR of 1611, Sin himself was guilty of using (on page 3 of his article) two of the verses – Isaiah 40:8 and Psalm 119:89 – to support his church’s belief that God’s words are fully preserved “in the body of the Byzantine or Traditional complete family of texts (as opposed to the inferior Alexandrian text type)” even though these two verses also do not identify the “Byzantine or Traditional complete family of texts.”

Preserved words – which and where?

Biak observes that Sin believes the Byzantine family of manuscripts, not the Alexandrian family, preserves the words of God, but when it comes to the Greek printed texts that represent those over 5,000 manuscripts, Sin’s commitment to “honesty” made him unable to know or identify the inspired and preserved words in the various editions of the TR and, at this point, he disagrees with Edward F Hills whom he appears to follow since he quotes him frequently as an authority; but Hills had no problem identifying the Greek Text of the KJV to be God’s approved Text, and a portion from Hills – which Sin failed to quote but should have done so in the quest for “honesty” in biblical scholarship – reads:

But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely the King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version (italics added by Biak).

Biak also writes that it is a fact, admitted by VPPists, that there exists variant readings in the Greek manuscripts that number over 5,000 and that even in the TR editions there are a few minor differences but despite this, Hills (and others as well) does recognise the existence of those variants and the difficulty in making a textual decision in certain cases but yet does not stop there, for a specific identification of the text is necessary if every word of God is to be authoritative, and he did identify the KJV Greek Text to be the God-approved Text as the above quotation from Hills shows.

For practical purposes, others like the TBS, which has been quoted by Sin as another authority, also uses the KJV Greek Text as edited by Scrivener.

Although VPP is a new term or acronym (just like VPI [Verbal Plenary Inspiration]), what the VPPists believe is no different. The VPPists believe that out of the several editions of the TR, the TR underlying the KJV is the best and purest for it perfectly preserves all the words of God originally given by divine inspiration so that holding the TR of the KJV in our hands, we can say without apology, “This is the very Word of God.” (The issue or debate is not about translations, but the Bible in the original languages.) Such a Bible position means that there is no need for the Bible scholar to practise textual criticism. The Bible scholar or student can confidently use and devote his time to the sincere exposition of the truth of God’s words, not doubting the text at all. Hills, to Biak, is thus an “honest” textual scholar, for though he recognises the difficulty in the textual issue, he calls on Christians to be guided by “the logic of faith” to identify specifically the Greek Text of the KJV to be the God-approved Text in the light of God’s special providence. “Honesty” in the textual debate should not fail to mention Hills’s precise identification of the providentially preserved and authentic Text to be the Greek Text of the KJV.

Sin’s criticism of Scrivener’s TR

Sin was apparently economical with facts in stating (with emphasis), on page 2 of his article regarding Scrivener’s TR, “In some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it follows exactly the Latin Vulgate,” but omitting Scrivener on page 656 of The New Testament in Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (cited in his footnote) saying, “The text of Beza 1598 has been left unchanged when the variation from it made in the Authorised Version is not countenanced by any earlier edition of the Greek.” In not back-translating to Greek from the Latin Vulgate in the few places where the KJV seems to follow closely the Vulgate, Scrivener preserved the integrity of The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version Greek Text underlying the 1611 Authorized Version.

Sin appears to take issue here despite writing on page 5 of his article, “No translation of one language to another will ever be perfect, regardless how learned the translators were or how superior the underlying texts or techniques may be …” And VPPists do not take a different view that a translation, including the KJV, can be perfect. The original language Scripture (apographs or apograph), from which the 1611 KJV was translated, is regarded by them as the perfect platinum yardstick of the Smithsonian Institution, inerrant, infallible, authoritative while the KJV and other accurate and reliable translations are like the common yardstick, though not 100% are good and safe enough for use.

Attempt to associate with McIntire

Probably conscious of the need to associate with McIntire for credibility or legitimacy reason, Sin indicated on page 1 of his article that he had confirmed the fact of the place of founding of the Bible Presbyterian movement in the U.S. personally with McIntire. However, Sin omitted mentioning the relevant and more important fact (since the article is about the text issue) that McIntire had in 1992 preached a sermon entitled “Help, Lord!”, from Psalm 12, saying that verses 6-7 in the Psalm and the WCF (Article VIII of Chapter 1) refer to God preserving His words – which is the same view as FEBC but a different view from that of Life B-P Church – and the relevant part of the transcript is as follows:

“Now come verse 6, ‘The words of the LORD are pure words,’ not one of them is mistaken, ‘as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times.’ All the dregs are out. Here is a marvelous affirmation and vindication that God’s Word is perfect. … Now, ‘The words of the LORD are pure words.’ And then verse 7, how I love this: ‘Thou shalt keep them O LORD,’ that is, keep His words; ‘thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.’ No matter what happens, one generation come and another passes away, God is going to preserve His words … from one generation to another. The words of God will be preserved throughout all the generations. Now I am very happy that in the great Confessions of the Christian world, our Confession—the Westminster Confession—has its Chapter 1 on the Word of God. … Now the Lord says, "I am going to keep my Word—it is like silver that has been tried. I am going to keep that to all generations, all generations. That means that no matter what the conditions are, God is going to have on this earth some churches and some pastors until the last generation were taken away who will maintain this Word like we are doing here and like we are seeking to do throughout the whole Christian world.”

Sin also omitted mentioning that the International Council of Christian Churches (“ICCC”), whilst under the leadership of McIntire, passed an excellent resolution at Amsterdam in 1998 “[urging] all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use only the Authorized KING JAMES VERSION in their services and in their teaching ministry” and another one at Jerusalem in 2000 affirming the council’s belief that the King James Version in English has been faithfully translated from the God-preserved Masoretic text for the O.T. and the Textus Receptus for the N.T., which texts combined gave the complete Word of God, the Holy Scripture, the originals fully inspired and without errors preserved in all ages for all eternity as the Westminster Confession of Faith standard says – “the O.T. in Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek … being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are therefore authentical ….” Both resolutions are in agreement with VPP.

As seen in the ICCC resolutions above, Sin also parted with McIntire on where exactly all the words of the original Scriptures are divinely preserved, which are the Masoretic Text for the O.T. and the TR for the N.T. underlying the KJV for McIntire, as Sin takes the view on page 5 of his article that “the very words of God in scripture are preserved perpetually altogether but NOT necessarily in the TR that undergird the KJV.” Sin goes on to say or imply that there is a necessity to go on a hunt for the perfect TR underlying the KJV of 1611 today when it has already been identified by VPP/TR proponents who take the view that all the preserved words of God are in the TR rather than in the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts in the larger Traditional/Majority/Byzantine Text of which the TR is a subset, as Sin himself calls it.

Quek Suan Yew says that those who cry, “The Word of God is somewhere out there in the 5,000 plus manuscripts but we don’t know precisely where" are deceiving themselves and others with their double talk or doublespeak.

On certain Christian bodies and words

Sin mentioned on pages 4 and 5 of his article reputable and sound Christian bodies like the WCF (he probably meant Westminster Assembly or the Westminster divines), ICCC and TBS not using “perfect” to describe the TR. However, he was silent on whether they had used “imperfect.” Sin apparently views such words “superior,” “best,” trustworthy,” “accurate,” “faithful,” “reliable,” “kept pure” and “closest to the originals” describe the TR as imperfect. Again, it may not be necessarily so since a perfect TR can also be superior, best, trustworthy, accurate, faithful, reliable, kept pure or closest to the originals.

Khoo explained that The Dean Burgon Society’s statement declaring the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible must be understood in the context of the battle against Westcott and Hort who had puffed up their cut-up Greek text, based on the corrupt 4th century Alexandrian manuscripts, as being closest to the original so that the use of the term “closest to the original” was to correct and counteract Westcott and Hort’s view on the identity of the true text; the term “closest” also distinguishes between the autographa (past and “lost”) and the apographa (present and existing), both with the same contents but they are distinct; and the word “closest” should be interpreted to mean “purest” as D A Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, understands the statement to mean “that the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible are the very words which God has preserved down through the centuries, being the exact words of the originals themselves.”

Westminster divines and ICCC

No evidence was provided by Sin on the Westminster divines (or the WCF) or the ICCC supporting him in his contention of their use only of certain words although the ICCC after McIntire’s death (in 2002) has changed since the Singapore Council of Christian Churches (“SCCC”) – dominated by leaders of Zion Bible-Presbyterian Church which use the ESV in their weeklies and worship services – has been allowed to pass resolutions contrary to those passed in 1998 at Amsterdam and 2000 at Jerusalem (see “Attempt to associate with McIntire” above). Both the 1998 and 2000 resolutions of the ICCC are not on the website of the ICCC even though the SCCC resolution passed in October 2005 on Inspiration and Translations of the Holy Scriptures on the ICCC website makes specific reference to the 2000 ICCC resolution which the SCCC resolution contradicts.

With regard to the WCF or the Westminster divines, Sin omitted mentioning that the divines had quoted Matthew 5:18 as the proof text for the special providential preservation of God’s Word in Article VIII, Chapter 1 of the WCF (see “Genesis of Debate” above).

TBS

On the TBS, Sin quoted from a 1997 publication although it can also be said, like in “On certain Christian bodies and words” above, that such cited words or phrases like “the most reliable form of the text of the Old Testament” and “a faithful representation of the text which the church in different parts of the world had used for centuries” do not necessarily mean that the texts are imperfect (i.e. they contain mistakes or are not inerrant).

As Sin’s article was written in 2007 or 2008, "The Trinitarian Bible Society Statement of Doctrine of the Holy Scripture," approved by the General Committee at its meeting held on 17 January 2005 and revised on 25th February 2005, had before 2007 declared that “the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts are the texts that the Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society acknowledges to have been preserved by the special providence of God within Judaism and Christianity. Therefore these texts are definitive and the final point of reference in all the Society’s work … [as] they reflect the qualities of God-breathed Scripture, including being authentic, holy, pure, true, infallible, trustworthy, excellent, self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous, self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant' (Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm 119) … and are consequently to be received as the Word of God (Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the correct reading at any point is to be sought within these texts.” (Note that the TBS did use “pure” which Sin did not think “kept pure” meant perfect; it also used “authentic,” “true,” “infallible” and “inerrant” – italics and/or bold added for emphasis). Biak remarks that the TBS statement is a fine one and it does not contradict the VPP position. And to insinuate otherwise would suggest a lack of “honesty” and a failure to be “objective.”

Regarding the issuance of the 2005 Statement on the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture, D P Rowland, the General Secretary of TBS wrote in the Society’s Quarterly Record (April–June 2005), “Today, as has been stated, things are very different. The doctrine of Scripture has been, and is being, assailed on every side; not least from within many branches (including those taking the name of ‘evangelical’ and ‘reformed’ and may I add ‘fundamentalist’) of the so-called ‘Christian Church’ of our day. The Committee, therefore, considers it necessary for the Society clearly and unambiguously to state where it stands on this most fundamental of all doctrines” – words in italics added by Khoo

Pensacola Christian College (“PCC”)

On PCC, Sin asserted what Dell Johnson would not say although the Bible teaches that only God is omniscient or has infinite knowledge (Psalm 147:5) and knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 48:5). Even if Johnson has not used the word “perfect” for the TR, it does not mean he will never use it in his lifetime, which has yet to end. While Sin thinks that Johnson would not use the word “perfect,” but “best” or “superior” or “God’s providentially preserved text” to describe the TR, all these words do not necessarily mean that the TR is “imperfect” or “not inerrant” although it may be so since all editions of the TR are not exactly alike, with their slight variations, as pointed out above. However, the TR underlying the KJV of 1611 is a new edition.(See "What is the TR Underlying the KJV" above.)

Sin, in his testimony entitled “The Transformation of a Life in God’s Own Time” published on 1 December 2010 (as printed on the website of Covenant Bible-Presbyterian Church of India (“Covenant B-P Church”)) but written between April 2005 (when the defence of his DMin dissertation was accepted by Pensacola Theological Seminary (“PCT”)) and the beginning of 2007 (when he was still teaching in FEBC), said: “In PCT, I was convicted of the doctrine of the providential and perpetual preservation of God’s holy Word (1 Pet 1:22-25, Matt 5:18, Ps 119:89, Isa 40:8, Psa 12:6,7).” (Added bold to two of the verses referred to in the following sentences) Despite this, Sin did not point out in his article “A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity and Clarity in the Textual Debate” that Life B-P Church had in their article “Preserving Our Godly Path” erred in their interpretation of Matt 5:18 as not referring to the perfect preservation of God’s Word even though he had indicated that it could also be interpreted thus. Sin also kept mum about Psalm 12:6-7 shaping his conviction on the perpetual preservation of God's Word.

(Sin is the Advisory Pastor of Covenant B-P Church as it is supported financially by Maranatha B-P Church where Sin is pastor. The ThD dissertation of George Skariah, the pastor of Covenant B-P Church, entitled “The Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of the Holy Scriptures” was completed at FEBC in 2005. Skariah’s dissertation was among the books recommended or suggested for reading on the textual issue in “PCC Update.” When FEBC won the appeal in Suit 648 (see below), Skariah wrote to Khoo (in 2011) thus: “Bessy and I rejoice with you and thank the Lord for the latest development at FEBC. Eld Boaz Boon visited us at Covenant on Tuesday (April 26), as he was in Bangalore for business, and shared with us about the court verdict. Yesterday I logged on to the internet and read the entire judgement. We are overwhelmed by this— the Truth of God shall forever stand, and no mortal being can ever prevail against it. All glory to God. We continue praying for you all.”)

Other Language Bible Translations

Non-English bibles

Sin devoted close to one page (at pages 5–6) writing on Other Language Bibles and Translations. But FEBC (as an English college) has no issue with non-English bibles and does not despise nor prohibit their use. And as it has students from many countries, it does not discourage them from reading their Bibles in their own native tongues – only advising them to use the best, most accurate, most reliable version they have in their native language, and to go back to the inspired and preserved original language Scriptures which FEBC identifies to be those behind the faithful KJV and not the corrupt modern versions to check for accuracy and fulness of meaning.

In addition, as FEBC subscribes to the WCF that the Holy Scriptures "are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come …,” a number of its degree graduates, after studying the original languages, completed thesis projects which involved work on their native language Bibles to make them closer and more accurate to the Reformation Text, and work (as of July 2006) was reported as done on the following foreign language Bibles: Chinese, Falam Chin (Myanmar), Bahasa Indonesia, Kiswahili (Kenya), Kalenjin (Kenya), and Vietnamese.

Untruth on KJV being perfect

There was also no issue with what constitutes a good translation (superior texts, translators, technique and theology) and the view that a translation is never absolutely or 100% perfect although opponents of VPP chose to deliberately misrepresent the VPP position. In putting forth a non-issue as if it was an issue, Sin could have led his readers to think that VPP is perfect KJV as some B-P ministers (see below) and the SCCC did.

In addition to Tan (Eng Boo), Philip Heng – who is more noted for casting out demons – also wrote about hearing in 2002 that VPP is perfect KJV, and the KJV is “100% perfect, equivalent or the replica of the original Word of God” but these were untruths propagated by VPP opponents against VPP proponents. Even if Life B-P Church were not the party conveying to Heng the untruths, his article of 26 April 2008 has been allowed to remain on their website to this day. Heng also wrote on Inspiration of the Bible and pointed to Proverbs 22:28 to “[r]emove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set.” But Tow, the founding pastor of Life B-P Church and the only theologian at the church’s founding, was for VPP. However, Heng could have been confused himself since he claimed to have not heard that “the Bible was inspired in any version or translation or manuscripts other than the original manuscripts” but Life B-P Church in “A Doctrinal Positional Statement of Life B-P Church” declare “the KJV Bible to be nothing less than God’s powerful inspired Word, just as any faithful translation of God’s Word into any language can also be presented as being His inspired word” as well as assert that “Paul [in 2 Timothy 3:15-17] refers to the Scriptures that Timothy had and calls them inspired despite the fact that he [Timothy] had only a copy.”Heng apparently could not grasp that the originally inspired words of God have been preserved by God’s special providential care in the apographs or copies, as taught in Article VIII, Chapter 1 of the WCF, and could be accurately translated into other languages.

Heng was a witness for Life B-P Church in Suit 648, which focussed on VPP being new, and Life B-P Church succeeded at first instance in the High Court as the learned Justice (now JA) Judith Prakash erroneously took a simplistic view of VPP being a change of doctrine before she was corrected and over-ruled by the three learned Judges of Appeal (Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and V. K. Rajah) – see Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others and paras 58-110 of the Judgement of the Court of Appeal [1] compared with paras 65 and 80 of the Judgement of the High Court.[2]

Sin silent on CUV text

Despite concern that translations should be based on reliable and faithful underlying texts, Sin was silent on the text of the Chinese Union Version (“CUV”), which is based on the English Revised Version manuscripts – the corrupt Alexandrian/Westcott-Hort/Minority/Critical Text criticised by John Burgon. Biak commented that Burgon had made many good points about the TR in opposition to the Alexandrian manuscripts but they were not made known by Sin to the readers. Sin avoids calling the Alexandrian Text “corrupt” as he uses “inferior.” Khoo in Questions and Answers on the KJV printed in 2003 had said that although the CUV was based on the Revised Version of Westcott and Hort, it did not slavishly follow it. And unlike the NIV which omits entire verses like Matt 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, all these verses are found in the CUV which, like the KJV, is a faithful translation that upholds the deity of Christ. Khoo notes that the CUV follows the KJV in 1 Tim 3:16 calling Jesus, “God,” in “God (Shen) was manifest in the flesh.” As such, the CUV is superior to the corrupt NIV and Khoo would have no problems holding up the CUV and say, “This is the Word of God” since the CUV is currently the best, most faithful, most reliable, and most accurate Bible for the Chinese-speaking people.”

It was unfortunate that emotions in the Chinese brethren were stirred up despite the assurance given in 2003 (see above) by Khoo who later reiterated in “The Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of Sacred Scriptures” a seventh tenet concerning the CUV (not translated from the TR) thus:

“The Chinese Union Version (CUV) is the “Word of God” for the Chinese people today since it is the best, most faithful, most reliable, and most accurate version among the Chinese versions presently available. Great care ought to be taken not to undermine our Chinese brethren’s confidence in the CUV. Nevertheless, versions or translations are never superior to the inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures; thus there is a need to consult these original language Scriptures for clarity and fulness of meaning, and to compare Scripture with Scripture.”

However, in doing so, Khoo met with criticism that “[o]ne cannot try to fit round nut to square hole; it does not work!” But Khoo's approach is no different from the TBS which reported on 27th March 2014 on "The Society's Chinese Revision project" thus:

"For a number of years the Society has been engaged in a much needed project to revise the Chinese Union Version. This widely-used edition of the Chinese Bible -- the best translation currently available in this language -- regrettably contains some Critical Text readings and also some significantly inaccurate renderings where the original Hebrew and Greek has either been misunderstood or mistranslated. For these reasons the Society is revising this Bible, believing it is of utmost importance to provide the more than one billion Mandarin Chinese speakers of the world with a faithful and accurate edition of the Scriptures."

Similar problem faced by Life B-P Church on CUV text

While Life B-P Church faced essentially a similar problem since they apparently took the position that all the preserved words of God are in the Traditional/Majority/Byzantine/Received Text, and not in the Westcott-Hort /Alexandrian/Minority/Critical Text, discord appeared to be sowed with their promotion of the dual-language (Chinese and English) “Why We Do Not Accept the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation,” issued by the Chinese Session of Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church ("Calvary Pandan B-P Church"), a copy of which is still on Life B-P Church’s website. The issue was apparently turned into one of KJV /VPP versus CUV without Life B-P Church helping FEBC even though both were apparently on the same side on the text issue (favouring the Traditional/Majority/Byzantine/Received Text). Hopefully, no one has committed any or all of the seven sins in Proverbs 6:16-19 here.

Sin did not help as page 5 of his article was written as if VPPists had discriminated, disparaged or undermined other language Bibles when he exhorted his readers not to do so if such bibles are “faithfully and accurately translated by godly and trained men with sound biblical theology and approved and God sanctioned translational techniques based on reliable and faithful underlying texts.” However, as mentioned in “Sin silent on CUV text” above, Sin avoided mentioning the text of the CUV, the bible used by Chinese-speaking Christians in B-P churches. While VPPists entertain the notion that only the KJV should be used for the English Bible for both private and public readings, which is also the declared position of Life B-P Church as far as the KJV is concerned, there was no notion on the part of the FEBC or Khoo that the CUV should be discriminated, disparaged or undermined as Khoo, despite being upfront with the CUV text, had also given assurances regarding the CUV so as not to undermine the faith of the Chinese Service brethren.

Foreordination, Providence and Human Responsibility

Sin (on page 5 of his article) accepts that God’s foreordination and providence means that “the very words of God are accurately and reliably represented in another language for all practical means and purposes, for the vitality of the spiritual life of the church in different ethnic or language groups all over the world” even though there are thousands of languages and ethnicities in the world, many obviously not known to Sin and many still without the entire Bible or portions of it based on data in Bible translationsof those reached with translations of whole Bible or portions.

On the other hand, Sin does not seem to accept that the 54 foreordained godly men of “unquestioned faithfulness to the Scriptures, … impeccable integrity, with no hidden agenda” and “the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars of the age” could be led by the providence of God to choose all the providentially preserved Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words of the original Scriptures even though they had vast resources, including “the best commentaries of European scholars, … Bibles in Spanish, Italian, French and German,” as well as original language manuscripts/texts (including TRs), at their disposal for the work of translating the original language Scriptures into the KJV which Sin regards as “still the best …, unsurpassed in all the English versions available today.”

While recognising Scrivener as “the undisputed expert in the 19th Century of the existing New Testament manuscripts and on the KJV in its various editions”(see page 2 of Sin's article), Sin seems to have issue with completely accepting his TR as in those few places where the English KJV is different from the Greek TR due to the translation in these places drawing from Latin Vulgate readings, Scrivener (in the providence of God) followed the nearest printed Greek text without retranslating from the Latin back to Greek.

Seet in “The Inside Story of Westcott and Hort” – printed in the January 1998 issue of The Burning Bush on pages 32–38, four years prior to the VPP debate – writing on their lives and work, their beliefs, their secret beliefs and practices, and their fruit, summed up and concluded at the end: “Thus the damage done by them has been very extensive. In conclusion, let it be said that no matter how good any modern version of the New Testament is in other ways, it is clearly blemished if the work of Westcott and Hort is present in it. The presence of their work means that it is based on a defective text. Those who want to honour the Word of God must not promote the use of any of these versions by the church, not because the content of the version is evil in itself, but because the attitude of being contented to use a blemished version rather than an existing unblemished one, dishonours God.”

If Sin’s motive was not to undermine the faith of Chinese brethren using the CUV despite having issues with the TR, FEBC’s cause was not helped with him not indicating in his article about the CUV translated from the Westcott-Hort / Minority / Alexandrian / Critical Text and not the TR.

New Perspective on Paul (“NPP”)

Biak says that Sin’s mention of the problem of NPP is entirely irrelevant to the textual debate and he hopes that Sin is not putting VPP in the same box as NPP. However, Sin seems to be insinuating on page 7 of his article that VPP (like NPP) is new, strange and outlandish – the tactic or strategy later used by Life B-P Church in Suit 648 to evict FEBC. But the Court of Appeal of Singapore has since Sin’s article ruled in 2011 that VPP is not deviant (see “Suit 648 in the High Court” below).

While NPP redefines the fundamental Reformation biblical doctrine of “justification by faith alone,” as pointed out by Sin, VPP does no such thing. VPP affirms a present inerrant and infallible Word of God as the final rule in faith and practice in accordance with the Reformation cry of Sola Scriptura and Article 4.2.1 of the B-P Church’s constitution.

VPP promotes the use of KJV, which is the English Bible of the B-P Church from the beginning.

Quest for human perfection

It appears that Sin’s motivation in writing on page 7 that “[t]he quest for human perfection is a natural human instinct even among regenerate men” is to imply that such instinct is common in the unregenerate but “even among” (some) regenerate men, it is also present. While the validity of Sin’s aforementioned statement is doubtful in view of Matthew 5:48, Sin rightly points out in the footnote on page 8 of his article that Christians should continue to strive to sin less even though they cannot reach sinless perfection on this side of eternity. Sin then apparently alludes that Vppists in their quest to find “the perfect text” or “the perfect Bible” will also fail.

Sin’s focus is on man, but VPP is about God’s Word and God preserving His words perfectly according to His promise in Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, etc., not the human quest for perfection. God has kept His promise and His words perfectly and we are led by “the common faith” or “the logic of faith” to the TR underlying the KJV of 1611 (see “Use of bible verses" above). As such, there is no necessity today to go on a pursuit or hunt for the perfect TR underlying the KJV of 1611, as stated by Sin on page 5 of his article (see “Attempt to associate with McIntire” above). This makes Sin’s write-up on the human quest for perfection entirely irrelevant, as Biak also added.

Objectivity of Sin seems questionable

The objectivity of Sin seems questionable as he is a board member and the Dean of Students of a new bible college (see “New Bible College” below), which was conceptualized in 2007/2008 when Life B-P Church was contemplating removing or evicting the FEBC directors from the Gilstead Road premises to take over the running of FEBC or to start a new bible college.

Sin did not expressly state in his article whether his stand is VPP or non-VPP. He concluded his article on the last page (page 9) by quoting 1 Peter 1:25, a verse often quoted by FEBC and VPPists to support their VPP position. As Life B-P Church had not quoted any Scripture verse to support their non-VPP stand, they have apparently adopted Sin’s article by putting it up on their website under "Our Stand" although the verse quoted supports VPP.

Difference Between Non-VPP Stand and VPP Stand

But how different is Life B-P Church’s non-VPP stand from FEBC’s VPP stand? If the inconsistencies of Life B-P Church’s non-VPP stand are ignored, it is in fact very close to FEBC’s VPP stand in the comparison below:

(a) Notwithstanding that Life B-P Church do not believe (with VPP proponents) that Psalm 12:6-7 is God’s promise to preserve His words to “jot and tittle” perfection (Matthew 5:18), they also state that they believe in the full preservation of God’s Holy Word” – which is VPP as "verbal" means “words” and "plenary" means “whole”; (b) Life B-P Church, no different from VPP proponents, also hold that God preserved the inspired words of the autographs in the Traditional/Majority/Byzantine/ Received Text, and not in the Westcott-Hort/Minority/Alexandrian/Critical Text (used for translating modern English Bible versions) but VPP proponents by the logic of faith identify all the perfectly preserved words to be the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Received Text underlying the 1611 KJV; (c) Life B-P Church, which “have never promoted other versions and have held to the time-honoured KJV as the most faithful and reliable English Bible to be used exclusively for both public and private readings,” have no doubt that the KJV is “the very word of Word, and is fully reliable” but they do not hold to the underlying original language texts from which it was translated to be perfect or inerrant (i.e. they contain no errors) – whereas VPP proponents, who also have the same high esteem for the KJV, hold that the texts immediately underlying it are perfect (i.e. without errors); and (d) Life B-P Church hold to an inerrant and infallible Bible based on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible in the original texts (autographs) which are non-existing (as they were lost), and therefore unavailable for reference as the supreme and final authority in faith and life (4.2.1 of Life B-P Church’s constitution) since Life B-P Church construe “original languages” in 4.2.1 of their constitution to only “original texts (autographs)” without including the apographs (i.e. faithful and authentic copies of the autographs) despite these being written also in the original languages; VPP proponents, however, construe “original languages” as applying to both the autographs, which are no longer available, and the apographs, which are extant and available for reference as the final authority in faith and practice, since both the autographs and the apographs were written in the original languages.

Lawsuits

Suit 648 in the High Court

Due to disagreement on VPP, Life B-P Church commenced Suit 648 in the High Court of Singapore on 15 September 2008 to evict FEBC from the Gilstead Road premises.

Despite taking FEBC to court, Life B-P Church did not adduce expert evidence – even though they bore the burden of proof (as plaintiffs in Suit 648) – to show that FEBC’s adoption of the VPP doctrine was inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith (“WCF”). It appears that the Court of Appeal of Singapore – the apex court in Singapore’s legal system – in remarking on the well-known fact of the pre-eminent status of the WCF within Presbyterian churches worldwide, applied the legal doctrine of judicial notice to look into Article VIII Ch 1 in the WCF before holding that:

(i) “the College, in adopting the VPP doctrine, has not deviated from the fundamental principles which guide and inform the work of the College right from its inception, and as expressed in the Westminster Confession;” (ii) “[i]t is not inconsistent for a Christian who believes fully in the principles contained within the Westminster Confession (and the VPI doctrine) to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine;” and (iii) “[i]n the absence of anything in the Westminster Confession that deals with the status of the apographs, we [the Court] hesitate to find that the VPP doctrine is a deviation from the principles contained within the Westminster Confession."

Life B-P Church was unable to adduce the evidence required during the legal proceedings. Brutus Balan had in fact in a letter dated 30 January 2008, addressed to Seet and the BoE of Life B-P Church with a plea to them to avoid carrying out their legal threat to evict the College from the Gilstead Road premises, remarked: “You [Life B-P Church leaders] have the most inconsistent and contradictory position over this matter and yet the charge of heresy is thrown at FEBC.”

Aftermath of Court of Appeal’s Judgement

It does not seem that Life B-P Church took the loss of Suit 648 well despite Seet writing “Thanks Be To God” in Life B-P Church’s weekly of 1 May 2011, just after the Court of Appeal released its Judgement on Suit 648 on 26 April 2011. (The article or pastoral letter can no longer be accessed on Life B-P Church’s website under “Church Weeklies.”)

While Seet pointed to the congregation in the 2011 article that all things come ultimately under God’s sovereign power and jurisdiction and God is never responsible for one’s wrongdoings, the analogy of God allowing Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery does not seem apt with Genesis 50:20 quoted on Joseph telling his brothers, “As for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring it to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” unless Seet had in mind that Joseph represents FEBC and his brothers represent Life B-P Church, in which case Life B-P Church ought to feel remorseful. But if Joseph represents Life B-P Church, as is more likely to have been intended by Seet, then Life B-P Church do not look magnanimous as, unlike Joseph who had acted kindly towards his brothers despite the evil done to him, a second lawsuit was instituted against FEBC on 27 June 2013 (see “Suit DC1956/2013R in the State Courts” below) even before the Scheme on the sharing and maintenance of the Premises was drawn up and finalized by the High Court Judge on 27 November 2014.

A second analogy with Job by Seet looks odd too when the setback suffered was likened to Job’s setbacks which were entirely Satan’s work, not God’s work, with God giving permission to Satan to afflict Job. But was Life B-P Church like Job who “was perfect and upright and one that feared God, and eschewed evil” (Job 1:1) that Satan would want to go before God to ask for permission to put Life B-P Church to the test or was God chastising (or punishing) Life B-P Church without having to enlist the help of Satan? If it was the former, was the Court of Appeal the agent of Satan since it was the one which had ordered Life B-P Church, the loser, to pay the costs of the litigation in Suit No. 648 (as well as the appeal) to FEBC? Or was it FEBC, the defendants in the suit, Satan’s agent? But it was Life B-P Church which “dragged” FEBC to court even as Balan had pleaded with Seet and the BoE of Life B-P Church (on 30 January 2008) not to “drag FEBC into the pagan arena to the cheers and jeers of the Lord’s enemies and then to ally with the diabolical lion to prowl and devour a Bible College which still stands true to His Word.”

The analogy with Job would be more appropriate for FEBC as after having lost the case at the High Court, it continued to trust in God (Job 13:15) for the appeal and was restored and vindicated (Job 42:10).

Seet’s article, in the timing (of release on the first Sunday after 26 April 2011) and the analogies made with Joseph and Job, appears more to be an exercise in public relations to impress upon the congregation that their leaders had not done any wrong in commencing Suit 648 and the setback in the lawsuit was only temporary. Another lawsuit (see below) was commenced a little after two years of the Court of Appeal’s decision released on 26 April 2011.

Suit DC1956/2013R in the State Courts

Despite Life B-P Church announcing in their weekly of 13 July 2008 regarding “1 Cor 6 which teaches us not to take fellow Christians to court.” Life B-P Church not only commenced Suit 648 in the High Court but, after losing it, started another lawsuit DC1956/2013R in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore (later renamed the State Courts of Singapore) on 27 June 2013 by claiming that FEBC owed them SGD250,000 for utilities and maintenance from March 1970 to May 2008, despite returning on 28 January 2008 all cheques from FEBC totaling SGD225,000 for contributions to such expenses and telling it (FEBC) not to tender any more cheques as they (Life B-P Church) were prepared to let FEBC occupy the Gilstead Road premises free of charge for "this extended period."

Although Life B-P Church sued for only SGD250,000, restricted by the jurisdictional limit based on the venue or court where the action was commenced, it wanted much more than this sum. However, after a 2-day open court trial on 24–25 July 2014 when it became clear that FEBC would be able to successfully make a “no case to answer” submission (upon resumption of the court hearing), Life B-P Church requested FEBC to make an offer for settlement which FEBC acceded to despite taking the view that Life B-P Church’s claim was devoid of any legal basis and having had earlier offers of love-gifts made with the condition that no further claim would be made (until implementation of the Scheme on the sharing and maintenance of the premises) refused by Life B-P Church. FEBC responded with an offer of SGD300,000 on 8 August 2014 – lower than SGD350,000 offered on 5 November 2013 (because of further legal costs incurred)—and this was accepted on 14 August 2014 despite Life B-P Church threatening on 8 August 2014 to transfer the suit to the High Court to sue for a higher sum of SGD615,000. (See details in "The Battle for the Bible: Chronology of Events II" in The Burning Bush, July 2015, Volume 21, Number 2, pp. 92–99.)

New Bible College

Collaborative effort of 4 B-P churches

Life B-P Church sought or accepted the help of several B-P churches – Galilee, Grace, Nazareth, Olivet, Shalom, Zion and Mt Hermon – in the evangelical camp to provide evidence which Life B-P Church adduced in Suit 648 to support their non-VPP stand in their bid to evict FEBC (or rather the FEBC directors who were the defendants in Suit 648) from the Gilstead Road premises so that they could take over and operate FEBC or a new bible college on the premises. However, after failing, only Calvary (Jurong) Bible-Presbyterian Church (“Calvary (Jurong) B-P Church”), Maranatha B-P Church and Sharon Bible-Presbyterian Church (“Sharon B-P Church”) became affiliated to Emmanuel Reformed Bible College (“ERBC”), a newly registered bible college set up as a collaborative effort of these three churches with Life B-P Church. The first board of ERBC has four directors from Life B-P Church (Seet, Lim, Tan Yew Chong and Quek Keng Khwang), one director each from Calvary (Jurong) B-P Church (Foong Kon Yu), Maranatha B-P Church (Sin) and Sharon B-P Church (Peter Chua).

Inaugurated on 6 January 2017

ERBC commenced on 6 January 2017 at the premises of Calvary (Jurong) B-P Church in 1 Tao Ching Road, Singapore 618720. More than a month has elapsed (as of 11 February 2017) without Life B-P Church or any of the other three affiliated churches reporting in any of their publications/weeklies on their websites on the number of (full-time) students registered on the opening day even though ERBC was very quick in putting up on its website a number of photos, with one captioned "ERBC Semester Opening Day" with 100 or more people and another "ERBC Board and Faculty" which has a few non-board and non-faculty members included but no photo showing the historic pioneer students (if any) registered on 6 January 2017.

It is unlikely that ERBC is modest with numbers here as a write-up by Sin dated February 2017 posted on the Evangelical Times website reports that "ERBC has 168 part-time students, from more than 30 churches, in our present semester.". But the 168 is the same number of students reported by Sin for the Emmanuel Reformed Bible Lectures ("ERBL") in the semester in progress on 16 October 2016 in his article entitled "The Establishment of Emmanuel Reformed Bible College in the Sovereign Will of God." Assuming Sin is precise here and none of the students on the ERBL withdrew, it would mean that no new or full-time students registered with ERBC when it opened on 6 January 2017 despite Sin reporting on 16 October 2016: "We thank God for many copies of the prospectus that have been distributed as requested. Some ERBL students have requested for copies of the prospectus and some have applied to study with us."

ERBL— de facto bible college

The sovereign will of God in the establishment of ERBC may also be His punitive will: see pages 25-26 of “The Clock of the Sevenfold Will of God” written by Sin’s teacher and pastor Tow on Balaam seeking the Lord again on a matter which the Lord had already prohibited but Balaam was keen to obtain an answer that would accord with his own selfish desire.

As stated on ERBC’s website, ERBL was started on 30 September 2008, shortly after Life B-P Church commenced Suit 648 in the Singapore High Court (see above) to evict FEBC or the FEBC directors. Mirroring FEBC, Life B-P Church roped in a number of B-P churches to join the ERBL project apparently for preparation to show the Court that they were able and ready to carry out the charitable purpose trust impressed over the Gilstead Road premises for a bible college’s use if they should succeed in evicting the FEBC directors. As a start, ERBL night classes commenced in July 2009 to coincide with the night lectures of FEBC held every Monday and Thursday during the college term. Despite the verdict of the Court of Appeal released on 26 April 2011 being adverse, Life B-P Church expanded ERBL by adding day classes from July 2013 until January 2017 when ERBC took over and commenced its day classes. ERBL has apparently operated as a de facto bible college on the Gilstead Road premises from its formation and continues to hold the night classes for ERBC after the latter’s inauguration on 6 January 2017.

Sin describes ERBL as "a joint project of several like-minded Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore" while Life B-P Church has changed to describing it as "a ministry of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church run with the help of several like-minded Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore." This appears to be done to circumvent the requirement that the consent of the FEBC has to be obtained if Life B-P Church is to allow third parties the use of the Gilstead Road premises under the Scheme set up by the High Court to regulate the use and maintenance of the premises between FEBC and Life B-P Church. However, by having the ERBL as the night lectures of ERBC, Life B-P Church appears to be attempting to circumvent the ruling of the Court of Appeal in rejecting its offer to run its own Bible College on the Gilstead Road premises in Suit 648 to evict FEBC or the FEBC directors from the premises.

ERBC's focus

ERBC's “primary focus and foundation will be based on the Word of God, using the Authorised King James Version as the Bible in English” – as stated on its website. This is no different from FEBC unless ERBC differentiates itself from FEBC by declaring that it does not take the position that the original language Scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek underlying the KJV are perfect (i.e. ERBC believes that the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek TR underlying the KJV contain mistakes).

Although Life B-P Church commenced legal proceedings to evict FEBC from Gilstead Road over VPP so that it could take over the operating of a bible college on the Gilstead Road premises, ERBC has not stated that one of its distinctives is the non-VPP stand even though there is a hint of it defending (only) the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture but not its preservation when Sin wrote “Defending the doctrine of biblical authority and inspiration” in his poem on ERBC’s website. It is unlikely that Life B-P Church has changed its view after the Court of Appeal ruling since Life B-P Church continues to regard VPP as heresy as its paper “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions” issued by its Pastor and Elders dated January 2008—rebutted by Khoo in "Making the Word of God of None Effect"—is still on its website more than five years after the apex court's ruling.

ERBC’s courses

ERBC has listed as electives the following two courses: "The Westminster Standards" and "Understanding and Applying Bible-Presbyterian History and Distinctives." The latter course includes, among others, the doctrine of biblical separation and the defence of the faith, the Reformed faith and the Westminster Confession. Will the Westminster Confession be taught with interpreting Matthew 5:18, which the Westminster divines had cited as proof text for their statement on the special providential preservation of the Scriptures to jot and tittle perfection, as not referring to the transmission of the text of Scripture but to the authority of God’s claim upon us? Will the history of the Bible-Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Faith be distorted or truncated to exclude the landmark decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in the historic litigation between Life B-P Church and FEBC on VPP (see "Suit 648 in the High Court" above), the Reformation doctrine of the divine providential preservation (or the VPP) of the inspired Scriptures held by the founding Pastor and the unwillingness of those leaders of Life B-P Church who had disagreed with him but did not move out of the Gilstead Road premises despite professing to hold to the doctrine of biblical separation?

Non-VPP But KJV Only (?)

As Life B-P Church use the KJV exclusively for both public and private readings, their non-VPP stand (albeit VPP unless “FULL preservation of God’s holy Word” does not mean “all the words of God” are preserved) is at odds with churches in the BPCIS which accept or endorse the use of modern English Bible versions which are translated from the Minority/Alexandrian/Westcott-Hott/Critical Text.

Unless Life B-P Church change or soften their position on the KJV, which is not improbable as their non-VPP stand seems to have been influenced by KJV critic Doug Kutilek who contributed “The Background and Origin of the Version Debate” for chapter 1 of One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible and has written many anti-KJV articles posted on an anti-KJV/TR website with a deceptive name www.kjvonly.org, Life B-P Church and the churches associated with them will be a separate group from BPCIS – as seen in the organisation and staffing of ERBC where churches in the BPCIS camp have been left out.

Fundamentalist, Evangelical or In-Between?

With credibility dented and God evidently not blessing them in their failed lawsuits after claiming that the blessing of God on the church for the past 52 years (1950-2002) was a reason for their wanting to take the old godly path, have they since reflected that what they did and thought to be the old path could be mistaken or wrong since they did not receive the blessing of God which they had expected when they commenced their lawsuit in September 2008 and had invoked His name in their daily prayer meetings for the duration of the court proceedings to help them annihilate FEBC?

Time is needed to see if Life B-P Church are still in the fundamentalist camp (and preserving the old godly path as claimed). It is possible that their somewhat confusing “non-VPP” VPP stand at the 2004 ACM of the church was adopted for expediency reason. If time should show that Life B-P Church (and those churches associated with them) no longer embrace the separatist stand and use the KJV as their only English Bible for both public and private readings– the hallmarks of the original B-P Church – then any claim of preserving the old godly path would just be hollow or empty rhetoric.

If Life B-P Church are not pursuing the old path, then they will either be in the evangelical camp or in a new in-between camp called New Fundamentalist (?) – to distinguish from the Fundamentalist camp.

21st Century Reformation

Whilst still in Life B-P Church, Tow preached at their 8:00 a.m. service on 27 October 2002 on the need for a 21st Century Reformation so as to continue the 20th Century Reformation Movement of McIntire, the spirit of which he first caught whilst studying at Faith Theological Seminary in the U.S.A. and was determined to be a part of the movement upon his return to Singapore in 1950 to become the founding pastor of Life Church (English Service) – later known as Life B-P Church. Tow served Life B-P Church (from its founding in 1950) for more than 50 years before tendering his resignation after he was lambasted at its Session meeting on 20 August 2003.

After his resignation from Life B-P Church, Tow started the FEBC Lord’s Day Worship service on 5 October 2013 at the Regional English Centre. The FEBC Lord's Day Worship Service became True Life B-P Church in August 2004 after its registration was approved and gazetted in July 2004. Tow himself declared that he left Life B-P Church to stand for a “100% Perfect Bible without mistake” as against his assistant pastors’ “belief in a Bible with some mistakes but not serious since they don’t touch on doctrines.” Khoo, who succeeded Tow as Pastor after the latter’s death, wrote that Tow had “resigned from Life B-P Church to found True Life B-P Church so that he might continue to teach and defend the twin doctrines of Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), and the 100% perfection of the Scriptures without any mistake in the original languages on which the King James Version (KJV) is based.”

On VPI and VPP, Tow had said: “We believe the preservation of Holy Scripture and its Divine inspiration stand in the same position as providence and creation. If Deism teaches a Creator who goes to sleep after creating the world is absurd, to hold to the doctrine of inspiration without preservation is equally illogical. … Without preservation, all the inspiration, God-breathing into the Scriptures, would be lost. But we have a Bible so pure and powerful in every word and it is so because God has preserved it down through the ages.”

Doctrine and Separation Stand

True Life B-P Church’s constitution has Article 4 (Doctrine) identical to Article 4 (Statement of Faith) of the FEBC constitution submitted for FEBC’s registration as a charity in January 2004 under the Charities Act. True Life B-P Church therefore subscribes to the same doctrine, based on the WCF (including VPI and VPP). Although Life B-P Church asserts that VPP is deviant or heretical, the Singapore Court of Appeal has ruled that it is not so (see “Suit 648 in the High Court” above) when Article VIII, Chapter 1 of the WCF was examined by the learned Judges of Appeal.

True Life B-P Church also has in its constitution the same Article 6 (Principle and Practice of Separation) adopted by all B-P churches in the old BPC.

After writing on Doctrine – which includes VPI and VPP; the sole and supreme authority of the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura); the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words underlying the KJV being the divinely authentic and authoritative words which God has supernaturally preserved down through the ages; the theology of Calvin; the fundamental doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide and Solus Christus; and the premillennial view of Christ’s return – in “Why We Are Bible-Presbyterians” in the Sabbatical Jubilee magazine of True Life B-P Church, Khoo went on to write, under Practice, that B-Ps obey God’s command to be separated from all forms of ungodliness and false teachings in accordance with 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), to call people to repentance (through the preaching of the gospel), and to warn of spiritual dangers that abound in the world today and from the judgment of God to come when Christ returns.

Contending for the Faith

Siang Hwa, the late Tow’s younger brother, had also remarked that “Jude 3 still apply” with regard to Tow leaving Life B-P Church to found True Life B-P Church at the age of 83. True Life B-P Church can lay claim to contending for the same faith as that of Tow, its founding pastor, and McIntire, the founder of the Bible Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who preached in 1992 a VPP message entitled “Help, Lord!”, from Psalm 12 and also passed two excellent resolutions in 1998 and in 2000 while he was President of the ICCC (see “Attempt to associate with McIntire” above).

Besides True Life B-P Church, B-P churches which embrace VPP include Berean Bible-Presbyterian Church, Berith Bible-Presbyterian Church, Calvary Pandan B-P Church, Calvary Tengah Bible-Presbyterian Church, Gethsemane Bible-Presbyterian Church, Tabernacle Bible-Presbyterian Church, Truth Bible-Presbyterian Church and Blessed Hope Bible-Presbyterian Church.

(New Life Bible-Presbyterian Church ("New Life B-P Church"), where another of Tow’s younger brothers (the late Siang Yeow) had served as an elder for a good number of years and which supported FEBC in Suit 648, is no longer for the VPP stand as a Cambodian work it had supported was asked in March 2016 to stop teaching VPP but its preacher, Tann Heng, could not accept and chose to forgo the financial support and leave the work to start anew. Sim Chee Seng, an elder of New Life B-P Church, had in the church’s weekly dated 30 November 2014 when reporting on a mission trip to Cambodia from 24–27 August 2014, reported on Tann being given some articles on biblical doctrines written by Sin for his reading. However, it appears that Tann was not convinced by Sin’s articles.)