Bible Presbyterian Church Member Sues His Pastor for Defamation

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:1-11)

Note: I have left the Bible Presbyterian Church due to doctrinal disagreements, and there is no reason why I would side with the pastors of Calvary (Pandan) Bible Presbyterian Church. Nevertheless, it is a good reminder to every Christian that we ought to glorify God in whatever we do.

On 28 August 2006, page 3 of the Straits Times Home section published an article entitled Barred believer sues pastors for defamation. Apparently, due to a doctrinal disagreement which subsequently escalated beyond the Board of Elders of Calvary (Pandan) Bible Presbyterian Church, Mr Lim Seng Hoo has decided to take both Rev (Dr) Quek Suan Yew and Senior Pastor Rev (Dr) S H Tow to court.

It is, without a doubt, a very sad day for Christianity in Singapore. When a brother drags another brother before unbelievers in secular courts of law, the cause of Christ is blasphemed, and the name of our Saviour tarnished. Nevertheless, Lim defends his right to sue his own pastors.

In his online treatise, “The necessity for my legal suit,” Lim writes:

“The Apostle Paul in 1Cor 6:1 says, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” At the same time, this same Apostle Paul was constrained to resort to the use of his civil rights both vis-à-vis civil (Act 16:37-39, 21:39 and 22:25-28) and religious authorities (Act 23:3, 25:10-12 and 28:17-19, etc) of his day. And in Rom 13:1-6, Paul maintained the need to observe the rules of law in civil society.”

Lim feels that his civil rights ought to be exercised in view of the defamatory remarks delivered by his pastors. As part of his Singaporean civil rights, Lim decides to sue his pastor S. H. Tow, whom he “regarded … as a father figure.” (See Barred believer sues pastors for defamation, ST, August 28 2006) But one wonders how many sons would actually sue his own father.

By giving the example of Paul, Lim attempts to manoeuvre around the passage of 1 Cor. 6:1-11. It appears that “this same Apostle Paul was constrained to resort to the use of his civil rights.” It is true that Scripture does not forbid the Christian from exercising his “civil rights” with regard to charges against him from the civil magistrates and unbelievers. But this has no relevance to the issue being discussed: should a Christian bring another Christian before the secular court of law? This is not a matter of a Christian versus the authorities, or a Christian versus the unbeliever, but a Christian versus another Christian.

In Act 16:37-39, 21:39 and 22:25-28, Paul exercised his legal privileges as a Roman citizen to obtain fair and unbiased treatment, as well as protection, from the Roman authorities. In Acts 23:3, Paul was speaking to Ananias the high priest, one who is not a believer. Acts 25:10-12 describes Paul’s conversation with Festus, who is, once again, an unbeliever. Here, Paul requested to be delivered to Caesar’s jurisdiction as a means of protection from his persecutors, the Jews - who are, of course, not believers. In Acts 28:17-19, Paul explained to the chief of the Jews why he had appealed to Caesar.

From all the examples mentioned by Lim, there is not a single instance whereby he can conclusively demonstrate that the Apostle Paul dragged a fellow Christian to the heathen courts of law.

In his online treatise, “The necessity for my legal suit,” Lim explains his side of the story, “On 3 Jul 05, Dr Khoo distributed 300 copies of an open letter against my “An Evidential Review” to his church, and also emailed his letter to other churches. He later on 10 Jul preached a VPP sermon at Calvary Pandan, which led to my Open Letter on 14 Jul, inviting him to a public academic debate, which many had implored of me, as being the best way to resolve the issue decisively, for the peace of all our churches. On 17 Jul, I hand distributed 60 copies of my open letter to English members (after also hearing that Rev Quek had attacked our Mandarin Pastor, Rev Tang Wai Kay, over the VPP issue). The subsequent conduct of Dr Tow and Rev Quek on 24 Jul was, however one looks at it, clearly disproportionate, vicious and unjustifiable.”

It appeared that Lim had decided to disseminate his views to members of his church apart from Session’s approval. This can easily be misconstrued as a subversive act. Any doctrinal disagreement ought to be settled in private with the church’s Session. It is not in accordance with proper Christian conduct or ecclesiastical procedure to publicly criticize the church’s doctrine without Session’s approval or sanction. It is, indeed, the duty of every church member to strive for peace within the church. This is also part of the member’s covenant with the church, which one has to sign when joining the church as a member.

Even if the Session decides upon a view which contradicts one’s conviction, the member has to acquiesce. The Board of Elders possesses ecclesiastical authority within the church to dictate issues pertaining to doctrine and practice. The pastor has the responsibility and the right to teach the view decided upon by the Board of Elders, and to protect the flock from variant views.

If the member is so convicted in his heart that the doctrine held by the church is heretical or unscriptural, he has every right to resign from church membership. The member is not required to remain in the church, much less initiate or propagate a doctrinal dispute within the church.

A Correct Exegesis?

What is most disturbing is Lim’s exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:1-9. He writes:

“A correct exegesis of 1Cor 6:1-9 would show why Paul himself appealed to his Roman civil rights at times. For a start, Paul did not assume that no redress should be given to the one wronged but rather assumed that the church would provide the redress. Thus he asks in verse 5, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge his brethren?” However, this prescription of wise judges was rejected by the pastors.”

Firstly, Lim has never shown how Paul had dragged a fellow Christian to the courts of law. The teachings of 1 Cor. 6:1-9 are aptly summarized by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, “Litigation of Christians in Heathen Courts Censured: Its Very Existence Betrays a Wrong Spirit: Better to Bear Wrong Now, and Hereafter the Doers of Wrong Shall Be Shut Out of Heaven.”

Warren Wiersbe elucidates further in his commentary on 1 Cor 6:1-8:

“It was probably the Gentiles (Greeks) in the church who were the guilty parties in this case, for the Greeks were very much wrapped up in courts and law. Each Greek city had its courts and councils, and it was not uncommon for a son to sue his own father! Of course, the basic problem was carnality (3:1–4); when Christians are immature and not growing, they cannot get along with one another. They lack the spiritual discernment to settle and solve personal problems. How tragic it is when a local church is torn asunder by lawsuits among the members! We are living in an era when lawsuits are the “going thing” and a quick way to try to make money. It seems that the purpose of the court is not justice but income. Paul is not condemning courts of law (see Rom. 13), for the government is instituted by God for our good. But matters between believers must not be exposed before unbelievers, and certainly an unsaved judge lacks the spiritual understanding to deal with spiritual matters (2:14–16). By dragging one another to court, the church members at Corinth were ruining the testimony of the church and disgracing the name of the Lord.”

Lim continues to explain why his exercise of “civil rights” is justified in what is allegedly not the “smallest matters”:

“Secondly in verse 1, Paul refers to “a matter” (singular). If it were just a simple matter of my being defrauded personally, once, why not rather accept wrong? And thirdly, verse 2 refers to the smallest matters, or matters of a primarily material nature, which a heavenly viewpoint would regard as having small importance (cp Lk 12:13-14). But here in our case, what if the “wrong” inflicted is to suppress my attempts to rectify failures in the stewardship of the Church finances, in which unfaithfulness is a most terrible thing?”

The Apostle Paul answers Lim’s question in verse 3, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?” According to Paul, the “things that pertain to this life” are also referred to as “the smallest matters.” Apparently, the meaning of the phrase “smallest things” is not to be decided upon arbitrarily, but is to be interpreted in context of Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians.

“If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church (v.4).” It is obvious that Paul refers to the “things pertaining to this life,” in view of the eschatological judgment at the end of the age, as “the smallest things.” Lim’s grievances belong to the category of “things pertaining to this life.” As Jamieson, Fausset and Brown had rightly commented, “The weightiest of earthly questions at issue are infinitely small compared with those to be decided on the judgment-day.”

We recall that Lim is bringing a defamation suit against his pastors. But what has a defamation suit to do with church finances? Lim asks, “what if the “wrong” inflicted is to suppress my attempts to rectify failures in the stewardship of the Church finances, in which unfaithfulness is a most terrible thing?”

Again, Weirsbe provides an answer:

“How should Christians settle personal differences? They must first have the right spiritual values. How trivial these personal disputes become when compared to the great eternal matters we will decide in glory! The church is going to judge the world and the angels! This realization makes worldly disputes rather insignificant. Too many Christians have warped values; the things of this world (especially money) are more important to them than the glory and praise of God. Matters between Christians should be settled quietly according to the principles of Matt. 18:15–17 and 1 Cor. 6:5. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, then they should invite some spiritual believers to meet with them and help decide. If the matter becomes known to the church (or outside the church), the members should appoint a group to examine the matter and give spiritual counsel. Far better that a Christian should lose money than lose his spiritual stature and bring shame to Christ’s name! We can find this same attitude in Matt. 5:38–42. Of course, the Christians in Corinth were so carnal that they lacked spiritual vision and wisdom, and thus their church was split into warring factions. “You are brethren!” Paul cried. “Show love for one another!’”

There is no necessity to sue the pastor for financial discrepancies. Lim writes, “I was finally duty bound to report to the Authorities, who have commenced investigations.” It seems to me that Lim has exercised his civil rights by reporting the monetary discrepancies to the authorities. Why, then, is the defamation suit necessary? Let the authorities do their work.

Lim claimed that he required the civil magistrates’ protection from his pastor’s incessant “verbal attacks.” He laments, “I however can say with the Apostle Paul that I have done nothing against my church or the customs of our Christian faith but am constrained to appeal to the civil courts for protection and not that I had anything to accuse my church of (Act 28:17-19).”

Paul required protection from the Jews who seek to murder him. Likewise, Lim required protection from the pastors who seek to verbally assassinate him. In view of such serious threats to his life, Lim seeks recourse from the authorities. Yes, I would agree that if his pastors wanted his life, he should get protection quickly. Wouldn’t you agree too?

Let us pray that the differences between the pastors and brother Lim will eventually be resolved in a scriptural manner.

Spiritual Discernment 1

Note: In the current series of posts, I am using a revised version of an old article, one that I had written in 2001 for the youths. In this particular post, I would like to introduce the subject of biblical discernment. In the next few posts, I will explain what discernment is not, and I will also address the various reasons for the absence of discernment in the Church today.


Introduction

Christianity today is a confusing hodgepodge of differing opinions and notions. With the plethora of contradictory interpretations of Scripture, how would the believer discern truth from error? This requires spiritual discernment. Discernment can be defined as the spiritual faculty of a born-again believer to delineate scriptural truths from unbiblical beliefs and falsehood. The problem is, spiritual discernment is greatly lacking in Christendom today.

Any attempt to discriminate between truth and error is quickly met with resistance. The zeitgeist of the age demands that we accept all perspectives as constituting Truth. Militancy for the truth is often labeled as “judgmental-ism,” narrow-mindedness, or extremism. But we are commanded to “prove all things (1 Thess 5:21)” and to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Tim 4:2).”

No teacher of Scripture should be spared from scriptural scrutiny. Not even the Apostle Paul was excused from such biblical examination (Acts 17:10-13). Nevertheless, our ecumenical, New Evangelical brethren had insinuated that we should abandon our spiritual faculty of discernment, reject the practice of separation from false teachers, and begin dialoguing with unbelieving wolves and apostates. And all these are to be done in the name of love.

Should we, then, love the wolves more than sheep? According to some, we are to emulate our “noble”, “loving,” and “accommodating” New Evangelical brethren, who are, of course, noble, loving and accommodating according to their own standard and definition.

The Bible recounts to us that the Christians in Berea were noble because of their diligence in searching the Word of God to verify what the Apostle taught. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Luke praised the Bereans (Acts 17:11) as being “more noble” than those in Thessalonica. Here, we read that even the Apostle Paul was not spared from scriptural scrutiny. The Bible, therefore, commends the exercise of biblical discernment.

Contrariwise, New Evangelicals seem to suggest that the separation of truth from error is too critical and pharisaical. According to them, we should embrace aberrant doctrines as variant interpretations of Scripture.

The Word of God commands us to judge all doctrines and practices (1 John 4:1, Matt 7:15-16, Romans 16:17-18, 1 Thess 5:21, Isaiah 8:20, 1 Cor 2:15, 10:15, Luke 7:43), and to reprove, reject and separate from all false teachings and teachers (2 Cor 6:17, 2 Tim 3:5, 2 Thess 3:6, Eph 5:11, Romans 12:9, 2 John 10-11).

New Evangelicals, however, reject God’s mandate to separate from errors and false teachers. By dampening the spirit of discernment, contemporary Evangelicalism is becoming more and more accommodating to various falsehoods and ecumenical lies. Apparently, the spiritual faculty of discernment is urgently needed to preserve apostolic doctrines and truths for churches today.

True believers are capable of spiritual discernment

It is taught in Scripture that the Holy Spirit guides born-again Christians into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (John 16:13).” What a privilege it is to be taught by God Himself. The Word of God is the very instrument, which the Holy Ghost utilizes to teach believers. While we may learn much from men, we are not entirely dependent upon them. We have the divine Teacher, the Holy Ghost. We will never know the Truth until we are thus taught. No matter how much the education, the knowledge of ancient near eastern literature (e.g. Assyriology), and the amount of time spent in mastering the biblical languages, we will never know the truth unless the Holy Ghost teaches us.

The Bible says, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26).” The Comforter will bring to remembrance all the teachings of Christ our Lord. He will teach each and every born-again believer the truth concerning God’s Word. “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him (1 John 2:27 ).”

Again, we read in 1 John 2:20, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things”. Good teachers are excellent sources of knowledge, but we must realize that they are not an infallible authority. Mature believers are able to discern truth from error through the diligent study of God’s Word; the Holy Ghost guides them via the Scriptures. In fact, the ability to discern the true gospel from false ones is what sets true believers apart from others.

The present generation of Christians has probably forgotten that it is their responsibility to discern right from wrong, truth from error, and prophets from false teachers. They are so reliant on others to teach them when they should be studying the Word conscientiously for themselves (2 Tim 2:15). They become gullible victims of wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15) as they are “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14).

The apostle wrote, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:9-14).”

From 1 Cor 2:9-14, it is clear that the Holy Spirit reveals to believers the deep things of God which are hidden from the natural man. God’s Word is foolishness to the unbeliever, because he is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-9). Indeed, the only way for one to know spiritual truths is through the tutelage of the Holy Ghost. Is it not marvelous that the Author of divine revelation is our Interpreter as well?

The Psalmist prayed, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Psalm 119:18). It is, indeed, a grave error to believe that we can comprehend spiritual things with mere natural or carnal understanding. As much as a paint manufacturer is not qualified to teach Art just because he is an expert on paints, a Hebrew and Greek linguist is not qualified to teach God’s Word just because he knows the original languages. The Modernists with their rationalistic theory of higher criticism are extremely qualified according to man’s standards. Nevertheless, to put the Modernist on the pulpit is tantamount to spiritual suicide.

We need to recognize the utter insufficiency of human wisdom, and to humble ourselves to be taught by the Spirit. “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise (1 Cor 3:18).” The philosophy and scholarship of this world should never be used as a yardstick to measure God’s Word. Conversely, we must bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).”

Much of human wisdom and rationalism have only produced spiritual retrogression and decay. The naturalistic theory of Neo-Darwinism mocks the creation account of Genesis 1 as Jewish myth and superstition. Carnal pragmatism compromises scriptural injunctions for statistics, filthy lucre and “church growth.” This compromise may even impinge upon gospel truths itself. The philosophy of feminism has placed on our pulpit preachers in skirts and petticoats. Fundamental doctrines such as biblical inerrancy are repudiated with the most peculiar exegetical gymnastics. Plain Scriptures are apparently explained away with the “original” Greek and Hebrew. Such are the fruits of better “scholarship” and “higher learning.”

To be continued

1 Thessalonians 5:9 and the Rapture

Some Pretribulationists have argued that since the church is saved from the wrath of God, and given that the Great Tribulation is the wrath of God, the church is apparently delivered from this Great Tribulation. Pretribulationists rely heavily upon this argument for their pretribulation rapture theory. On face value, their reasoning seems logical. One of the “proof-text” used in their paralogism is 1 Thessalonians 5:9. This verse says, “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:9).”

Commenting on this verse, Dr Jeffrey Khoo writes:

“The Christian has been spared from the wrath of God to come (cf. Rev 6:17, 11:18, 15:1,16). It is not the Christian’s duty nor destination to face God’s wrath since he has already been saved by the perfect redemptive work of Christ (Rom 5:9). It is important to know that the terms “wrath” and “salvation” here are opposites. The verse is clearly not talking about a both-and, but either-or situation. If you are under wrath, you are not saved, and if you are saved, you are not under wrath (John 3:36). This certainly argues against the posttribulational rapture view.” (Khoo, 1 Thessalonians, 37.)

1 Thessalonians 5:9 contrasts the concept of “wrath” and “salvation.” It is true that God has not appointed Christians to His wrath, but this does not exempt the Christian from the wrath of men, the wrath of the Antichrist, and the wrath of the Devil. Furthermore, the “wrath” mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is clearly eternal wrath, that is, eternal perdition. This is supported by the understanding that 1 Thessalonians 5:9b describes “salvation” from God’s judgment, and not simply salvation from the Great Tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 contrasts eternal wrath with eternal salvation. Surely Dr Khoo must understand this, for he writes: “It is not the Christian’s duty nor destination to face God’s wrath since he has already been saved by the perfect redemptive work of Christ (Rom 5:9).” This salvation “by the perfect redemptive work of Christ” is eternal salvation, and comprises of election, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification. Obviously, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is not describing the salvation of Christians from the Great Tribulation. To impose the concept of a pretribulation rapture into the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is eisegesis. Dr Jeffrey Khoo has yet to explain why 1 Thessalonians 5:9 “argues against the posttribulational rapture view.”

If, indeed, the exegete insists that 1 Thessalonians 5:9 describes the deliverance of Christians from the Great Tribulation, he cannot escape the entrapment of even more nagging exegetical problems. According to 1 Thessalonians 5:9b, the reason for the Christian’s deliverance is his salvation in Jesus Christ. It cannot be overemphasized that the tribulation saints are likewise saved by the redemption of Christ. If the Church must be exempted from the wrath of God in the Great Tribulation according to 1 Thessalonians 5:9a, how can we justify the pretribulationist’s belief that tribulation saints are left behind to suffer the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation? Is it not true that tribulation saints are also redeemed by Christ’s atoning death?

Must the Church be raptured in order for her to be protected from the Great Tribulation? The fact is: presence does not necessitate participation. The Church can be on earth throughout the Great Tribulation and yet be divinely protected from God’s wrath. Israel was in Egypt when God sent the ten plagues. God did not rapture Israel prior to sending His wrath against the Egyptians. Israel was divinely protected from God’s wrath during the entire period. But the pretribulationists would have us believe that the pretribulation rapture of the Church is a certainty. The reason, which has been repeated ad nauseam, is that God has not appointed the Christians to wrath.

I believe 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is one of the most misunderstood verses of the Bible, and it is probably due to popular, dispensational eisegesis. The phrase - “For God hath not appointed us to wrath” - has almost become a mantra. Then let the pretribulationist answer why the tribulation saints are left on earth for the “wrath” of God.

Another pertinent question for the Bible Presbyterians would be, “Are not the tribulation saints also part of the Church?”

Rant:The Evolutionist Bible

The Book of (Abio)Genesis - Chapter One

In the beginning was a “burp,” and that “burp” contained nothing, yet it became something. That infinitesimal “burp” grew astronomically, and inflated to a bigger “blob.” Incidentally, that “blob” exploded, and produced hydrogen, and slowly, helium. Incidentally, the hydrogen and helium somehow fused to form higher elements, rocks, stars, galaxies and planets.

Miraculously, the rocks came alive, and magically, water was formed in the now expanded “burp,” also known as the "universe". Boys and girls, this is going to be complicated. If you think a frog turning into a prince is exciting, this one gets even better! This is the magic of SCIENCE.

Once upon a time, long ago and far away, the water married the rock and formed magical “goo.” Remember children, according to textbooks, it rained on the rocks for millions and millions of years. After millions and millions of years (and billions, trillions, zillions, quadrillions and abracadabradrillions of years), the “goo” decided to come alive. Somehow, that blend of exotic “goo” rearranged itself to form the first compact, self-replicating, self-repairing, immensely complicated polynucleotide strand. Accidentally, this strand somehow rearranged itself to provide all the information for life!

From that single polynucleotide strand came all the information for the formation of all the species you see all around you. Remember, boys and girls, all that information came accidentally from some of that “goo.”

Over time, that rock eventually evolved to a naked, hairless, bipedal, intelligent ape.

The ape was intelligent. It worked out a theory which describes its descent from plants, fish, amphibian, reptile and mammals. As indicated by this theory, the ape and the banana share a common ancestor. There was no Creator. Everything was an accident, and so was the ape.

One day, that ape decided that it had legal rights and civil rights. It decided that it had the right to lie, steal, rob, plunder, lust, crave, rape, fornicate, hate, and murder. So every ape did what was right in its own eyes. Remember boys and girls, goo has rights too!

In time, the ape discovered many other theories and called them “science.” These discoveries enabled the ape to destroy the ecosystems, and to construct “towers to heaven” for its own empire – also known as skyscrapers. So the apes were successful, but only the strongest ape survived. The rest of the apes became an economic liability.

All in all, the ape was proud of its many discoveries. But according to the history of science, the greatest discovery was this: The Theory of Evolution. Via this theory of evolution, that intelligent ape intelligently discovered its ancestor - the Rock. This theory also explains why some of these apes worship rocks, plants, trees and four-legged beasts. These rocks, plants, trees and four-legged beasts are, scientifically speaking, the ape’s ancestors. And the worship of these entities is called ancestral worship.

In summary, according to science, the rock became goo, which became you. This is the theory of evolution.

References:

Any textbooks on the following:

Big Bang theory
Inflation theory
Cosmic evolution
Stellar Evolution
Chemical evolution
Abiogenesis
Macroevolution
Anthropology

Effete Ecclesiasticism: A Brief Note on Deaconesses and Women Preachers

The ordination of women church officers, particularly the appointment of deaconesses, is part of the ecclesiastical tradition of the Bible Presbyterian churches in Singapore. (1) I hereby refer to the church constitution of True Life Bible Presbyterian Church as the exemplar of local Bible Presbyterian practices. (2) It is clear from article 15 - which concerns the election of deaconesses – as well as article 11 that the female deacon is part of the church session. Consequentially, deaconesses in Singapore’s Bible Presbyterian churches have much ecclesiastical authority over the congregation.

These deaconesses, together with the elders and deacons, constitute the church session, which in turn makes administrative, didactic, financial and ecclesiastical decisions for the church. Indeed, the deaconess exercises her voting rights within the session, thus utilizing her authority in making crucial church decisions concerning doctrines, election of future session members, as well as other matters that have a direct or indirect bearing over the congregation. How the employment of such female authority within the session can be squared with Scripture is, unfortunately, beyond my comprehension. Paul says, “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression (1 Tim. 2:11-14).”

Historically, there is indeed an order of widows (1 Timothy 5:9-14), but this must not be confused with the office of deaconess in contemporary churches. According to Brian Schwertley, “Those who are in favor of women deacons who are in the same office as men deacons reject the idea of an order of widows. Why? Because they want women deacons to have the same office, function, and qualifications as the male diaconate. The deaconesses in the early church had different qualifications (widows over sixty), different functions (primarily to women), different authority (they submitted to the male deacons) and a different office than the male deacons. Modern advocates of women deacons believe that it is perfectly permissible for women who are married, who have dependent children and who are under sixty to be deacons. Yet such thinking clearly contradicts Paul’s command to the younger widows in 1 Timothy 5:11-14.” (3) Thus, deaconesses in Bible Presbyterian churches operate and function at a capacity not permitted by Scripture. In contrast to the order of widows, contemporary deaconesses have true ecclesiastical authority.

It may be argued that, in certain Bible Presbyterian churches of Singapore, the deacons and deaconess do not vote or make certain decisions with the Board of Elders. In this sense, the Board of Elders rules over the diaconate, and the deaconess is therefore exonerated from the charged of usurping the authority of men within the session. This argument, however, is tenuous at best. Schwertley replies, “While it is true that deacons are not pastors or ruling elders and do not vote with the session [only in certain Bible Presbyterian churches in this case], they still have an ecclesiastical authority in the church that is clearly forbidden to women. The deacons [and deaconesses, if any] are the financial officers of the church. The collection of tithes and the management of God’s money is in itself an authoritative function forbidden to women. The collection of tithes and the management of church funds has [sic] always been restricted to men.” (4)

The point is, deaconesses are part of the session according to the Bible Presbyterian Church constitution, and ipso facto, exercise ecclesiastical authority over the men of the congregation. Ironically, the husbands of deaconesses - that is, men within the congregation - have to submit to their wives (deaconesses) within the session, while these deaconesses are supposedly required by Scripture to submit to their husbands at home. “The idea that women are permitted to control the financial affairs of the church when they are not permitted to have the final say regarding the financial affairs of the home is not logical. Is a woman deacon permitted to have authority over her husband’s money in the church, while submitting to his control of the finances in the home? Such a situation is unseemly. The fact that women can be and are the chief financial officers of major corporations is irrelevant. The issue is not one of fitness or ability but of God’s ordained order of authority in the household and in the church.” (5)

There is, however, another controversial role of women within Bible Presbyterian churches. Specifically, women preachers are appointed in numerous Bible Presbyterian mission churches all over Asia. Sometimes, women preachers are even appointed within local Bible Presbyterian congregations. (6) This is clearly an unscriptural practice (1 Cor. 14:34-37, 1 Tim. 2:11-14). (7)

In response to the aforementioned allegations, Rev James Chan, the pastor of Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church (Jurong), wrote: “In the mission field, there are many women missionaries, doing the work which men are unwilling to do. Kelapa Sawit B-P Church was taken care of by Miss Ng Siang Chew. Awana Club and Junior Worship - from the nursery to the young teens - are run by many faithful female teachers because few brothers responded to the need. Let me again quote from Rev [Timothy] Tow in his letter to the Calvary Missions Fellowship (dated April 22, 1994); he wrote, “I take my hat off to women missionaries and preachers. There is no law forbidding them to preach when men are reluctant to venture out. Let the first male to criticize the women speakers be sent to the frontiers to take their place. Amen?” (8)

Such pragmatism is unbecoming of a professedly biblical, fundamentalist institution. Even if the “men are unwilling” to perform the task of preaching, we do not facilitate the gospel work by being disobedient to clear injunctions of Holy Scripture. God’s commandments are clear: women are plainly disallowed to teach men within the congregation. If we truly believe that God is sovereign, even in the salvation of sinners, we must perform the Great Commission according to our Lord’s directives and mandates. We ought to wait patiently for God to raise up suitably qualified servants to do His work. The prophet Samuel proclaims, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Samuel 15:22-23).”

To obey the Word of God is better than sacrifice, and rebellion against God’s injunctions is undoubtedly sin. Paul commands the young Corinthian church, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:34-37). Let the Church today acknowledge that what Paul wrote “are the commandments of the Lord.”

I “take my hat off” to pastors who obey God’s Word unconditionally and sacrificially, especially when it is inconvenient to do so. Amen?

End Notes

1. For example, Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church (Tengah) and Tabernacle Bible Presbyterian Church have deaconesses within their sessions.
2. See “Constitution of True Life Bible Presbyterian Church,” The Burning Bush 11, no. 2 (2005): 98-120.
3. Brian Schwertley, A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons [book on-line]; available from http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. This book provides a historical and theological discussion of the issue of deaconesses.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. For example, Ms Carol Lee, a lecturer in Far Eastern Bible College, was assigned as teacher of a mixed class on 22nd January 2006 for a Bible Presbyterian congregation in Singapore. The lesson was avowedly doctrinal in nature. This is, but, the tip of the iceberg.
7. For an introduction, see David Cloud, Women Preachers [article on-line]; available from http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/womenpreachers.htm; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005.
8. James Chan, “Our Bible Presbyterian Faith and Practice,” The Burning Bush 6, no. 1 (2000): 55.

Biblical Separation: A Book Review

Biblical Separation: Doctrine of Church Purification and Preservation.
By Dr Jeffrey Khoo, the Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College.
ISBN 981-04-1671-7

As a Reformed, evangelical Christian who has left the Bible Presbyterian movement, coupled with an ongoing writing project which is, in fact, a critique of the Bible Presbyterian hermeneutical-theological system, one might ask why I would review a book by Dr Jeffrey Khoo. First and foremost, this book by Dr Khoo is an excellent treatise on the subject of biblical separation, and I would definitely commend it to every Christian who cares about the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, Dr Khoo is a godly theologian, and I have the utmost respect for him as a fellow brother-in-Christ. A Bible Presbyterian by training, he holds to the fundamentalist tenet of biblical separation. Although I have left Bible Presbyterianism due to certain doctrinal convictions, I must admit that I continue to see the Bible Presbyterian churches as a devout, Bible-centered movement in Singapore.

The pervasive problem with contemporary Evangelicalism is the overemphasis of ecumenicity, with the exclusion of doctrinal purity and truth (John 17:17). This is true for many professedly evangelical churches in Singapore. Errors are commonly tolerated, and merely referred to as differences in opinions or interpretations. The love for God’s truth is inundated, and frequently substituted, by the greater love for scholarly recognition, filthy lucre and ecumenical relations. I concur with Dr Khoo when he laments that “biblical separation (i.e., the separation of the church and its members from unbelief, apostasy, and compromise) is a much neglected doctrine today. It is disturbing to note that most of the major or popular theology textbooks written in this century fail to discuss it systematically. Those that do discuss it either treat it superficially or view it negatively (p. 11).” This book extends a clarion call to all the existing churches that claim to love the risen Lord and Savior.

In this book, Dr Khoo surveys the Bible as regards the biblical principle of holiness, and the necessity of separation from apostate organizations, false teachers and disobedient brethren. In the first three chapters, Dr Khoo points out that the mandate of separation is found clearly in both the Old and New Testament, and the responsibility of every believer is to obey this injunction of a thrice holy God. He provides ample examples, coupled with detailed discussions, of the requirement of separation in Holy Scripture. From the Torah, the historical books, the prophets, and the epistles of the Apostles, Dr Khoo argues ably that God’s holiness and the doctrine of separation are inseparable. Dr Khoo writes, “The essential element of holiness is that of separation. Separation is intrinsic to the doctrine of holiness. We separate from all forms of unbelief and apostasy because it is God’s nature to separate from such. The God of the Bible is a God who is holy. Being holy, He demands the same from His people. God said in both the OT and NT, “Ye shall be holy, for I the LORD your God, am holy” (Lev 19:1, 1 Pet 1:16).” (pp. 69-70).

Chapter four discusses a crucial aspect of the doctrine of separation: the application of this doctrine within the church. He answers questions such as, “How do we identify error? How should we confront the perpetrators of error? What does the Bible teach regarding the process of excommunication?” These are undoubtedly difficult questions, but there comes a time when faithfulness to God’s Word takes precedence over the unity of the local church. Dr Khoo reminds us that “the practice of separation is an act of love because it seeks not to destroy but to restore. It is also an act of divine chastening. Jesus said, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent” (Rev 3:19).” (p. 79)

In this book, Dr Khoo’s maturity as a theologian is revealed in his charity towards other brethren who differ in minor areas of doctrine. Nevertheless, he candidly expresses his disapproval with regard to fundamentalist extremes, “There are fundamentalists who go to an extreme in practising separation. They separate not only from liberal institutions, but also fundamental. The usual remark we hear from these extremists is, “they are not separate enough.” They exist very much on their own. Usually, the separation is due to some minor doctrinal differences like the mode of water baptism; should more or less water be used? We have to be very careful where we draw the line, lest instead of being separatists, we become isolationists.” (p. 72) In reality, Dr Khoo associates himself with certain dispensationalists and fundamental Baptists such as Dr Donald A. Waite. In this regard, we can truly say that he practices what he preaches.

In chapter four, Dr Khoo reserves his harshest criticisms for the New Evangelicals, and he unapologetically castigates their philosophy of ecclesiastical infiltration. Succinctly describing the irenic spirit of New Evangelicalism, he writes, “Neo-evangelicals have no qualms associating and cooperating with modernists, Roman Catholics, and charismatics in evangelistic campaigns. They say that as long as the gospel is preached and people get saved, it is alright to have joint political and religious activities. In other words, the end justifies the means. They do not believe that God’s work must be done God’s way.” (p.72)

Chapter five provides a brief, yet adequate, analysis of the predominant philosophies infecting Christendom today: Modernism, Ecumenism, New Evangelicalism, and Charismatism. Written from a Bible Presbyterian perspective, it is inevitable that most of the historical examples were taken from the annals of Bible Presbyterianism.

In conclusion, Dr Khoo reiterates to his readers that “biblical separation is not an option, but a command. Failure to obey this command will result in our churches being hurt and eventually destroyed. It will also bring dishonour to the name of Christ. Do we love the Lord? When Christ our Saviour is reviled, do we sit down and pretend nothing has happened? It is quite unnatural for a son not to defend or protect his parents when they are attacked. Are we not God’s children? Have we been filial?” (p. 103)

My fundamental disagreement with Dr Khoo in this book is with his endless claim that the Bible Presbyterian churches of Singapore are Reformed. Certain Bible Presbyterian churches may be Calvinistic, but none of them adhere to the theological-hermeneutical system of the Reformers. For example, Reformed theologians would not agree with Dispensationalists that Israel and the Church are distinct. This is the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. Yet, Bible Presbyterian hermeneutics is similar to that of Dispensationalism, that is, it sees a distinction between Israel and the Church. John F. MacArthur, Jr. of Master’s Seminary is likewise Calvinistic, but he is indubitably a dispensationalist.

In summary, Biblical Separation is an excellent book, which provides not only a survey of the doctrine of separation, but also serves as a convincing polemic against the philosophy of ecumenism and religious syncretism.

My Rating: 7/10

Note: This book is also available online.

Pilgrim’s Regress

Another Rant from the "Sunny Island in the Sea"

Zealous Zionists, including Bible Presbyterians in Singapore, occasionally undertake pilgrimage to the Promised Land to retrace the footsteps of Jesus and the patriarchs. In fact, True Life Bible Presbyterian Church of Singapore has just completed their 12th pilgrimage to the Holy Land in March 2006.

Consistent with their dispensational theology, Christian Zionists believe that ethnic Israelites are the true heirs of the Promised Land. While the Reformers such as Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli understood the New Testament Church as the true Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists insist that ethnic Israel must remain distinct from the Church. Hence, the Church is not the beneficiary of the land promises to Israel found in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, warmhearted Christian Zionists would be most willing to assist their Judaistic brethren in Jerusalem, especially in matters concerning the tourism industry and politics.

Despite the threats of bullets and shrapnel, determined pilgrims to the Holy Land are ready to brave these dangers by faith. By faith, they will grit their teeth and endure hardship like a good soldier (2 Timothy 2:3), so as to imbibe panoramic views of the Sea of Galilee, Cana, Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives, Gethsemane and the Shrine of the Book. But of course, according to Mrs Quek Siok Eng, “no visit is complete without touring Megiddo, the restored Templar Colony, the Bahai Shrine and Gardens, Elijah’s cave and the Carmelite monastery, the site of the struggle between the priests of Baal and Prophet Elijah.”

Ironically, in a recent article from Haaretz, “a group of 50 pro-Israel Christian tourists came under attack” during their pilgrimage to the Holy Land. “As they neared one of the squares, the local residents apparently identified them as Christians and began to hit them.”

Despite the fact that the pilgrims were “wearing orange T-shirts with the words “Love your neighbor as yourself” printed across them,” the local Jews decided to break the Old Testament law (Exodus 22:21, 23:9) and vex those “strangers” in their land. Fortuitously, none of those Christian tourists died as martyrs. They were not in the Promised Land as missionaries in the first place. What transpired seemed to be what politicians would call a misunderstanding; a harmless neighborly dispute between landlord and sojourners. After all, there was no promise of a risk-free trip to the Promised Land by the tour agency.

What could be the reason for the attack? Could it be a culture shock – a clash between the worldly and the otherworldly? According to the PCUSA, “The ultra-Orthodox Jews who live in the Mea Shearim enclave often resent non-religious people entering their neighborhood where residents live according to a strict interpretation of Jewish law. They wear modest clothes that cover them from head to toe. Signs in the neighborhood warn women visitors especially to dress modestly and in keeping with the practices of the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood.

Worldly Christians have been warned; do remember to dress modestly before touring this part of the Holy Land. In retrospect, it is indeed peculiar that these “ultra-Orthodox Jews” who claim to interpret the Jewish law strictly or literally would misinterpret statements like, “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt (Exodus 22:21).” Perhaps the teachings of John Nelson Darby have yet to reach this side of the world.

Missionaries and pilgrims from dispensational denominations should, in future pilgrimages, lecture these Jews regarding the “consistently literal hermeneutics” of Dispensationalism. But is it not true that, during the first advent of Christ, a wooden literalism has misled the Jewish rabbis into rejecting the true Messiah? Again, is it not true that a literalistic reading of Old Testament prophecies has prevented the Jews from understanding an essential spiritual truth – that Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment of all prophecies? “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us (2 Cor. 1:20).”

The dispensational anticipation of regression into the Old Testament shadows of temple worship, bloody sacrifices, and priestly order in the earthly Millennium is similar to the Jewish expectation of an earthly, Messianic kingdom ruled by a descendent of David. According to Judaistic hermeneutics, Jerusalem will be the centre of millennial worship. This is the city where Gentiles, together with their Jewish brethren, will gather to worship the Messiah in the Millennium. Taken to its logical conclusion, a consistently literalistic hermeneutics might even allow Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists alike to revert to Old Testament Judaism and its pertinent ceremonial practices. Wearing orange T-shirts with the words “I am a citizen of Yahweh’s millennial kingdom, and I will worship in the temple with you guys” printed across them would probably be more appealing to Jews.

The New Testament teaches that, irrespective of racial or genealogical descent, elect Jews and Gentiles shall constitute the Church. While the nation of Israel was the type, the Church is the anti-type. Membership within the Church of Christ is dependent upon salvific faith, not genetic inheritance. However, Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians look forward to the day in the future when “all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26).” They argue that God will accomplish a mass salvation of Israelites at his Parousia.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-9). “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel (Galatians 1:8),” that is, a message that says a person can be saved just because of his Jewish bloodline, genealogy, or citizenship, this message is tantamount to a false gospel. Following the logic of Dispensationalism, if a Gentile rejects the gospel today, would it not be sensible to urge him to convert to Judaism so that he can be part of that end-time phenomenon - the mass salvation of Israel? If, indeed, a Gentile can be saved by becoming a Jew, the way to God is no longer narrow.

According to the dispensational theory, there will be at least two ways to heaven. First and foremost, a Gentile must believe in Jesus by faith. This is Plan A. Nevertheless, if Plan A fails – that is, if the Gentile rejects the Gospel - there is always a contingency Plan B. The blueprint of Plan B reads: “Get the Gentile converted to Judaism, and he will be counted as a Jew. That way, if Christ returns soon, the gentile will be saved together with the rest of Israel.”

But the Bible only teaches one way to God: the narrow way. “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it (Matthew 7:14).” Do not be deceived. The way to God is still narrow. Contrary to popular dispensational beliefs, we must not wait for God to deal with Israel during “the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7).” We must reach the Jews now.

Pilgrimage or no pilgrimage, Jewish sinners need to hear the Gospel as much as Gentiles. I would suggest this to all Christian pilgrims: if you truly love the Jews, endeavor to preach the Gospel of Christ to them. And that would definitely be better than wearing orange T-shirts.

Is the Bible Unscientific?

In his book Farewell to God: My reasons for rejecting the Christian faith, Canadian evangelist Charles Templeton elucidates that his apostasy began with a seed of doubt sown in his heart concerning the creation account in Genesis chapter one (Templeton, Farewell to God, p. 7). This led to his rejection of the entire gospel of Christ, and inevitably, Scripture itself.

Christian students in most developed countries, including Singapore, have to endure constant ridicule from lecturers of the pseudo-scientific theory called Neo Darwinism. Is it then true that, for us to be scientific, we should reject certain biblical teachings, particularly the creation account of Genesis 1?

A common allegation of the skeptics is “the Bible is unscientific.” Therefore, creation should be relegated to the realms of myths and fairy tales. The perennial mantra - “evolution is science but creation is religion” - is routinely chanted at debates and school boards. I once read a comment made by an atheist regarding the “mythical” Bible. He was absolutely indignant, perhaps paranoid, with the suggestion that creation could be taught in public schools as an alternative theory of origins. He commented that, “If a concept is part of Christianity, if it is taught in the Bible, it does not belong in public education.” I wonder if he had really given that statement a careful evaluation. I am convinced that if he had, he would immediately retract that remark.

There was this fictitious dispute between an atheist and a bible student regarding the veracity of the Bible. The atheist would not believe the Scriptures unless the student could prove beyond reasonable doubt that at least one verse in the Bible is scientifically accurate. All of a sudden, without prior warning, the student grabbed the atheist’s nose, and started to twist it back and forth with remarkable fervor. After a short while, the poor atheist’s nose started to bleed. The atheist vehemently demanded that the student explain his actions, especially the reason for wringing his nose.

In the same breath, the student answered, “You wanted me to prove a verse in the Bible. I have just proven Proverbs 30:33 to be scientifically accurate.” It is stated in Proverbs 30:33 that “the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood”. Anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy will immediately realize that this “wringing” will result in epistaxis (nose bleed) secondary to trauma. This bringing “forth” of “blood” will occur beyond a certain intensity and strength. Depending on whether medical aid is provided, the duration of epistaxis varies. Even the atheist has to concede that Proverbs 30:33 is scientifically accurate.

Although the Bible is a religious text, it is absolutely precise when it touches on science, geography, archaeology, anthropology and history. If the Bible is indeed inspired, inerrant and infallible, it must not be erroneous whenever it expounds upon secular topics such as science. Skeptics and atheists have tried to discredit the Bible as the Word of God by attacking its scientific content. Nevertheless, scientists have never disproved the Bible. Far from being disproved, there are a growing number of scientists who are convinced that the creation account enunciated in the Bible, when compared to evolution, is better supported by secular science.

If skeptics insist on rejecting biblical statements as myths, they must also reject the following scientific statements in the Bible:

1. A spherical planet Earth mentioned in Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”

2. Gravity mentioned in Matthew 10:29, “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.”

3. The Hydrologic Cycle in Ecclesiastes 1:7, “All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.”

4. The unaccountable number of stars in Jeremiah 33:22, “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured”

5. The importance of blood to life in Leviticus 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” Many doctors in the past practiced “blood letting”, which is the cutting of veins to release the “bad blood” of patients. This resulted in many unnecessary deaths through excessive blood loss and hypovolemic shock. In 1799, US President George Washington died by this erroneous “medical” procedure. Many deaths would have been prevented if only doctors had given heed to Leviticus 17:11.

6. The Earth is hanging in space, mentioned in Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

7. The presence of undersea currents in Psalm 8:8, “ … and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”

8. The atmosphere has weight in Job 28:25, “To make the weight for the winds”

9. The universe is running down, i.e. the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Psalm 102:25-26, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.”

10. The expanding universe in Psalms 104:2, “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” This fact is reiterated in many other verses of the Bible, such as Isaiah 42:5.

11. Underwater hydrothermal vents and fountains in Job 38:16, “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?” Also mentioned in Proverbs 8:28, “When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep.”

12. Light can be parted (via prisms) in Job 38:24, “By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?”

13. Winds moving in circuits in Eccles. 1:6, “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.”

14. The existence of microbes and the importance of quarantine in Leviticus 13:46, “All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.” It is interesting to note that between AD 1347 and 1352, more than one third of the population of Europe died because of the bubonic plaque. If they had followed biblical instructions of quarantine and sanitation, many lives would have been saved.

The above listing is by no means exhaustive. The logical fallacy of the statement, “If it is in the Bible, it is not science but religion,” should be clear to all who think candidly. Each of the aforementioned examples is intricately linked to a Christian doctrine. Should we therefore repudiate all the above scientific facts just because they are part of Christian theology? Moreover, I believe that creation ex nihilo is a vital doctrine of the Christian religion. Does this automatically disqualify creation as a scientific hypothesis? Preposterous!

If scientists are able to dissociate themselves from an a priori commitment to the evolutionary paradigm, and examine all available evidence, I sincerely doubt they would come to the ‘empirical’ conclusion that molecules evolved to man.

Rants from Singapore (June 2006)

Oyster Biology and Anglican Theology



Note: This is a rant on this article from Reuters.

The idiom, “the world is your oyster,” has apparently taken on a new meaning according to a marine biologist turned bishop. With a doctorate degree in squid and oyster biology, the learned Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori – who is currently the bishop of the Diocese of Nevada in the U.S. Episcopal Church – elucidates her view of same-sex relations, “I don't believe [that homosexuality is sin]. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us.”

Although we do not know if there were any previous transference or counter-transference between Schori and oyster during her research years, we do know that the immense insights provided by oyster biology has ostensibly revolutionized human sexuality, not mentioning Christian ethics and theology in the U.S. Episcopal Church. Biologists understand that the European oyster and the Olympia oyster of the American Pacific Coast are hermaphrodites. These bivalve mollusks, in contrast to heterosexual humans, are able to play the role of father and mother simultaneously.

Not to be intimidated by these tiny Ostrea edulis, Schori has declared that it is not immoral for the man, or the woman, to play father and mother – all at the same time. According to Schori, the loving father of one family can likewise be the loving mother of another – and this is a gift from God to bless “the world around us.” I wonder if the Singaporean government agrees with her observations, given the declining birth rate and increasing number of divorces. Nevertheless, who would deny the good bishop this wonderful “gift” for her own family?

“God creates us with different gifts,” Schori firmly reassures the laity who have no prior knowledge of oyster physiology. Some men and women are gifted to act like humans, while others are predisposed to act like monkeys or oysters. “Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things” so as to “bless the world around us.” Some come “into this world” with a pair of shells, some with a preference for similar anatomical structures, and some even have pearls in their mouths. But all these gifts, according to bishop Schori, are to bless the world around us. The pearl oyster is arguably one of God’s most beautiful gifts to mankind. But the human with the sexual preference of oysters is not even allowed into the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:17). Perhaps, the ultimate “blessing” for Schori would be to see her very own children emulating her philosophy of human sexuality, and practicing it in the homophile world.

Equipped with intimate details of mollusks, Schori continues, “Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender.” Following her line of thought, it is no wonder that some “come into this world with affections ordered toward other” species as well, be it mammals, nematodes or bivalves. For Schori and all who agree with her, the world is your oyster, metaphorically. For there is no lack of men today who are “gifted” with affections “ordered toward” other men.

While Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament for their decadence and immorality, Schori gives us new revelation that God has changed His mind about sodomy. Schori does not perceive homosexuality and lesbianism as abominable sins condemned by the Bible. She argues, “The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear - there are rules in the Bible about those that we don’t observe today.” It seems that, according to Schori, making a choice between chilli crabs and caviar for lunch is the same as choosing either a man or woman as a spouse.

Contrary to the exciting claims of Bishop (Dr) Schori, the Apostle Paul warned, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).” The purported “gifts” of Schori come under the category of sin in the Bible, and God calls these “gifts” an “abomination” and “confusion” (Leviticus 18:22-24). Whereas Schori proclaims that “the great message of Jesus” is “to include the unincluded,” this inclusion without the preaching of repentance is condemned as a false gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

Paul cautioned, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).” If Schori’s philosophy is correct, then the Apostle had erred (cf. Romans 1:24-32).

This wicked world is indeed the sinner’s oyster, but such “vile passions (Romans 1:26)” should be relegated to the world of oyster sexuality and reproduction.

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism Part 4

Concluding Thoughts



Alas, God’s Holy Word has been made a slave to the science of textual criticism (1 Timothy 6:20). True believers of Christ cannot worship at both the altar of faith and the altar of scholasticism. The exclusive, pedantic adherence to scholarly methods, coupled with the rejection of the logic of faith, will result in the following theological tragedy: the inerrancy of Holy Scripture will be replaced by the inerrancy of the hypothetical autographs.

Dr Bart Ehrman apparently understood the importance of the preservation of Scripture. Unfortunately, instead of embracing the doctrine of preservation, he chose to abandon the evangelical faith in rejecting the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture:

"As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don’t have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. . . . the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them." (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, page 211.)

If we do not have the Word of God today, then our faith is in vain, and all the old-line fundamentals of faith are subjected to the scrutiny of unbelieving scholarship and philosophy (Colossians 2:8). If we cannot say that the Bible we possess is the preserved, inerrant and inspired Word of God, the textual scholars will decide for us what inerrant scripture is. Subjecting themselves to the ultimate authority of manuscript evidence and human scholarship, textual critics have substituted the authority of God’s Word with the supremacy of men’s intellect. They are “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:14).”

Ultimately, textual critics must concede with infidels that there is no perfect authority for the Church today. Criticizing the Church’s subservience to the Westcott and Hort theory, M S M Saifullah, cAbd ar-Rahmân Robert Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem wrote:

“We have already seen above that the textual criticism has destroyed the concept of ‘textus receptus’ and ‘original text.’ The New Testament text that we have in our hands today is the work of a committee which decided on the readings which it thought are ‘original.’ The Church and textual criticism were antipodes. Therefore, any one who ventured into this field was condemned or ignored. The bravery of modern day Christians towards the textual criticism (“Who is afraid of textual criticism?”) is similar to the roar of a paper tiger. Since they can’t get away with the devil of textual criticism, they might as well try to befriend it. This is precisely what they did after the fall of ‘textus receptus’ during the time of Westcott and Hort. . . . In conclusion, it is quite clear that the Church did not like the idea of seeing the variant readings and abandonment of ‘textus receptus’ which was revered throughout the Christian world as the ‘inerrant’ word of God. The abandonment of ‘textus receptus’ overthrew the doctrine of inerrancy of the scriptures at hand. It was replaced by the inerrancy of the hypothetical 'original' manuscript. . . . We have discussed the response of Muslims and Christians to the textual criticism of the Qur’an and the Bible. Muslims have always been careful of how the Qur’an should be read and written. Detailed rules were formulated to achieve the transmission both orally and written. The Christian Bible on the other hand did not have any such rules and had to live a life of 'living text' which was constantly changing at the whims and fancies of the scribes and the leaders of the Church. And naturally when textual criticism was applied, the Church was up in arms. Very soon it was realized that the beast of textual criticism is here to stay. And the modern day Christians missionaries boastfully say, “Who is afraid of textual criticism?’” (M S M Saifullah, cAbd ar-Rahmân Robert Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem, Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism? Internet; accessed 08 May 2006; available from http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/textcriticism.html, emphasis mine.)

It is notable that even unbelieving Muslim scholars are able to discern the logical inconsistencies and paralogisms inherent in so-called Christian textual criticism. The academic notion of verbal, plenary inspiration is, evidently, functionally incompatible with the concept of a “living text which was constantly changing at the whims and fancies of the scribes and the leaders of the Church.” The evangelical doctrine of inerrancy was effectively relegated to the realms of theoretical discourses, and the traditional text of the New Testament was replaced with an unfolding, eclectic text that will never be the infallible Word. Unavoidably, modernistic textual scholarship will require radical revision in order for it to be compatible with the evangelical doctrine of Scripture.

Dr Edward F. Hills, who was trained as a textual critic in Harvard University, comprehended the potential threat posed by rationalistic textual criticism to a believer’s faith. In his book The King James Version Defended, he warned Christians that “ . . . the logic of naturalistic textual criticism leads to complete modernism, to a naturalistic view not only of the biblical text but also of the Bible as a whole and of the Christian faith. For if it is right to ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures in the study of the New Testament text, why isn’t it right to go farther in the same direction? Why isn’t it right to ignore other divine aspects of the Bible? Why isn’t it right to ignore the divine inspiration of the Scriptures when discussing the authenticity of the Gospel of John or the Synoptic problem or the authorship of the Pentateuch? . . . Impelled by this remorseless logic, many an erstwhile conservative bible student has become entirely modernistic in his thinking. But he does not acknowledge that he has departed from the Christian faith. For from his point of view he has not. He has merely travelled farther down the same path which he began to tread when first he studied naturalistic textual criticism of the Westcott and Hort type, perhaps at some conservative theological seminary. From his point of view his orthodox former professors are curiously inconsistent. They use the naturalistic method in the area of New Testament textual criticism and then drop it most illogically, like something too hot to handle, when they come to other departments of biblical study.” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, page 83, emphasis mine).

Sadly, Bart Ehrman is a fulfilment of Dr Hill’s earlier warning. Dr Ehrman has “merely travelled farther down the same path which he began to tread when first he studied naturalistic textual criticism of the Westcott and Hort type,” and has eventually arrived at the broad way that leads to eternal perdition and unbelief.

This concludes my current thoughts on this subject matter.

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism Part 3

The Way Forward for Textual Criticism



In the area of contemporary textual criticism, what are some factors that might contribute to the development of a mature and faith-based method of collating manuscripts? In the following paragraphs, I would like to mention certain points, which might be considered for future dialogue.

Firstly, we must address the issue of preservation of Scripture. Our Lord Jesus Christ, obviously, never owned the autographs of the Bible. Did our Lord, then, ever question the inerrancy of the apographs He had? In fact, Jesus was absolutely confident that not one jot or tittle of Holy Writ would ever be lost (Matthew 5:17-18), not even in the apographs. No honest student of the Scripture can ever claim that Jesus did not believe in an inerrant Bible (Matthew 4:4, 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 24:44, John 10:35). Yet our Lord did not possess the autographs of Scripture. Neither did the apostles possess the autographs of the entire biblical canon.

Secondly, in a very practical sense, we must explore the doctrinal implications and ramifications of verbal, plenary inspiration for the Church today. Whenever the word “Scripture” appears in the Bible, does it refer to the autographs or the apographs? In 2 Timothy 3:14-17, we read the following words of the apostle Paul:

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul admonished Timothy to continue (verse14) in the Holy Scriptures that he had known since he was a child (verse15). The Holy Scriptures, which Timothy possessed, were copies of the original Hebrew Old Testament texts. Timothy obviously did not own the autographs of the Old Testament. The apostle Paul referred to these copies as Holy Scriptures. When Paul wrote verse 16 under the inspiration of God, we observe that there is not a single verb in the past tense. Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”; the Scripture, which Timothy knew from childhood, is presently inspired.

It is remarkable that 2 Timothy 3:16 was written in the present tense. Paul could have written, “All scripture was given by inspiration of God”; this might imply that Scripture was perfectly inspired only at its original writing. But the grammatical structure of verse 16 (“All scripture is given by inspiration”) unequivocally states that the verbal, plenary inspiration of God’s inerrant Word extends to the words of the apographs.

John MacArthur Jr., in his New Testament Commentary on 2nd Timothy, comments on 2 Timothy 3:16:

“In addition to the many other specific biblical references to the inspiration and authority of Scripture—some of which are mentioned below—it is important to note that similar Greek constructions in other parts of the New Testament (see, e.g., Rom. 7:12; 2 Cor. 10:10; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:3; 4:4; Heb. 4:12) argue strongly from a grammatical perspective that all Scripture is inspired is the proper translation.” (John MacArthur Jr., MacArthur's New Testament Commentary: 2 Timothy)

It is not only the message, but also the very words of Scripture that are inspired. Modern textual scholarship insists that the inspired, inerrant Word of God is found only in the autographs. While the apostle Paul emphasized that, “All scripture is given by inspiration”, skeptics suggest, “All scripture was given by inspiration”. The bible-believing Christian affirms that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), whereas textual scholars believe it was given.

Although Timothy had only copies of the Old Testament books, the apographs he owned were considered by Paul to be inspired Scripture! If the words of the apographs were inspired, they must also be inerrant and infallible. God’s inspired Words cannot contain error!

Besides, whenever the apostle Paul preached in the synagogues (Acts 13:16, 13:46, 14:1, 17:2, 17:10, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8), he did not use the autographs of the biblical canon. The Berean church (Acts 17:11), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34-35) and the first century Christians did not possess a Bible made up of autographs. Is it, then, true that they did not have the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Scripture? God forbids. It is a fact that whenever the word “scripture” occurs in the Bible, it never refers to the autographs alone.

It is not the ink or the physical writing materials of the autographs that are inspired per se, but the words on the autographs. Those very same inspired words are found on the apographs. All scripture - autograph and apograph - is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is indubitably clear with regard to the extant inerrancy and inspiration of Holy Writ. Inspiration can never be rationally divorced from the doctrine of preservation. The Westminster divines, recognizing the logical relationship between inspiration and preservation, declared that the inspired Scriptures in the original languages are by God’s “singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages (Westminster Confession of Faith I:8).”

As a point of interest, I would like to digress a little, and mention an excellent article I read in the recent edition of The Standard Bearer (Volume 82, Number 17, June 2006), entitled “Modern Heresies: Higher Criticism 2.” In this article, Professor Herman Hanko wrote:

“The church of all ages has confessed that Scripture is the Word of God and the standard of truth and holiness. Yet the bitter attacks against Scripture have forced the church to define more precisely what it means that Scripture is the Word of God. To do this involves defining more precisely what is meant by inspiration. . . . Scripture is given to the church by God, word for word. Scripture is verbally inspired, fully inspired, totally that which the Holy Spirit wanted written. Hence, Scripture is both infallible and inerrant. (Pages 393-394, emphasis mine)”

I applaud the Protestant Reformed Churches in America for their high view on Scripture, and their courage in defending vital Christian doctrines against modernistic assaults. I agree and affirm wholeheartedly that “Scripture is given to the church by God, word for word,” and that “Scripture is verbally inspired, fully inspired” - each and every word of God has plenary inspiration.

However, if textual criticism ought to be swallowed wholesale by evangelical Christians, then allow me to direct a question to all evangelical scholars: “Which local church, or which generation of Christians, in all of Church history, has ever possessed all the words of this verbal plenary inspired Scripture?”

If indeed “Scripture is given to the church by God, word for word,” which local church on this planet has ever possessed all of Scripture “word for word?” Is it true, then, that the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture is only limited to the non-existent, hypothetical autographs which neither Jesus nor the apostles ever possessed?

Contemporary textual scholarship must soberly consider the logical ramifications of the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. Otherwise, evangelical textual criticism would degenerate to mere human philosophy and empiricism. But the Christian ought to work with the logic of faith; that is, logic derived from the faith in God that He will preserve His inspired words.

To be continued in Part 4

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism Part 2

Logical Fallacies of Textual Criticism



Avoiding further circumlocution, I will state my point very simply: textual critics will decide which are, and which are not, the words of God. While the Church once possessed the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received texts as Scripture, this certainty and confidence in having an unchanging text is replaced by an allegedly superior, eclectic text, which is perennially updated to give us the unchanging Word of God.

Indeed, the logical fallacy of contemporary, evangelical scholarship is astounding. Let me furnish some examples:

Statement A: “While we do not have the autographs today, we are confident that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.”

Logical fallacy A: If the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture apply only to the autographs, and not to the apographs, does it not necessarily mean that what we possess today are not inerrant and infallible? Furthermore, which Bible is inerrant and infallible - the autographs or the one in our hands?

Statement B: “The inspired Word of God contains no errors.”

Logical fallacy B: The inspiration of Scripture is verbal and plenary. This means that each and every word given to the Church is inspired, inerrant and infallible. But these words are, according to textual critics, lost to antiquity. The words of the Bible today contain scribal errors and copyist mistakes, and no sane textual critic will admit that he is absolutely confident that every word and sentence of the Bible today is a perfect reconstruction of the autographs. Also, can any textual critic give us the assurance that a particular variant reading is the original Word of God? The textual critic may claim that a particular variant is closest to the original reading, but can he affirm that it is the original reading? Hence, by logical deduction, can we say that the Word of God as we have it today is inerrant and infallible?

Statement C: “Although there are scribal errors in our Bibles today, they do not affect the fundamentals of faith. The Bible is still inerrant and infallible.”

Logical fallacy C: If the words of Scripture are not preserved for us today, and if our Bible as we have it contains copyist errors scattered throughout its text, how can we be sure which words are in the autographs and which are not? It is God’s Words that are inspired, not just the message of His Words. But according to the theory of textual criticism, the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture exist only in the hypothetical autographs. The syllogistic deductions of textual criticism inevitably lead to this conclusion: in essence, the Bible that the church possesses today is not inerrant and infallible Scripture. This conclusion, in any case, affects the fundamental doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of Holy Writ.

Who can, therefore, blame Dr Ehrman for arriving at the logical conclusion of naturalistic textual criticism? He rants, “It would be wrong . . . to say - as people sometimes do - that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case. (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, page 208)” Is it, then, true that Dr Ehrman’s faith in textual criticism has partially attributed to his apostasy from the true faith? The “theological conclusions” he drew would include questioning the deity of Christ and the veracity of Scripture.

As Evangelicals, we have to agree that, at the very least, every jot and tittle of Scripture is the very Word of God. The psalmist proclaimed: “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (Psalm 138:2).” If God has magnified His Word even above His name, I would be very worried if any of His Words are no longer available for us today, for it brings into question his omnipotence. An omnipotent, omniscient and omnisapient God must be able to preserve His Words for his Church.

Again, if man requires each and every Word that proceeds out of God’s mouth, it is a serious, if not fatal, logical error to claim that God has failed to preserve His every Word. For “it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4, cf. Deuteronomy 8:3, Luke 4:4).”

To be continued in Part 3

Opening a Can of Worms: The Problems of Textual Criticism

An Introduction to the Problems

Part 1



Recent attacks on Christianity have come from two fronts, namely, the Christological and the textual fronts. Revisionist hypotheses such as Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, attempt to reinterpret the person of Christ and His life. As Christology is intimately intertwined with other salient Christian doctrines, various fundamentals of faith are indirectly affected.

More insidious than this assault upon Nicene Christology is Brown’s egregious denunciation of the historical, biblical canon. This controversy should reasonably be classified under textual and canonical matters, or more specifically, higher criticism. Of late, the subject of lower criticism, also known as textual criticism, has served as fodder for critics of biblical inerrancy.

The arena of textual criticism is, I believe, usually beyond the reach of the rank and file Christian. Consequentially, serious critiques of the text of Scripture, such as Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by North America’s leading textual critic, Bart D. Ehrman, are inevitably difficult for the layman to answer.

Ex-evangelical Dr Ehrman, who once adhered to the inerrancy of Scripture, now questions its veracity in his book Misquoting Jesus:

“How does it help us to say that the Bible is inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes - sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals!” (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, page 7.)

Although Dr Ehrman calls himself a “happy agnostic,” and now believes that man simply ceases to exist at death - “like the mosquito you swatted yesterday” - I think his question is a fair one. If what Christians have today is a constantly evolving text called the eclectic text, which is updated every couple of years by textual scholars, is there any practical value in calling the "Bible" inerrant and infallible? In effect, Dr Ehrman is tacitly admitting that: without divine preservation of the original words of Scripture, which is inerrant and infallible, what we have today is a flawed reconstruction of the autographs at best – the demise of which is admitted by every textual scholar.

Tragically, Dr Ehrman’s conclusions are the logical deductions of modern textual criticism. And he is definitely not alone when he claims that the autographs are irrecoverable. Dr Ehrman is simply reiterating the sentiments of various textual critics. Renowned textual critic, F.C. Conybeare, commented in 1910, “The ultimate text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is forever irrecoverable.” (History of New Testament Criticism, p. 129). Again, in 1947, R.M. Grant said, “ . . . it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered.” (“The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, page 173).

The naturalistic theory of textual criticism explains that the autographs were lost or destroyed since antiquity, and the only way to reconstruct the autographs is via an indeterminate process of manuscript collation and emendation. According to the Westcott and Hort theory, the oldest manuscripts - which are allegedly closest to the autographs - were only rediscovered in the 19th century. Despite losing these manuscripts for almost 1900 years, the Church has finally recovered these Alexandrian manuscripts, which are nevertheless imperfect. The collation of Greek manuscripts and emendation of the eclectic text for the last few centuries had produce an ever-changing Bible for Christians. Nevertheless, this Bible is still evolving towards a better text, which ought to be closer to the autographs, although it never will be an exact replica of the originals.

To be continued in Part 2

A Primer to the “Carnal Christian” Theory Part 4

What does 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 really teach?

From a single passage of Scripture, proponents of the “Carnal Christian” theory conjured up three classes of humanity, the natural man, the spiritual Christian man, and the carnal Christian man. This passage is found in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4:

“1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”

Unlike the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, 1 Corinthians is not primarily a doctrinal epistle. Although all Scripture contains doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16), 1 Corinthians was not written to lay doctrinal foundations. Paul’s immediate concern in writing this epistle was to deal with practical problems in the young Corinthian church.

Due to schisms within the church at Corinth, the apostle was obliged to treat the Corinthians as children or babes in the knowledge of sacred truths (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). Some preferred Paul as their teacher, others Apollos (1 Corinthians 3:4). The apostle, however, clarified that Apollos, his fellow apostles, and himself were only God’s instruments for bringing them to the knowledge of the truth. All their sowing and watering of the seeds were useless unless God gave the increase (1 Corinthians 3:5-8). From the first to the fourth chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul was dealing with the danger of schisms and divisions arising out of a wrong esteem for preachers from whom they had heard the gospel. Instead of recognizing their unity in Christ, they were forming factions and opposing parties within the church.

As with all the other problems within the Corinthian church - for example, the disorder at the Lord’s Supper, immorality and lawsuits - such divisions were the result of carnality, the outcropping of that remaining principle of sin in all believers which Paul described in Romans 7:21-23. We understand that the Corinthian Christians were imperfectly sanctified, as are all Christians to a lesser or greater degree.

Paul is not teaching that the Corinthians were characterized by carnality in all areas of their lives. He is not expounding a separate, lower class of “Carnal Christians”, but reproving a specific act of carnality in just one aspect of those factious Christians. Paul’s foundational epistles - the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians - had clearly laid out a bipartite division of all humanity. To read a new class of “Carnal Christian” into the text of 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 is to violate a cardinal principle of basic hermeneutics: a single passage of Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the whole.

A Christian may be fleshly in one or more areas of his life, and also at various periods of his pilgrimage on Earth. But it is inconceivable that a born-again child of God, who is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, can remain carnal in all areas of his life for all his life!

The “Carnal Christian” theory intimates that sanctification and submission to the Kingship of Christ is an option. Thus, this aberrant teaching makes it possible for unregenerate, sybaritic “professors” to claim a saving attachment to Christ when they are really on the broad way to hell. “Redemption would be a mockery without sanctification; for sin itself, and not the external wrath of God, is the cause of misery here, and eternal death hereafter. Hence, to deliver the fallen son of Adam from his guilt, and leave him under the power of corruption would be no salvation.” (R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1985 [1878]), 664.)

Conclusion

This hedonistic culture will not hesitate to embrace the “Carnal Christian” theory, for the theory assures a materialistic, profligate generation that they can remain in their carnality, and yet acquire a “fire-insurance policy.” The unregenerate person is thereby misled into believing that he can proclaim the name of Christ (Matthew 7:21-23), and yet continue to enjoy “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16).” But the Bible proclaims that God is able to take away our stony hearts, and to give us new hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26).

Is it, then, possible for a true Christian to have no desire in obeying the thrice-Holy God (1 John 2:3-5, John 14:15)?

Ernest Reisinger exclaimed, “How in God’s name did we come to huckstering off Jesus as some kind of hell-insurance policy, when the Bible announced Him as Lord and exalted Him to a throne? The New Testament preachers preached His lordship, and sinners received Him as Lord. There is not one example of Christ being offered any other way . . . God-centered evangelism proclaims the biblical message of the lordship of Christ at the outset, not as a second work of grace, or an act of optional consecration later.” Ernest C. Reisinger, Today’s Evangelism: Its Message and Methods (Phillipsburg, NJ: Craig Press, 1982), pp. 25, 27.

Ultimately, the “Carnal Christian” heresy denigrates all the three persons of the Godhead: it scorns the atonement of Christ by implying that His death does not liberate the sinner from the power of sin; it demeans the regenerating work of the Spirit by teaching that the Holy Ghost cannot lead the child of God in victorious, holy living; it ultimately ridicules the Father by calling Him a liar and an impotent God (1 Peter 1:2).


This post concludes my brief discourse in this subject matter.