Yuku free message boards

at that time, the influence of D.A. Waite's teachings was increasing, but those churches weren't split yet. as this latest article indicates, the splits began to happen at the turn of the millennium, n today, it's an open, festering wound. thank God for emboldening these faithful n brave ministers to take a most difficult stand against the cancer in their midst. they finally bit the bullet n did the right thing, n i wish them spiritual health n true unity going forward.

KJBOism is a heresy, no less, n needs to be so called.

====================================================


http://www.lifebpc.com/weekly/080113.htm

Dear Lifer,

MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS

Though with a scornful wonder men see her sore oppressed,

By schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,

Yet saints their watch are keeping, their cry goes up, "How long?"

And soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

The words of this hymn, composed by Samuel Stone in the 19th century, reflects a painful phenomenon that has troubled the Church of Jesus Christ from the time of its inception - Heresies and the divisions engendered by them. The apostles had to deal with them in the first century (Acts 15:24; Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10). In the second century, church fathers like Irenaeus had to write against a pseudo-Christian cult called Gnosticism. In the 3rd century the Church had to deal with Sabellianism. In the 4th Century it was Arianism, and in the 5th century it was Nestorianism…and so on, right up to the present day.

The word 'heresy' is derived from the Greek verb haireomai which means 'choose.' Hence, a heresy can be defined as a chosen course of thought or action which is held dogmatically but varies from the true exposition of the Christian faith as prescribed by the Word of God. A heresy is seldom a complete lie. It often arises from a slight distortion of the truth that wrests it from its original context (cf. 2 Peter 3:16), or that puts undue emphasis on a particular facet of it. There are at least three characteristics of a heresy:

1. It Is New

Charles Spurgeon once said, "No man can add anything to the religion of Jesus. All that is consistent with truth is already incorporated in it, and with that which is not true it can form no alliance. There is nothing new in theology save that which is false."

Within the last 77 years a new teaching on the preservation of the Bible has arisen. It was started by a Seventh Day Adventist named Benjamin G Wilkinson (1872 - 1968) through a book entitled, Our Authorised Bible Vindicated (1930). This new teaching has been propagated since then. It emerged in our midst more than 5 years ago with the name Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). In his testimony, From the RSV to the KJV, Dr Jeffrey Khoo wrote, "Through Hills's book I discovered the sorely neglected doctrine of biblical preservation. It was a doctrine affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. As a Bible-Presbyterian, I was flabbergasted that I did not know this doctrine. I was never taught it. I knew well the doctrine of biblical inspiration, but had never heard of biblical preservation. This doctrine is clearly taught in Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35. I felt like the parabolic man who had found the pearl of great price. What a precious doctrine!" The teaching can be summarised as follows:

The process of preservation of the Scriptures culminated in the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Version. These texts surpassed all other editions of the traditional texts existing at that time. The ones responsible for these texts were the translators of the KJV. God used these translators to restore absolute 100 % purity to the texts in the year 1611. The result of this is that only the Greek and Hebrew texts immediately underlying the KJV are the exact words of the original writings, i.e. the very words used when God first gave His word by inspiration to the Bible writers.

As you can see, the intention of those who promote this teaching is quite noble - to give those who use the KJV absolute confidence that they have a Bible translation which is based on the texts which are not only closest to the original, but which is word and letter perfect, exactly the same as the original. Wouldn't it be good news to all KJV users that we alone have the unrivalled privilege to have such a Bible in our hands? This would surely provide us with the most solid grounds to continue using it and to discourage the use of any other version of the Bible.

But as noble as the intention may be for this new teaching, we must realize that it is untenable. (Romans 10:2 - "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.") Although it claims to be based on passages of Scripture which speak on the preservation of the Scriptures (e.g. 1 Peter 1:23-25), it is really a subjective opinion that has no biblical authority. Nowhere in the entire Bible is there a verse which says that God will restore the 100 % purity of the Greek and Hebrew texts of His Word to make them exactly like the original autographs. Nowhere in the Bible can you find even a single verse that says or implies that God will do this restoration work through the translators of the KJV in the year 1611. This is all purely human conjecture.

If it is truly based on the Bible, then any Christian in any period of church history and in any part of the world who studies nothing else but the Bible carefully, guided by the Holy Spirit should be able to arrive at this teaching independently. But this is obviously not the case. It is a new doctrine, limited to some users of the KJV. Therefore its basis is something other than the Bible. And if we were to make it binding for every Christian to believe, then we are no longer based solely on the divine authority of the Bible.

Let us heed what God says in Jeremiah 6:16 - "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." For the past 57 years, Life Church has been upholding the use of the KJV because we believe that it is the best English translation of the Scriptures, made by godly translators from the best Greek and Hebrew texts. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states in chapter 8, article 1, these have been "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages." We affirm that because God has providentially preserved His Word in the body of manuscripts, there is maximum certainty that what we have today is the very Word of God and fully reliable.

2. It Is Infectious

Heresy spreads quickly, just like gangrene. The apostle Paul had to write to Timothy, "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker…" (2 Timothy 2:16-17)

The word 'canker' in this verse is translated from the Greek word gangraina, from which we get the word gangrene. Gangrene is an infection that has a strong tendency to spread quickly because the bacteria produce powerful toxins that destroy adjacent healthy tissues, making them highly susceptible to further invasion. The treatment involves heavy doses of antibiotics and, if necessary, the timely amputation of the affected tissue. Without such radical measures the infection will spread like wildfire until the whole body is consumed.

Paul clearly used this metaphor to warn Timothy in no uncertain terms of the extreme danger of dealing lightly and slowly with heresy. Its toxic effects will spread quickly to every church and household it infiltrates. Swift and drastic action is necessary to stem its venomous tide.

The gangrene-like characteristic of the VPP heresy has been amply demonstrated both locally and abroad. Since the infection began to develop in Singapore more than 5 years ago, it has ravaged churches at an amazing rate. It has affected no fewer than 6 churches todate, and will continue to spread with even greater fervour if nothing is done to stop it. The bad news is that Bible-believing churches that use the KJV appear to be most vulnerable to this infection. The situation has come to a stage where such churches will certainly succumb to its terrible onslaught if they have no prepared defenses against it!

And even with prepared defenses, vigilance is still necessary, because heresy mutates into more virulent forms over time. When the VPP heresy first began in 2002, the Greek Text that was held to be the underlying text of the New Testament of the KJV and a replica of the original autographs was Beza's 5th edition of the Textus Receptus, published in 1598. But when evidence was shown that this text differed from the KJV in 190 places, the perfect text was changed to Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus, published in 1881 and 1884. But when this was later found to differ slightly from the KJV, the perfect text was changed to Edward F. Hill's 'The Reformation Text'.

Let us not be fooled. Certain statements may have been changed over time to make the heresy more plausible and appealing, but that does not make its payload less destructive!

3. It Is Destructive

Heresy leaves a sea of horror in its wake. It creates much tension and disrupts good Christian fellowship. By so doing, it stumbles young Christians and ruins the Church's testimony before the world. It also takes up much precious time and energy to deal with it. It is probably Satan's most ingenious tool for sapping all the vitality and life out of a vibrant church. Many churches are mere shells of what they once were because of heresy's infiltration.

In Matthew 7:16, Jesus said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" What fruits has VPP brought forth since its inception? It has certainly brought forth more ungodliness (2 Timothy 2:16). Consider the following fruits:

Division

Life B-P Church and True Life B-P Church (2003); Calvary Jurong B-P Church and Truth B-P Church (2005); Calvary Jaya B-P Church and Evangel B-P Church (2006). The precious unity that we formerly enjoyed within B-P circles (Psalm 133:1) has been destroyed.

Deception

By using selective quotations, it erroneously claimed as its proponents some well-known authorities such as the Westminster divines, Dean Burgon*, G.I. Williamson, Edward F. Hills, John Owen, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the International Council of Christian Churches. (* E.g. On page 21 of Revision Revised Burgon wrote, "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the textus receptus needs correction.")

Distortion

In the Calvary Pandan B-P Church's Elder's Page dated 6 January 2008, Rev (Dr) Quek Suan Yew wrote: "They have stated that FEBC would be allowed to use the sanctuary IF she would sign an undertaking that she will teach that the Bible has mistakes and that God has not preserved all His words perfectly for us today."

What was actually stated in the letter that Life Church sent to FEBC on 5th October 2007 was: "Please be informed that in view of our non-VPP position which is consistent with the Life B-P Church constitution, users of the church sanctuary are required to give a written undertaking that they would respect the position of Life B-P Church. If Far Eastern Bible College ("the college") wishes to continue using the church sanctuary for its night lectures please give us written unconditional undertaking that the college would not promote the VPP doctrine in the night classes, failing which we regret to inform you that this will no longer be available to the college from January 2008."

What Should We Do about Heresy?

Romans 16:17 says, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Those who propagate heresy must be closely observed and avoided, not to be unkind to them, but for the sake of protecting the flock of God from being influenced and infiltrated by their teaching.

The most effective way to reduce or remove an infection is to stop it at its source. According to Titus 1:11 the mouths of heretics must be stopped. To allow them continued freedom to promote the heresy within our Church Sanctuary is to make us bear part of the blame for the grievous damage it is causing to the body of Christ. However, if they are willing to cease their propagation of VPP permanently and return to the truth, we will most gladly extend the use of the premises to them.

We remain fully committed to Christ-centred preaching of the Gospel, to the saving of souls, and to build up God's kingdom according to the truth of God's Word. Let us pray for those who have been led astray by heresy - that they will return to a biblical emphasis on the pre-eminence of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:2 - "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." - Pastor & Elders

just found: a neat chart illustrating the VPP Heresy

http://www.lifefebc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm

direct link to jpeg: http://www.lifefebc.com/ourstand/godlypath_files/image001.gif

MORE statements tracing the course of the church split at lifebpc.com


PS: is anyone else experiencing the maddeningly difficult interface? i've had to post (with loss of formatting), edit, then repost, then delete the original, in order to force out a formatted posting. arrgh. n whatever happened to icons to insert pictures n flash movies?

thx, A. Scholar. things have been changing fast under Yuku, n i'm constantly having to adjust to ... well, that's life, i suppose. see, the smilies, the Flash embed, the pix, they're all BACK this morning!! funny. note to self: things work Sunday mornings.

n here's more fr this Sunday's Weekly at Life BP Church:
http://www.lifebpc.com/weekly/080127.htm

AN APPEAL TO VPP PROPONENTS

In view of the solemn requirements of the ninth commandment, we humbly appeal to those who are proponents of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) to cease from using distortion and selective quotation. One instance of distortion was cited in our article, "Mark Them Which Cause Divisions" (see Life Church Weekly, 13 Jan 2008): A church weekly published on 6 Jan 2008 contained the following statement:

They have stated that FEBC would be allowed to use the sanctuary IF she would sign an undertaking that she will teach that the Bible has mistakes and that God has not preserved all His words perfectly for us today.

What was actually stated in the letter that was sent to FEBC was:

If Far Eastern Bible College ("the college") wishes to continue using the church sanctuary for its night lectures please give us written unconditional undertaking that the college would not promote the VPP doctrine in the night classes, failing which we regret to inform you that this will no longer be available to the college from January 2008.

When this discrepancy was pointed out, the writer of the statement responded:

What do they mean when they write "not promote the VPP doctrine in night classes"? Do they mean that FEBC cannot teach that the Bible is perfect i.e. has no mistakes? If that is so, then conversely FEBC would have "to teach that the Bible has mistakes" wouldn't they? If FEBC teaches that the Bible has mistakes, does it not mean that God has not preserved His holy and perfect Word, and God cannot make mistakes right? If this is true then I have not distorted what they wrote. I merely stated what they demanded of FEBC in the positive sense; whereas they stated their demand negatively. They mean the same thing do they not?

A clear example of selective quotation is the claim that Edward F. Hills was a proponent of VPP, as found on page 11 of The Burning Bush (Jan 2003):

Dr E F Hills wrote, "…if we believe in the special providential preservation of the Scriptures ... we obtain maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty that we need. For we are led by the logic of faith to the Masoretic Hebrew text, to the New Testament Textus Receptus, and to the King James Version."

The complete quotation from the book, The King James Version Defended which Edward F. Hills wrote in 1984 is as follows (page 224):

God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. And, as we have just observed, the case is the same with the Old Testament text. Here it is hard at times to decide between the kethibh and the keri and between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate versions. Also there has been a controversy concerning the headings of the Psalms.

In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity. In biblical criticism, as in every other department of knowledge there are still some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But the special providence of God has kept these uncertainties down to a minimum. Hence if we believe in the special providential preservation of the Scriptures and make this the leading principle of our biblical textual criticism, we obtain maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty we need. For we are led by the logic of faith to the Masoretic Hebrew text, to the New Testament Textus Receptus, and to the King James Version.

The underlined words were the only parts quoted in the Burning Bush. This does not fully represent the position of E.F. Hills. Hills did not claim perfection for the underlying text of the KJV but only that the uncertainties were kept down to a minimum by God's special providence. This is consistent with what his friend, G.I. Williamson, wrote about him in an e-mail on 12 Aug 2002:

You may know of Dr. Edward F. Hills who has written defending the King James Version as the best version because it is/was based on the TR. He was a long time friend and we had many discussions of this very question. He helped me to see the cogency of the argument for high respect for the Byzantine/Majority text. Of all people in the ancient world the Greek speaking Eastern Church surely would have been the place where changes - even those made unintentionally by people making hand written copies - would have been most likely detected. I accept that as a sound argument. But even Dr. Hills was not quite willing to absolutize [sic.] the TR. And neither am I.

Another example of selective quotation is found in an article, John Owen on The Perfect Bible (The Burning Bush, Jul 2004):

Owen not only believed in a 100% inspired Autographa but also a 100% preserved Apographa. He wrote, "It is true, we have not the Autographa of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists; but the Apographa or 'copies' which we have contain every iota that was in them." (387)

The complete quotation is as follows (Note: According to the Encarta Dictionary, the word 'lection' means 'textual variant', i.e. a variant reading of a text in a particular edition or translation):

It is true, we have not the Autographa of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists; but the Apographa or 'copies' which we have contain every iota that was in them.

There is no doubt but that in the copies we now enjoy of the Old Testament there are some diverse lections. The … various lections of Ben Asher, or Rabbi Aaron the son of Rabbi Moses of the tribe of Asher, and Ben Naphtali, or Rabbi Moses the son of David of the tribe of Naphtali - the lections also of the eastern and western Jews, which we have collected at the end of the great Bible with the Masora - evince it. But yet we affirm, that the whole word of God, in every letter and tittle, as given from him by inspiration, is preserved without corruption. Where there is any variety it is always in things of less, indeed of no, importance. God by his providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word.

The underlined words show that John Owen was not a proponent of VPP, since he advocated the exercise of diligence in searching the Word of God to solve textual variants in or among the copies we have.

By citing the above instances of distortion and selective quotation, we hope that our appeal to VPP proponents to keep the ninth commandment will be taken in the right spirit. "But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." (Ephesians 4:15)

-Life BPC Board of Elders

it's stunning how, after all the vilification fr the VPP KJBOs, that the leaders of this church are still reaching out to them so patiently n earnestly.

Euthymius wrote:

---

From the letter to FEBC: "What do they mean when they write 'not promote the VPP doctrine in night classes'? Do they mean that FEBC cannot teach that the Bible is perfect i.e. has no mistakes? If that is so, then conversely FEBC would have 'to teach that the Bible has mistakes' wouldn't they? If FEBC teaches that the Bible has mistakes, does it not mean that God has not preserved His holy and perfect Word, and God cannot make mistakes right?"

Source-critical analysis: The twisting of words, misdirection, innuendo, leading questions, and particularly the attempt to affirm the converse all makes me thinks that Waite wrote that portion, and if not him, then Khoo with assistance from Waite.

i'd have to agree; it's hard to keep them apart as they seem to rival each other in logical ineptitude n evidential candidness.

a spade's a spade, n finally enuff's enuff.

==============
http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtrelations.htm

Our Stand on the Preservation of Scriptures
A STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF ELDERS ON THE RELATIONS OF LIFE B-P CHURCH WITH FAR EASTERN BIBLE COLLEGE

In a statement that was made on 8 November 2005 (see http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtfaith.htm ), the Board of Elders had declared:

However, for the sake of brotherly love and harmony, we do not want to discriminate against any persons who, on grounds of their own personal conviction, would choose to believe that the texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the original autographs. We believe "there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. And in all these, we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other." (Article 5.5, Constitution of the Life Bible-Presbyterian Church).

This was stated in the context of the teaching of VPP by the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC). However, since then, it has become increasingly evident that FEBC regards VPP not merely as personal conviction, but as dogma and as a touchstone of Christian fundamentalism. Those who disagree on VPP are unkindly branded by the college as Neo-Evangelicals, Neo-Fundamentalists, Agnostics and Modernists, and believing that the Bible has many mistakes.

Its insistent dogmatic promotion is unedifying to Lifers and has also had destructive effects on the peace and unity of many churches. This, together with the fact that it is new and infectious, has made VPP, as taught and promoted by FEBC, a heresy. Since it is not based solely on the Word of God, but must lean heavily on human conjecture to identify the text which is word-perfect identical to the autographs, the college has tried to strengthen its VPP position by claiming eminent theologians and institutions among its adherents. Upon closer scrutiny and inquiry however, these claims are found to be false.

While we in Life B-P Church have been forbearing, allowing the college to continue using our premises as its campus without any charge, we cannot continue to exercise the same forbearance any more with a good conscience. To do so would only make Life Church a passive participant in the destructive work of the college and delinquent in its stewardship of the premises. The time has come for us to part ways as Amos 3:3 says, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" The irreconcilable differences between the church and college are highlighted by the following:

1. VPP is contrary to our doctrinal position as given in our Church Constitution, article 4.2.1 ("We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original lan­guages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and, as the Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life.") and in our Doctrinal Positional Statement ("We do believe that the Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for the King James Version of the English Bible (KJV) were providentially preserved by God and are therefore closest to the original autographs of the Bible.").

FEBC's position has led to the amendment of article 4.2.1 of the Constitution of its own affiliated church to include VPP (see http://www.febc.edu.sg/truelife%20doctrine.htm).

2. Since last year FEBC had refused to give Life B-P Church an undertaking that they will not promote the VPP doctrine if they wish to use our sanctuary for night lectures. Instead our Chinese Service hall was used; and some who attended complained that the lecturers lambasted the church during the night lectures.



3. FEBC has registered itself as a separate and independent legal entity on 26 January 2004. Thus it is no longer affiliated with Life Church. The spirit of cooperation under one administrator who was both pastor of the Church and principal of the College no longer exists. The Board of Directors of the College now consists of members who are no longer in the Church.

4. FEBC has not ceased to undermine the peace and leadership of Life B-P Church with false and unkind allegations. In a True Life B-P Church Weekly article published on 18 March 2007 entitled Multiversions Onlyism our pastors were misrepresented as recommending a book that gives reasons why the KJV ought to be replaced with modern versions. We have been portrayed as rebels who ousted Rev (Dr) Timothy Tow and caused the church to split. The truth is that our founding pastor tendered his resignation on 24 August 2003 and left to start True Life B-P Church. Out of gratitude we have continued to grant him free usage of the church parsonage and also supported him for the past 4 years and 5 months with monthly love gifts amounting to $264,700 (or $4,900 a month). The parsonage will still be available to Rev (Dr) Timothy Tow notwithstanding our disagreement with FEBC.

In view of the above, Life B-P Church will request FEBC to give an undertaking that they will not promote the VPP doctrine in our premises; otherwise we will have to ask the college to vacate the premises. Please pray that the Lord will grant us an amicable resolution in the coming months.

- The Board of Elders of Life B-P Church, 25th January 2008

> Of course, to do so would require an admission that the various TR editions and even the KJV itself -- though close -- yet do not remain precise representations

precisely--it's this misguided desperation, despite Ps 119:89, to clutch at a presumed certainty that underlies their heresy. as one NT prof puts it, these KJBOs in vain ...

"hope to find authority and certainty in a single 'providentially preserved' Greek text or English translation (usually the KJV). It need hardly be mentioned that such an approach has nothing to do with actual text-critical theory or praxis" (Appendix: The Case for Byzantine Authority, by M.A. Robinson, in M.A. Robinson and W.G. Pierpont, The NT in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, 533 n. 2).

so instead of lifting high the cross, the Incarnate Logos, they end up lifting up a filthy Nehushtan. happens every time people try to market God and His Word.

further futile fruits of fideism:

http://febc.edu.sg/assets/weekly2008/weekly%20Vol%20V%20No%2019.htm



TRUE LIFE BIBLE-PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
RELC Auditorium, 10.30 am
30 Orange Grove Road, down Shangri-La Hotel, Singapore 258352
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 141, Newton Post Office, Singapore 912205
Email: febc@pacific.net.sg; Website: http://www.febc.edu.sg
(Ring Pastor Tow at 9A Gilstead Road, 62502138 Anytime)

Vol. V No. 19
10 February 2008

"BLESS the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name"


Call to Worship Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo
Opening Hymn No. 490
Invocation-Gloria Patri
Responsive Reading Psalm 22
Hymn Lord Here I Take My Cross
Announcements
Special Number Church Choir
Offering & Hymn Our Best
Pastoral Prayer Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo
Scripture Text Acts 5:17-29
Sermon Obeying God, Not Men
(Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo)
Closing Hymn No. 190 (Lord's Supper)
Benediction Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo



Why Undertaking Not Undertaken

Jeffrey Khoo



We do respect the right of the Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (Life BPC) Board of Elders (BOE) to believe what they want to believe, and to propagate their beliefs. They are also free to criticise Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC), but it is only fair that we be granted the right of reply or rebuttal. Let it be known that FEBC, as an autonomous institution, is under no obligation to sign an undertaking demanded by the Life BOE not to teach VPP. Nevertheless, we are not averse to respecting the position of the Life BOE if it is a biblical and truthful one. But before we can make a statement on whether their position is acceptable or not, we need to be very sure, for conscience's sake, what their position is, that it be according to the Truth as laid down in the Bible, in history and in their constitution (especially article 4.2.1, and article 6). It is vital today to know what is meant by what is said because many today say yes when they mean no, and vice versa. So, in our October 24, 2007 letter to the BOE of Life BPC (in reply to theirs dated October 5, 2007 concerning the use of the sanctuary for night classes), we posed a number of reasonable questions to ascertain the meaning/intent of their 2004 statement on preservation.



Up till now, they have yet to answer those 12 relevant questions. Why are they so fearful of those questions if their position is so right and ours so wrong? What have they got to hide? Why will not the Board of Elders of Life BPC sit with the Board of Directors of FEBC to discuss doctrinal matters in a spirit of truth and love with the Holy Scriptures as our supreme and final authority? Why was such a meeting between Life BPC elders and FEBC faculty cancelled by the former at the last minute back in 2003 when the Rev Dr Timothy Tow was still their pastor? Our Lord has warned, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (John 3:19-21).



What really puzzles me is this: The Pastor and Elders of Life BPC say the KJV is "the best" and its underlying text is "the best." But if this is the case, then why are they attacking FEBC which is doing its best to defend the KJV from its attackers like BJU, Central Baptist Seminary and James D Price who deny that the KJV and its underlying texts are the best? Why do they think we are opposing them when we are actually defending their beloved Bible and its underlying texts? Why do they not honour the VPP and KJV position their own fathers (viz Timothy Tow and S H Tow) have taken? Why do they shoot their own soldiers for upholding and defending the KJV on the basis of VPP which is the Bible and the Biblical authority of the BP movement since the beginning? It just does not make sense! Do they really love the KJV as they say or do they have two loves? They say Burgon and Hills, ICCC and TBS etc are for them, and it is the position of the old BPC. The old BPC was and is still led by the old guards-Timothy Tow, Quek Kiok Chiang, S H Tow. Are they for the modern versions, or only the KJV? If the Pastor and Elders of Life BPC truly love the KJV and say it is "the best," why do they not take a stand against certain American fundamentalists, neo-evangelicals, ecumenists, modernists, and agnostics who criticise the KJV and support Westcott and Hort and the modern versions? Who is departing from the "godly path" here?



Their statement on preservation issued in their 2004 ACM (Annual Congregational Meeting) contained a most charitable declaration, "However, for the sake of brotherly love and harmony, we do not want to discriminate against any persons who, on the grounds of their own personal conviction, would choose to believe that the texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the original autographs." Our question to them is: If you do not discriminate, why then this letter of discrimination to forbid FEBC to preach and teach what we believe to be the truth, and ban FEBC from using the sanctuary and now this threat to evict us from our birthplace and home? The reason given by the Life BOE in their January 5, 2008 statement is that FEBC identifies those who deny VPI and/or VPP as "Neo-evangelicals, Neo-fundamentalists, Agnostics and Modernists." Actually this is what they, namely, Harold Ockenga, Thomas Pryde III, Bart Ehrman, label themselves respectively. Why are the leaders of Life BPC so upset with me for calling a spade a spade? The Biblical duty to warn by identifying the authors and publishers of error is a godly ethos of the BP faith. We have not departed from this godly path our founding fathers have set for us.



It is very strange that the Life BOE should be so upset that I have written critical reviews of the following books which undermine the KJV and promote the modern versions, viz, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man (see http://www.wholesomewords.org/resources/critique.html), One Bible Only? (http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP7.htm), God's Word in Our Hands (http://www.febc.edu.sg/ VPP14.htm), and King James Onlyism: A New Sect (http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ KJBible/multiversions.htm). Again, note that these are books which attack the KJV-the "Very Word of God"-which the Life BPC Pastor and Elders claim to love and uphold. Here, I am defending the KJV against those who attack the KJV, but instead of being commended, I am condemned as "a heretic" for defending their beloved Bible. They warn against bearing false witness, but calling us "heretics" is true witness?



It is always the desire of the Rev Dr Timothy Tow to pastor the church the Lord had used him to found until the day the Lord calls Him home. But in the years 2002-2003, he was subjected to heavy criticisms by the majority of his session with meetings ending late into the night, and into the wee hours of the morning. Not able to bear it any longer, he resigned as pastor of Life BPC after serving her most faithfully and sacrificially for 53 years to start True Life BPC in October the same year, not forsaking the flock as alleged. Read his testimony in the very first weekly of True Life BPC (see below or http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/weekly2004/weekly1.htm). Now, they blame him-their founding pastor-for allowing "the College to destroy the 'landmarks' of the Bible-Presbyterian Movement" (their letter of January 5, 2008). Is it not the right and privilege of the father, not the children, to set the "landmarks" and even new ones to strengthen old ones when necessary? What moral right have the Pastor and Elders of Life BPC to tell the Lord's anointed and their spiritual father who has faithfully and sacrificially built God's church and college by his blood, sweat and tears for over five decades that he is trespassing on "our property?" Did they not say it is "God's house" or "God's church" and not Rev Tow's? How is it now "our property"? To add insult to injury, they now label him a heretic! Who has changed? The Rev Dr Timothy Tow and FEBC or the current leaders of Life BPC?



The Life BOE not only asks us to sign an undertaking to "respect their position" (October 5, 2007), they now require us to sign an undertaking "not to teach and promote VPP" (January 28, 2008). I wonder if they know what they are saying. Are they telling us that when we preach and teach from our Hebrew and Greek Bibles (ie the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus), and from our English Bible (ie the KJV which is a faithful and accurate translation of its underlying texts), we cannot say that we are teaching the "very Word of God," absolutely infallible, inerrant, 100% perfect without any mistake? But they deny that they are telling us to say the Bible has mistakes! So, we say the Bible has no mistakes-that is VPP! Why then do they tell us not to teach VPP? Do they not want Christians to believe that the Bible we have today is 100% perfect, without any mistakes? Do they not say in Life BPC that the KJV is the "very Word of God" and "without mistakes?" If the KJV is the "very (ie 100%) Word of God" and "without mistakes" because it is "the best" (ie most faithful and accurate) translation of "the best" (ie infallible and inerrant Hebrew and Greek texts/words), then is that not VPP? If we cannot say that the Bible we have today is infallible and inerrant, we might as well stop preaching the Gospel, for what Gospel can we preach if we cannot say our Bible is 100% perfect without any mistakes? Why then do they want to stop us from teaching VPP, the Bible we have in our hands is infallible and inerrant, without any mistakes? Their words and actions do not agree. It is very confusing, and creates a lot of doubts and questions.



They say we can freely use the premises at Gilstead Road (which is, by the way, our birthplace and home) only if we give them a written undertaking not to confess VPP. This is no different from the devil tempting Jesus, "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me" (Matt 4:9). Why do they afflict and tempt FEBC like this? As far as we are concerned, we can only respond with the verbally and plenarily inspired/preserved words of Jesus, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt 4:10). God forbid that we sell our souls to the devil by denying the present perfection of the Holy Scriptures (Matt 4:4, 5:18, 24:35). Now, this is not to say they are devils or reprobates for only God can tell and judge the hearts of men for sure (cf Matt 16:23), though given enough time, one might be able to tell or discern by the fruits produced (Matt 7:15-20). "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak" (Heb 6:9).



The Life BOE has taken over Beulah House at 10 Gilstead Road which was originally meant for FEBC. Now, they threaten to take over FEBC's birthplace and home on the other side of Gilstead. Are such actions just and fair, peaceable and reasonable? Not only is Life BPC the life-blood of their founding pastor-Timothy Tow-the Lord's anointed, substantial sums have also been given by FEBC, her students and supporters to acquire and build the properties at 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road. Two passages from the Holy Scriptures come to mind: the command against removing property landmarks which God has laid for His people by the hand of their fathers, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" (Prov 22:28), and its consequent warning, "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen" (Deut 27:17).



Here is another command and warning from God to cease and desist from maligning the Rev Dr Timothy Tow and FEBC by calling us "heretics," breaking the ninth commandment (Exod 20:16). "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" (1 Chron 16:22), "for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?" (1 Sam 26:9).



FEBC has always been an independent institution free from ecclesiastical control and governed solely by its duly elected Board of Directors. This is recorded for posterity in the history books of Life BPC and FEBC. Life BPC and FEBC are married together by the promised land at 9 and 9A Gilstead Road as well as Beulah House, 10 Gilstead Road. "Beulah" by the way means "married." The property landmarks on both sides of Gilstead Road are undeniably God's gracious gifts to both church and college to inherit and possess from the beginning. We do not believe in a divorce. FEBC cannot deny the present perfection of the Holy Scriptures without any mistake. Neither would FEBC deny the right of the leaders of Life BPC to believe and promote what they want to their congregation. Freedom of faith and freedom of speech are principles upheld and respected by any civilised society. Despite the doctrinal differences, both sides can still live peaceably together on the basis of Christian love and kindness. FEBC also prays to our Almighty God for "an amicable resolution" but not one based on intolerance, false accusations and threats, but one that is based on truth, justice and equity. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov 9:10).



With many tears I have prayed the prayer of Luther, "O God, my God, be with me and protect me against my enemies of the world. Thou must do it, Thou alone, for in me is no strength. It is thy cause, O God, not mine. On thee I rely, not on man, for that would be in vain. O God, dost Thou not hear? Do not hide thy face from me. Thou hast called me, now be my stay. I ask it in the Name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, my protector, my shield and my defence." On April 18, 1521, Luther was ordered by the Diet of Worms to retract all his doctrines and writings disapproved by the Church. He replied, "Unless I am convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments that I am in error-for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves-I cannot withdraw, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one's conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. So help me God."



We stand by the biblical doctrine of the verbal and plenary preservation of the Holy Scriptures, that every book, every chapter, every verse, every word, every syllable, every letter of God's verbally and plenarily inspired Word in the original languages has been preserved exact and intact in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus on which the Authorised or King James Version is based, our sole and supreme authority of faith and practice. We stand by our biblical right and birthright to possess and use 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road which is our inheritance from the Lord through the hand of His anointed-our founding father, the Rev Dr Timothy Tow-on the basis of divine law and justice. VPP is not "heresy," and we are not "tenants." May the Lord our God who is our Perfect Judge, by means of His Perfect Law, deliver us from evil and error!



Pastor Tow's Truthful Answer



The Board of Elders of Life B-P Church, in "A Statement from the Board of Elders on the Relations of Life B-P Church with Far Eastern Bible College" dated January 25, 2008, made this objection, "We have been portrayed as rebels who ousted Rev (Dr) Timothy Tow and caused the church to split. The truth is that our founding pastor tendered his resignation on 24 August 2003 and left to start True Life B-P Church."



We hereby reproduce the testimony of our founding pastor-Timothy Tow-on the circumstances which led to his resignation from Life BPC to start the FEBC Worship Service (now True Life B-P Church) as published in its very first weekly bulletin dated October 5, 2003 (http://www.febc.edu.sg/ assets/weekly2004/weekly1.htm):



Response to "Summary of Facts" Relating to August 2003 Session Meeting and Other Issues by Rev Timothy Tow



My truthful answer to Session's release of the Summary of Facts enumerated according to the numbering in the "Summary".



2. At the August Session Meeting (20 August 2003), I was lambasted for one and a half hour by opposing elders and deacons mostly for not restraining Dr Jeffrey Khoo from publishing his new booklet KJV Q&A and not sticking to the terms of Reconciliation. As it is a universal law that there must be freedom of speech and freedom of religion, I have no right to bind him. Moreover, there were no such restrictive terms to silence anyone in the Statement of Reconciliation. In view of the fact that both sides have agreed that the KJV is the very Word of God and fully reliable, his plea that we have a 100% Preserved Word should be quite acceptable. I was taken to task on many other issues including my preaching that Eld. Han Soon Juan protested, "You people are putting Pastor on trial" and he walked out. It was so unbearable to me that I tendered my resignation, three times, not preplanned as declared by Rev Charles Seet.



3a. I never used the pulpit to attack any church member. This it is alleged relates to my message on 27 July 2003 at the 10.30 am service. I am said to have chastised a YAF member because of an email to all pastors. As the YAFer did not like my sermons she would switch to the 8am service. I wished her well to hear especially the two assistant pastors. But I am accused of being "unbiblical" as it goes against the parable taught by Jesus that a true shepherd will leave his 99 to look for the lost sheep. The YAF member now has two better pastors to feed her, how is she lost? The reason why I referred to her was her query about my preaching at Christmas/Easter where more non-believers would come. Should I still preach? I answered I specially appealed to non-believers to receive Christ at the 2002 Christmas Service. I called it an annual amnesty offer to them to prove I am concerned about non-believers at Christmas or Easter.



3b. The double-talk of an elder who does not hold to the Perfect Bible view, yet saying that he doesn't say there are any mistakes now accuses certain FEBC lecturers of teaching a Perfect Bible as dogma. We agree either as personal preference. What's wrong by saying "Is the Preservation of Scripture a Doctrine Worth Dying For?" To comment such a question for terrorism is malicious.



4. Since 1997, we have been paying tax on the unauthorized structures I have constructed at the back of our church under pressure for more living rooms. Now they are all taken down to the happy satisfaction of the authorities. Apart from allowing one unauthorised long open shed, three rooms attached to it are also permitted, shows the compassion of our Government. To state that I threatened to resign if these structures were removed is the first time I'm made aware of! And where is the shame I have brought to our Saviour's name?



5. The complaint that the ministry of hospitality of Beulah hitherto exercised by me with meticulous care of church warden Yiew Pong Sen is wrong because some are non-Christians. But the Bible in Psalm 84 says unclean birds like sparrows and swallows have found a nest in God's House proves we are right. Our giving them a place at Beulah is to bring them to church and our Saviour. I have personally baptized four, three from Communist China and one Malaysian and three Chinese relatives by Calvary (Mandarin). I have been deprived of this sacred duty now, as in other areas, to my dismay.



6. FEBC was established in 1962 under British Law which has given us wide freedom in exemption from Registration. For 42 years no one has bothered us. FEBC is not under Life Church and it has its own Directors under Dr (Eld) Tow Siang Yeow.



Finally, following our Lord's Example, Lk. 4:25-32 and Matt. 13:57, 58 we are worshipping at RELC 10.30 this morning. We say the sheep will come along, not forsaking them.



God be with you. Good-bye.



***************

Dogmas and Doctrines, Creeds and Convictions

Curiouser and Curiouser



Re: 'A Statement from the Board of Elders on the Relations of Life B-P Church with
Far Eastern Bible College' (25 Jan. 2008).



"In a statement that was made on 8 November 2005, the Board of Elders had declared:



However, for the sake of brotherly love and harmony, we do not want to discriminate against any persons who, on grounds of their own personal conviction, would choose to believe that the texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the original autographs. We believe "there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. And in all these, we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other." (Article 5.5, Constitution of the Life Bible-Presbyterian Church).



This was stated in the context of the teaching of VPP by the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC). However, since then, it has become increasingly evident that FEBC regards VPP not merely as personal conviction, but as dogma and as a touchstone of Christian fundamentalism. Those who disagree on VPP are unkindly branded by the college as Neo-Evangelicals, Neo-Fundamentalists, Agnostics and Modernists, and believing that the Bible has many mistakes." (Italics and emphasis mine), (http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtfaith.htm).



Is A Dogma Not A Personal Conviction?



1. The Chambers Dictionary defines the noun DOGMA as:



A. A belief or principle laid down by an authority as unquestionably true.

B. Such beliefs or principles in general.



2. The Chambers Thesaurus gives the synonyms of DOGMA as:



Doctrine; Creed; Credo; Code (of belief); Belief; Precept; Principle; Article (of faith); Tenet; Teaching; Opinion; Maxim and CONVICTION.



To Charles Seet and Life BPC Session,



Your bizarre attempt to differentiate between synonyms is symptomatic of how carnal and careless the Life BPC leadership has become in the unnecessary opposition of FEBC. All dogmas are born out of personal convictions. Christian denominations are the result of personal convictions of kindred people assembling together and stating their commonly held beliefs as Biblical truths in creedal forms. Dogmas written on paper are not impersonal doctrines in a vacuum but rooted in the heart of its proponent. All sound Biblical doctrines are induced and deduced from Biblical texts and reduced to doctrinal tenets for the purpose of common creedal statements. That is a touchstone fundamental to faith. To have a personal conviction contrary to the collective creedal statements of a Church or an institution is to break its unity. Christian dogmatics is the studied convictions of persons. You cannot divorce dogmas from personal convictions. It is a matter of conscience not hypocritical convenience. Confession without conscience is profession without conviction. All fundamental DOGMAS are a PUBLIC PRESENTATION of COLLECTIVE CONVICTION born of PERSONAL CONVICTIONS.



FEBC has the right to regard Verbal Plenary Preservation of the originals in the Received Text "...on grounds of their own (collective) personal conviction" "that the texts or copies underlying the KJV are an exact replica of the original autographs." Others may not accept the restored view of the 1611/RT as the perfect copy of the originals, BUT IT IS NOT HERESY. No fundamental tenet is denied. You have not established what this heresy is and mantric repetition of the word 'heresy' is deliberate deception. FEBC and Life BPC since it's founding by Rev Tow and under his pastorate upheld the Received Text and the KJV. And so did the other daughter BP churches. Do not forget, this stand is not new but was a position held by Rev Tow since the beginning of the LIFE BP which you ignored in your statement without even mentioning his name. Rewriting history again? In your statement, 'Why we use the King James Version', (www.lifefebc.com/ourstand/whykjv.htm), this is how you championed it:



"For the past 55 years, Life B-P Church (under the pastoral leadership of the founding father Rev. Timothy Tow) has been upholding the use of the KJV because we believe that it is the best English translation of the Scriptures, made by godly translators from the best Greek and Hebrew texts. The KJV will continue to be used for all ministries of Life B-P Church and for our members' use.



Our doctrinal position with regard to the Word of God and the KJV Bible is as follows: "We do believe that the Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for the King James Version of the English Bible (KJV) were providentially preserved by God and are therefore closest to the original autographs of the Bible." (In the Golden Jubilee magazine, October 2000, 50 Years Building His Kingdom, p.64; emphasis added). (Bold emphasis and bracketed words mine).



So do FEBC! But the difference between your PP position (Providential Preservation) and FEBC's VPP (Verbal Plenary Preservation of the 1611/RT) position is:



a. Your PP of the 1611/RT KJV Bible has slight errors and therefore closest to the original autographs.



b. FEBC's VPP of the 1611/RT Bible has absolutely no errors therefore the exact copy of the originals.



According to your statement in, 'Why we use the King James Version', "The more reliable Majority text was multiplied and copied from generation to generation, and the great majority of existing manuscripts (about 99.44% of the 5,000 or so manuscripts) exhibit a faithful reproduction of the true text." So this accusation of 'heresy' against FEBC for holding a perfect VPP of the 1611/RT position is a minuscule .56%? Is this the grounds for the legal threat to evict FEBC?



Claiming the KJV to be the best is akin to calling the 1611/RT as the best text. In other words the KJV is the best because it is translated from the 1611/RT. Life BPC champions the KJV calling it the Word of God, etc. FEBC holds to a similar view. It is inconsistent and hypocritical to lampoon FEBC while championing the KJV and continue its use in Life BPC. Why is it heretical if FEBC believes by faith and logic born of Verbal Plenary Inspiration that the Received Text underlying the KJV as THE virtual copy of the originals? They are stauncher on the RT based KJV than you. All the other accusation against FEBC is petty and is a lame excuse for mature Christians to be so precious about.



Your statement in 8 November 2005, was a fair and true expression of "...brotherly love and harmony" in which you did not want to "...discriminate against any persons who, on grounds of their own personal conviction" because, "...there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. And in all these, we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other." Now your attempt to wriggle out of brotherly love and harmony by the deceptive use of synonyms is a dishonest attempt to mislead your membership. Dogmas are collective personal convictions and without conviction is nominalism.



A golden opportunity is lost to you and all opposing BPC Churches in this important and welcoming debate on the providential preservation of Scriptures. To stagnate in yesteryear's understanding of fundamental doctrines is dead theology. The Church of God must be constantly looking for a better understanding of all articles of faith. Have we rightly divided the Word enough? Isn't there more to rethink, refresh, and research for a better light on the sure matters of sound doctrine? To engage our minds constantly on theology is to appreciate the PEARL of great price in its revealed glory. It is the task of a theological institution to preoccupy in these matters for the benefit of the Church.



The wonderful opportunity not entered into in this debate to pit mind against mind in holy interaction has impoverished the BP churches. Iron sharpeneth iron so doth mind sharpeneth other minds. When minds clash emotions may rise and words fly crisp and brisk. But when truth is the focus, all will end in making us better men. Where is the Berean mind of a fair hearing and searching? Even on the things we think we know so well is full of ignorance. A man who doesn't change his mind is a fool. This debate has sharpened my focus and God knows the ocean of ignorance in me still. When the body will prevail no longer, all will die ignorant still. But blessed is the one who is less ignorant.



'Reverend Tow has changed.' 'FEBC has changed.' 'They do not hold to the VPI like yesteryear.' 'Now they are VPI and VPP of the 1611-RT,' so goes the rumble. To charge Rev. Tow and FEBC of not adhering to a past understanding of the VPI position only and accuse of a heretical shift is phobic leadership. Age is no barrier to thinking, and learning, and the changing of mind. Who has not changed views over the years? Only the dead do not think. An argument stands or falls on its merits. Debates are not always to defend an old position but it is a door to a discovery of new light to former views. All dogmas must be tested with an open mind. In the end one may not buy all of it but at the same time one will not remain unchanged by it. Truth discovered because of it, changes everyone in the end, thus profiting the Church of God. Furthermore, why fear error, when truth taught will win the day. Differing view is a chance to refine and define truth. Truth articulated will make even the 'blind' to see. Learning theology is the constant task of teachers of the Word. The rusted on the pew membership are mostly indifferent to dry as dust theology. They mostly go by what is presented to them as truth. But is that the Berean truth?



The man who is the bastion in Gilstead is now considered too old and weak to stand on his own merit. He is thought of as being manipulated. His so called 'stipend' which was refused (but still given as a love gift but redirected by him to FEBC) and his continued dwelling in the parsonage is considered as charitableness, kindness and grace shown by the new leadership of Life BPC. Old 'Joseph' is already forgotten and his history soon a mystery to the young membership. Now this is the man who is Mr. Bible Presbyterian and FEBC! Life BPC was born by him there. FEBC was born by him there. Who has the right to continue there but his approved legacy, the FEBC?



Again the challenge of the measure of the leadership of Life BPC will be to start on your own. That will be the conscientious thing to do. I wonder how many will follow you. Do you have the tenacity and the godly zeal to work for your own harvest? It is easy to cruise comfortably and speak loudly on theology sitting on another man's life-work. The Far Eastern Bible College must remain in Gilstead as its birth right. The Church sanctuary must be the inalienable ministry of and for FEBC as conceived by Rev. Timothy Tow.



Brutus Balan

Hobart, Tasmania, AUSTRALIA, 4 Feb 2008



"An Unconditional Written Undertaking" for the Use of the Life Church Sanctuary



Enclosed with today's weekly are the Life BOE's letter dated October 5, 2007 demanding FEBC's "written unconditional undertaking" not to promote VPP in its night classes, and our reply to them dated October 24, 2007 addressing important points of the VPP issue, and raising relevant questions which they have yet to answer till this day. We appreciate their plea to bear true witness, and we urge them to do likewise, to speak with a straight and not a double tongue, "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Matt 5:37).