Chronology of The VPP Heresy
By Rev (Dr) Bob Phee
The term Verbal Plenary Preservation or VPP first
appeared in the Singapore scenario in 2002. It
is a theory espoused strongly by Far Eastern Bible
College whose chief proponent is Dr Jeffrey Khoo
Eng Teck. His view on VPP as defined by Rev Charles
Seet, Associate Pastor of Life B-P Church is as
"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 who were 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 the Greek and Hebrew
texts underlying the KJV are the exact words
of the original writings, i.e. a virtual photocopy
of the autographs. Christians who use the KJV
can therefore claim to have a perfect Bible."
Dr Khoo's own definition of Verbal Plenary Preservation
(VPP) as expressed in the preamble of the FEBC
is as follows:
in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs)
and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs)
of the Scriptures in the original languages,
their consequent inerrancy and infallibility,
and as the perfect Word of God, the supreme
and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim
3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35)."
“…VPP means the whole of Scripture
with all its words even to the jot and tittle
is perfectly preserved by God without any loss
of the original words, prophecies, promises,
commandments, doctrines, and truths, not only
in the words of salvation, but also the words
of history, geography and science. Every book,
every chapter, every verse, every word, every
syllable, every letter is infallibly preserved
by the Lord Himself to the last iota.
What and where are the preserved words of
God today? They are the inspired OT Hebrew words
and NT Greek words the prophets, the apostles,
the church fathers, the reformers used which
are today found in the long and continuously
abiding and preserved words underlying the Reformation
Bibles best represented by the time-tested and
time-honoured KJV, and NOT in the corrupted
Alexandrian manuscripts and critical Westcott-Hort
texts underlying the liberal, ecumenical, and
neo-evangelical modern English versions."
But VPP theory did not come into full-term as
it is defined today in a short span of time. It
took about ten years for it to evolve through
the many battles of words, redefinition and twisting
of terms. In the process, VPP proponents brought
confusion and discouragement among many Bible-believing
adherents. Its ill-effects split churches. In
attempting to establish his theory, Dr. Khoo continued
to write relentlessly through the emails, letter,
the Burning Bush (Journal of FEBC), Bible Witness
(Magazine of Gethsemane B-P Church), Newsletters
of True Life B-P Church, Calvary Pandan B-P Church,
his books and other publications.
2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF VPP THEORY
a). From RSV to the KJV
From Dr. Khoo's own testimony, his first Bible
was the RSV and came to his present position on
the KJV through the lecture delivered by D.A.
Waite in 1992 and from a book written by Edward
F Hills. He said that he did not know the doctrine
of preservation until then and was never taught
it, and when he discovered it, he felt that he
had made a great discovery:
"In December 1992,
Calvary B-P Church invited Dr D A Waite to speak
on the KJV issue. It was the first time I had
heard of this man, and his book Defending the
King James Bible. It was a 320-page scholarly
defence of the KJV which I read with great delight.
I took a greater interest in the textual issue,
and remembered another scholarly book on the
defence of the KJV that I had seen in my earlier
days as a student but could not recall the name
of the author. I only remembered the book had
a simple, sky-blue cover. I asked Rev Ronny
Khoo about it, and he brought me to a certain
KJV-Only bookshop (which has since closed down).
Walking up to the bookshop I saw the book right
there at the display window. It was the only
copy left. I quickly bought it. It was Edward
F Hills's The King James Version Defended. Through
Hills' 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
b).Attacks on King James Bible and FEBC
Dr Khoo relating his testimony, described of
how in 1995 Rev. Peter Eng's attacks on the KJV
impinged on the doctrinal position of Rev. Dr
Timothy Tow (FEBC Principal) and Dr. Tow Siang
Hwa (Senior Pastor of Calvary Pandan B-P Church).
Dr. Khoo wrote,
"In 1995, Rev
Peter Eng (the same one who taught textual criticism
at FEBC) of Antioch B-P Church (now defunct)
wrote a series of articles entitled From KJV
to NIV. His articles, published in the Antioch
Letter (a weekly paper of his church), questioned
the B-P stand of using the KJV only. He launched
a vicious and libelous attack against the KJV
and against the B-P Church and her senior pastors,
Rev Dr Timothy Tow and Dr S H Tow. We could
not let this slide. We had no choice but to
do battle with this new NIV champion who sought
to undermine the King James Bible and the B-P
Church. Rev Tow responded to the attacks in
the Life Church weekly. Others who joined the
fray were Rev Quek Suan Yew, Rev Charles Seet
and myself. All three of us wrote our personal,
independent critique of Eng's views. In the
heat of the battle three books in defence of
the KJV were forged: Beyond Versions: A Biblical
Perspective of Modern English Bibles (1998)
by S H Tow, A Theology of Every Christian:
Knowing God and His Word (1998) by T Tow;
J Khoo, and Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing
the Authorised Version and the Doctrine of Providential
Preservation (2001) by J Khoo."
It was Rev. Eng's "attacks" in 1995 that initiated
a vehement response from the FEBC led by Dr. Khoo
and, is to take FEBC down the road to extremism.
He insisted that every faculty member of the teaching
staff and Board of Directors must not only take
the Oath of Allegiance but also to sign the Statement
of Faith of the College as of the year 2000.
The doctrinal position of the FEBC in 1995 as
regards the Holy Scripture is what any conservative,
fundamental bible-believing college would hold
to. This is evidenced by the publication of the
January 1995, Burning Bush in its editorial penned
by Dr. Khoo:
"Far Eastern Bible
College is a Reformed, Premillennial, and Separatist
School . . . FEBC believes the 66 Books of the
Holy Bible to be the inerrant, infallible, verbally
and plenarily inspired Word of God. The Board
of Directors, and Faculty swear before God at
every Convocation by taking this solemn oath.
c). Rev. (Dr.) Timothy Tow acknowledges FEBC's
change of position in textual matters and preservation
of Holy Scriptures.
At a Faculty Meeting in April 1997, chaired by
Rev. (Dr.) Timothy Tow (Principal of FEBC), a
video show was screened in which Dr. Dell Johnson
of Pensacola Christian College gave his view on
textual matters and the preservation of the Holy
Scriptures. After the screening, the then Registrar,
Rev. (Dr.) Bob Phee asked Rev. Tow whether the
FEBC had changed its position regarding textual
matters and preservation. Rev. Tow affirmed that
the FEBC had changed its position to that of Pensacola
Christian College ; previously, FEBC's view was
similar to that held by Faith Theological Seminary.
Again, G.A. Riplinger was identified as one of the
"pioneers of rediscovered Truth" when in a graduation
ceremony of the FEBC, May 2002, Rev. Timothy Tow
announced the change of position of the FEBC,
d). Leaven of the Ruckmanites.
The FEBC leadership was unaware that certain
elements of the KJV-only camp held views that
are extreme in that the KJV was given by inspiration
or that it was a perfect translation. G. A.
Riplinger, a Ruckmanite and anti-Calvinist,
was frequently mentioned by them as a "scholar"
or as a person who has done research. In a chapel
message preached by Rev. Timothy Tow at the
FEBC, August 1998, he said:
"Thank God for
the coming out of a thick book of I believe
600 pages by G.A. Riplinger who ripped away
the false lies of Westcott and Hort."
"who has good knowledge of this and I am sure
that he must have been enlightened by G.A. Riplinger,
who has made the most thorough research"
"Far Eastern Bible
College has advanced beyond the ICCC Bible Resolution
to declare the Preservation of the Scriptures
to be part and parcel of the Doctrine of its Inspiration...
The pioneers of this rediscovered Truth are E
F Hills,...,G. Riplinger,..."
e). KJV, the only true Bible in the English language
In 2001, Dr Khoo wrote a book called Kept Pure
In All Ages. Partly quoting Edward F Hills and
partly adding his own words, Dr. Khoo believed
that KJV is the only true accurate translation
"We have the Words
of God in English, or in Spanish, or in Italian,
or in Portuguese, or in Russian, etc. This is
true only in accurate translations like the
King James Bible in the English language. ….
God wants His Inspired Words of Hebrew/Aramaic
and Greek to be accurately translated into all
the languages of the world (Rom 16:26, Acts
2:11). God expects us to find the most accurate
Bible in our own language (In English, it is
the King James Bible) . . .!”
f). KJV, the perfect Bible.
The term "Verbal Plenary Preservation" or VPP
was initially mentioned verbally at a FEBC Night
Class on Oct 2002. It later appeared in a Burning
Bush article: A Plea for a Perfect Bible""(Burning
Bush, January 2003) when he introduced the topic
in these words,
"The Bible controversy
today is hotting up. The controversy ironically
involves the simple question of whether the
Church today has a perfect Bible. Fundamentalists
today cannot agree on this very basic question.
The issue concerns the biblical doctrine of
verbal plenary preservation."
In the same article, there was a chart entitled:
What Kind of Bible Do You Have? ; he placed
the KJV under the category All Perfect (Perfect
then and now). By this, Dr Khoo was stating
the KJV as a translation and Bible version is
perfect; one hundren percent inspired and one
hundren percent preserved.
g). Resignation of some FEBC lecturers over preservation
Indeed, the differences of views by FEBC lecturers
on preservation of God's Word was "hotting up."
Pressure was put on Rev. Charles Seet and Rev.
Colin Wong to conform to FEBC's new position on
"events that have taken place in the past few
months have made it impossible for me to continue
serving in the Bible College with a clear conscience.
These events concern the position that has recently
been taken and promoted by some faculty members
on the extent of preservation of God's Word in
the King James Version."
"...I must confess that I have not yet attained
to the belief that the Textus Receptus we have
today is totally without scribal errors, i.e.
that it is a virtual photocopy of the autographs...Scribal
errors should not be considered as faults or flaws
in the text, since they were not made deliberately..."
"They said that we have attacked God's character
by holding this view. They said that though they
too once held to the same view as us, they have
repented of this and hoped we will do the same."
With the differences unresolved, Rev. Seet and
Rev. Wong resigned their teaching positions in
h). The Word of God has been miraculously preserved.
Dr. Khoo published the tenets of the VPP in the
Burning Bush (January 2006). What was significant
in this publication could be interpreted in two
ways: (i) it is the admission by the FEBC that
what they have termed "Providential Preservation"
all along should be interpreted as "miraculous"
or "supernatural" preservation, or (ii) that the
FEBC had made an error in calling it "Providential
Preservation"and, should now be called miraculous
preservation of Scriptures is understood as
God's special and not general providence. Special
providence or providential extraordinaria speaks
of God's miraculous intervention in the events
of history and in the affairs of mankind in
fulfilment of His sovereign will for the sake
of His elect and to the glory of His Name. The
divine preservation of the Canon (books) and
Text (words) of Scripture comes under God's
i). Restoration of the contents of the autographic
FEBC further developed this concept of the miraculous
preservation when it asserted that the autographic
text was restored. God, it is claimed by the FEBC,
made use of the KJV translators in 1611 to restore
the Original text. In July 2006, Dr. Khoo wrote,
"Could God have
restored for His Church all of His inspired
and preserved words in the days of the Reformation?
As the all-powerful God, He certainly could,
and by faith we believe He surely did. Just
as He restored the Old Covenant words of His
Decalogue through His servant Moses (Exod 19:16-21:26,
31:18-32:28, 34:1-4; Deut 5:1-29, 9:20-21, 10:1-5),
and all His words in the scroll which Jehoiakim
cut up and burned (Jer 36:1-32), so we believe
the Lord has similarly done for His New Testament
words which have been kept pure in the Traditional
and Majority manuscripts and are now found in
the printed Text of the Protestant Reformation-the
time-tested and time-honoured Textus Receptus
underlying the KJV."
j). Questionable means of promoting VPP.
i) FEBC misleads by misquoting and misrepresenting
prominent Christians and organizations
It is rare to find complete agreement on every
doctrine between Christian people. The unwritten
rule for anyone, especially a Christian, to promote
a doctrine is complete truthfulness and intellectual
honesty. An article (A Plea for a Perfect Bible)
written by Dr. Khoo and published in the Burning
Bush (January 2003), misled and confused many,
especially those within the Bible-Presbyterian
churches. This was pointed out by Rev. Seet:
"This article also included a table ("What Kind
of Bible Do You Have?") defining three views of
the Perfection of the Bible...The confusion is
found in the third column, which combines the
traditional view the church has held, with his
own brand of the doctrine of preservation. Among
the proponents in the third column, he [Dr. Khoo]
erroneously included Burgon, Pensacola Christian
College, Trinitarian Bible Society, International
Council of Christian Churches, the Bible-Presbyterian
Church and FEBC. This gives the uninformed reader
the false impression that this view is the official
view of a great majority of fundamentalist institutions..."
ii) FEBC academic dean (Dr. Khoo) use of anonymous
email to cause confusion.
In December 2002, mysterious e-mails containing
confidential documents (LIFE B-P Church Session
meeting and Dr. Khoo's responses) were send to
members of LIFE B-P Church. Dr. Khoo, in reply
to an elder of the church, admitted that he leaked
the confidential documents which were to be discussed
for the coming session meeting through an email
(Dr. Khoo used the anonymous email name "FOR GOD")
I assured you
that I am FOR GOD, and I am fully responsible
for my reply to the Sunday School paper that
has been sent out."
Dr. Khoo claimed that he had nothing to do with
another email under the name "PUTRI SAMI" who
mysteriously possessed the same restricted documents
as Dr. Khoo's "FOR GOD"! This PUTRI SAMI threatened
the elder (of LIFE B-P Church) who subsequently
referred the matter to the authorities .
3. APPEALING TO FEBC LEADERSHIP OVER THIS
Many of the FEBC graduates, before the "Jeffrey
Khoo era", owed much to Rev (Dr.) Timothy Tow
for his faithful teaching of God's Word and the
exemplary life-style. They had great respect for
him and were sad to see what has become of the
FEBC and the situation in some Bible-Presbyterian
A senior pastor wrote to Rev. Tow
"I pray God that things will revert to normal
again, to the original position we held for so
long, that the Bible in the original languages
and manuscripts is inspired and inerrant... By
God's grace, may our B-P leaders and members not
be divided by the introduction of this new position
regarding the KJV...;this latest separation over
the KJV is causing schism confusion and sadness
in the Church."
Rev. Tan Eng Boo recalled the time when together
with four pastors:
"Almost one and a half years ago, five B-P pastors:
the late Rev (Dr) Burt Subramaniam, Rev Anthony
Tan, Rev Tan Choon Seng, Rev Yap Beng Shin and
myself met up with Rev Timothy Tow and Mrs Tow.
Five of us pastors shared with Rev Tow our concern
that FEBC was heading towards an extreme view
(KJV-Only view). We asked him to stop certain
people from advocating this view, and we expressed
our fear to him that the B-P church is heading
towards another split if nothing is being done
to nip this problem in the bud."
Rev.(Dr.) Paul Hoole from Sri Lanka wrote to
Dr. S.H. Tow (Senior Pastor of Calvary Pandan
B-P, senior board member of FEBC)
"Speaking as a Pastor I do not think that the
VPP issue should be brought to the pulpit or to
the fellowship groups of a church, since the majority
will know little about the original languages
and manuscripts, and they are bound to be confused
and react emotionally... It was sometime ago 
when you visited Sri Lanka (and I had just heard
of the VPP issue) when you mentioned that it is
a new doctrine and you were not positive about
The appeals to the leadership of the FEBC to
stop the aggressive promotion of this new teaching,
especially by its faculty members Dr. Khoo, Rev.
Quek S. Y. and Rev. Das Koshy were ignored.
What started off as a belief by the FEBC leadership
regarding the Hebrew-Masoretic text and the Greek
Textus Receptus, to be the most accurate and providentially
preserved texts, evolved through a period of about
ten years to become a 'doctrine' where God restored
the Original texts through the KJV translators
in 1611. In the process at least three B-P churches
split up over this new teaching.
Dr KHOO'S MISQUOTATION OF G.I. WILLIAMSON
In August 2002. we corresponded with G.I. Williamson,
the one who wrote the commentary on the Westminster
Confession (1964) and whom Dr Jeffrey Khoo quoted
"This brings us
to the matter of God's 'singular care and providence'
by which He has 'kept pure in all ages' this
original text, so that we now actually possess
it in 'authcntical' form. And let us begin by
giving an illustration from modem life to show
that an original document may be destroyed,
without the text of that document being lost.
Suppose you were to write a will. Then suppose
you were to have a photographic copy of that
will made. If the original were then destroyed,
the photographic copy would still preserve the
text of that will exactly the same as the
original itself (emphasis his). The text
of the copy would differ in no way whatever
from the original, and so it would possess exactly
the same 'truth' and meaning as the original.
... Thus it is seen to be the sober Truth, as
declared by the Confession of Faith, that the
infallible text of the Word of God has 'by...
singular care and providence (been) kept pure
in all ages,' so that we do now actually possess
before our very eyes the 'authentical' text
of the Word of the living God. We may say concerning
the actual words that we see on the pages of
the Greek New Testament, 'Behold, there are
the very words which have come forth from the
mouth of God. Amen."
Jeffrey Khoo: I say Amen to Williamson's exposition
of the WCF and the doctrine of providential
This was the reply that we received from G. I.
From: "G.I. Williamson"<giwopc(areonnect.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12. 2002 5:25 AM
While I have great respect for the so-called
Textus Receptus (TR). I do not believe that it
is quite equal to a photocopy of the autographa.
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 the TR. And neither am I.
It must be remembered that the foundation of the
argument for the superiority of the TR is the
doctrine of divine providence. God, who controls
all things, has seen to it that his word has been
preserved. True. But it is this same true God
who has also preserved throughout the ages of
the world in which the ancient church developed
translations into other languages, and some manuscript
copies of the Greek N.T. which are not always
in complete agreement with the TR. I do not think
we have a right to automatically rule out as of
no value whatever this component. It may be true
that the TR is right 99 times out of 100 - when
there is a textual question. But that does not,
in my opinion, prove that it is always right.
The bottom line for me, then, is that I give
great deference to the TR. But I cannot go along
with those who think that it is so perfect that
there is no work for us to do in comparing the
other ancient manuscripts, etc. I think my own
Commentary (pp. 15-17) makes this sufficiently
clear that no one should presume to quote me as
one who thinks the TR (the Byzantine Majority
Received Text) is absolutely perfect.
I hope this is of some help. Don't hesitate to
come back if I can be of further assistance.
"Original Message --
From: G.I. Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:40PM Subject:
More on TR
I had to respond rather quickly yesterday and
now. in reading over your note again, feel that
I should add a bit.
In your letter you said: "There are some
influential leaders in my Church who understand
and quote your statement to support the idea that
God has raised, among the midst of the Byzantine/Majority/Received
Text, a single purified Text which is the virtual
'photocopy' of the autograph."
This is an interesting sentence because it could
so easily be taken either one or the other of
two ways. It all depends on what is meant by the
word "virtual." My dictionary says this word means:
"having the essence or effect but not the appearance
or form of." The same dictionary says of the word
'virtually' that it means: "in effect though not
in fact; practically, nearly". If the word virtually
is intended in your letter to mean this then I
could agree with it. But if it is intended to
mean that the TR is a 100% perfect reproduction
of the autograph, then I could not agree with
it. I've discussed this with various scholars
- including the late Edward F. Hills - and none
of them ever went quite that far. I hope that
the people you describe as "influentialleaders"
in your church do not go that tar either because,
if they do, they have gone too far.But if they
mean what the dictionary defines as the meaning
of virtual (virtually) then Ibelieve I could work
I just felt that I should add this to what I wrote
Wishing you the Lord's grace and blessing.
P.S. I am now semi-retired and cannot afford
the toll call to Singapore. But I am willing to
discuss this with you further if you fed the need
and can bear the cost of the call. My phone
number in the U.S. is (712) 324-3467. I am usually
in my study between 8 and noon daily (Central
Standard Time U.S.)
DR KHOO'S MISREPRESENTATION OF EDWARD F. HILLS
In his article, A Plea Tor a Perfect Bible
Dr Khoo cited E. F. Hills as follows:
"Such a high view of Scripture grants believers
maximum certainty- with regard to the authenticity
of the inspired words of Scripture. And such certainty
can only be had if the doctrine of the special
providential preservation of the Scriptures is
upheld. 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 following is the full context from p.224
of E.F. Hill's book, The King James Version
"Maximum Certainty Versus Maximum Uncertainty
God's presevation 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 Reccpius
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 limes 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 file Scriptures and make this the
leading principle of our biblical textual criticism,
we obtain maximum certainty,
all the certainty that 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 words in red and underlined were the parts
quoted by Dr Khoo As anyone can see, his selective
quotation of E.F. Hills to support his view has
caused him to misrepresent Hills. Hills never
claimed perfection for the KJV or its underlying
text but only claimed that the uncertainties were
kept down to a minimum by God's special providence.
Notice that Dr Khoo also omitted the part that
reads, "and make this the leading principle of
our biblical textual criticism." This may have
been done deliberately, since Dr Khoo is against
biblical textual criticism.
DR KHOO'S MISREPRESENATION OF THE TRINITARIAN
In a table entitled What Kind of Bible Do You
Have? defining three views of the Perfection
of the Bible, Dr Jeffrey Khoo misrepresented the
Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) as holding the
Perfect Bible view.
A check made with Mr Mark Fenn. Editorial Asst
of TBS, London in August 2002 confirmed that TBS
does not take the view as Dr Khoo alleged. When
asked what is the meaning of the phrase found
in the WCF "Kept pure in ages", Mr Fenn
produced an article written by Mr A.J. Brown,
the Editorial Secretary of the TBS, as found in
the TBS Quarterly Record. Oct-Dec 1984 entitled
"Faith and Textual Scholarship."
The Reformed Position - The great 16th century
Protestant Reformers were under no illusion that
their manuscripts were perfect. Both Calvin and
Beza, for example, were quite prepared to acknowledge
that in matters of smaller details, all of their
manuscripts might be wrong at particular passages.
This possibility did not greatly trouble them
because the doctrines of the Christian faith could
all be established from other passages which were
not in doubt. The Reformers upheld the general
reliability of the text of the Greek and Hebrew
manuscripts, but they felt at liberty to debate
over the exact wording of individual passages.
Essentially the same view as Calvin's and Beza's
was reflected in the Westminster Confession and
Particular Baptist Confession in the 17th century.
In declaring that the Old Testament in Hebrew
and the New Testament in Greek were "kept
pure in all ages." these confessional statements
noticeably do not here use the word "perfect"
They insisted on the entire perfection of Scripture
itself, but they did not speak of the perfection
of any or all of the manuscript copies.
Truthfulness - It is right to encourage an overall
confidence in the Bible, and a faith in the perfection
of the inspired originals, and to give due recognition
to the workings of divine providence, but in common
with orthodox Christian scholars in every age
we should also make a realistic acknowledgement
that the manuscript copies and the translations
are to some extent subject to the fallibility
of human creatures. It is potentially damaging
for a minister to pretend to his congregation
that there are no differences or difficulties
among the manuscripts. Sooner or later the pretence
will be found out by those who use the minds which
God gave them, and the damage to faith may be
far greater than if the existence of difficulties
had been candidly admitted. The interests of truth
and faith are not well served by suppressing information
about the historical evidence.
Faith and Uncertainty - Even some very conservative
writers would agree that there are at least some
textual details in regard to which we must be
content to remain uncertain (for example. Dr E.F.
Hills “The King James Version Defended”
1984. p 224). The fact that there are textual
difficulties affecting some matters of detail
does not destroy any doctrine which is essential
to salvation. There is therefore no reason why
this limited area of uncertainty should unsettle
the saving faith of the believer.
Dr David Allen, the deputation speaker of TBS,
verified during his trip to speak at the Life
B-P Church camp in June 2004, that TBS does not
take the position that Dr Khoo advocates.
DR KHOO'S MISREPRESENTATION OF JOHN OWEN
In an article of the Burning Bush (July 2004).
Dr Jeffrey Khoo alleged that John Owen believed
in VPP. He wrote that
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).
Unfortunately, he conveniently omitted John Owen's
own acknowledgement of variant readings in the
immediately proceeding paragraph.
There is no doubt but that in the copies we now
enjoy of the Old Testament there are some diverse
readings, or various lections....But yet we affirm,
that the whole Word of God, in every letter and
tittle, as given from Him by inspiration is preserved
without corruptions. 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 words of Owen that were omitted in Dr Khoo's
article show that Owen did not hold to Dr Khoo's
VPP view, and that he advocated the exercise of
diligence in searching into God's Word to harmonise
DR KHOO'S ADMISSION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ANONYMOUS MASS E-MAILING TO CHURCH MEMBERS
Sent: Tuesday, 17 December, 2002 12:28 PM
The attached mail was sent to me this morning
and it incorporates Dr Jeff Khoo's response to
Session and Rev Quek's write up on "we have
an inerrant Bible". The sender "For
God" is circulating to some of the members
of Life BP Church. I'm puzzled as to how the sender
got hold of Dr Jeff Khoo's response!!!
From: For God Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002
See attached file: Answers to Questions by Session
Members.doc) (See attached file: WE HAVE A INERRANT
--- Original Message ---
To: For God
Sent: Tuesday, 17 December, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: FW: Email on Rev Jeffrey Khoo's Earlier
Reply to Session Members
Dear For God,
Kindly identify yourself. Are you a Session member
of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church?
If you are, you have committed breach of trust
by sending this -A document to people outside
If you are not a Session [member], kindly write
in confidence in reply to me. I would like to
know how you get this document.
Either way, may I provide you counsel that sending
document like this one will not help the congregation
to understand the issue at hand. The Lord has
appointed pastors, elders and deacons, let them
fulfill their responsibility and make the necessary
announcement and instructions for the edification
of the church members.
Yours in Christ, Elder....
----Original Message ---- From: ...
To: putri sami'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Dr Jeffrey Khoo
Sent: Saturday, 21 December, 2002 11:31 AM
Subject: Using Anonymous Email Address is most
"But that it spread no further among the
people, let us straitlv threaten them, that they
speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they
called them, and commanded them not to speak at
all nor teach in the name of Jesus." (KJVActs
Dear For God (if you are truly for God. you will
not be doing this very unethical and unchristian
work of sending out confidential document emails
to Life B-P Church
members to explain on behalf of Dr Jeffrey Khoo
- he will be given the chance to explain in due
I am appalled that you have received "Private
& Confidential" documents from Life B-P Church
Session meetings, and from Dr Jeffrey Khoo ("A
Reply to the Sunday School Paper", which I had
clarified at the Board of Elders meeting that
it was not a SS paper per se) who only sent it
to the Session members three days ago for deliberation
at a Board of Elders meeting on Thursday. I say
this because I know my fellow Session members
and elders are gravely concern with this issue
and hold it with much prayer and confidence; they
therefore are not the ones who would have provided
this to you.
You. and Dr Khoo (I can only conclude that Dr
Khoo gave it to you since he is the author, or
some one who Dr Khoo gave to which has given to
you - either way you have implicated Dr Khoo by
this action, and he now has to face the BOE to
answer this question), however, have no regard
for the office of the Church Session. Through
an anonymous email, you are causing confusion
and strife in the church -undoing what the Session
and Board of Elders is fervently trying to resolve.
To Putri Sami (or are your For God with another
anonymous email address),
Thank you for your email.
I like to quote your email "Whatever goes around,
This email is not edifying email, and I do not
welcome your threat. I am no gangster. The Lord
has appointed me as an elder of Life B-P Church,
and therefore, I humbly serve the Lord and His
people. Like For God, I will be sending your email
to the relevant authorities for their investigation
now as you have breach the privacy ethics.
If you are a born again believer and have respect
for authorities in accordance to Romans 13:1-2
and Hebrews 13:17, please speak with me personally.
We do not need to resort to email spamming to
destroy the congregation's faith and confidence
in God further. In the end, no one wins, and Satan
has the last laugh. This is a sincere plea with
you. Hiding behind anonymous email addresses will
not glorify God, nor help in any way to heal the
congregation's confidence. Don't behave like the
Sadducees in Acts chapter 4 (quotation above).
Don't send any more emails to Life B-P Church
Have a peaceful Christmas.
Yours sincerely, Elder....
From: Far Eastern Bible College [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, 21 December 2002 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Using Anonymous Email Address is
Dear Eld ...
I do not understand why after our polite conversation
over the phone, you sent me
I already said I do not know and have nothing
to do with this "Putri Sami." I assured you that
I am FOR GOD, and I am fully responsible for my
reply to the Sunday School paper that has been
sent out. Is this what you meant by keeping our
channels of communcation open? Elder, I am truly
disappointed by this.
Respectfully in Christ,
--- Original Message ----
To: 'Far Eastern Bible College'
Sent: Saturday, 21 December, 2002 11:54 PM
Subject: RE: Using Anonymous Email Address is
Dear Dr Khoo.
I want to express to you that the disappointment
you feel is mutual.
Please see the time stamp of the email (Sent:
Saturday, 21 December, 2002 11:31 AM) carefully.
Prior to sending this email, I tried calling you
several times but could not get through to you
on your telephone. Hence, at 11.31 am, I had sent
this email out to Putri Sami and For God (at that
time, I still do not know that you are 'For God'
email address). If you accept this explanation,
you should not misunderstand my point to you about
keeping our channels of communication open. And
indeed, when I finally got through to you, you
told me that Elder Joseph and a new student were
with you, and you would prefer to call me back.
If my line of communication was not open, I would
have told you off not to call me back. But you
managed to call me back after 12 noon, by which
time the email had long been sent out to you.
If you'd read this email, you would probably not
call me back, don't you agree?
I also hope that you appreciate the seriousness
of sending out Life B-P Church Session document
to the congregation without seeking permission
from the Session. To put things in perspective.
I understand that you feel that you had not been
given a fair chance to reply 'publicly', but please
do understand that you had made your position
very clearly at the Life B-P Church pulpit when
you were invited to speak, you taught about Bible
Preservation at the FEBC night classes on Soteriology
until Peter Ong had challenged you publicly, you
spoke at the Rehoboth B-P Church 10th Anniversary
(my wife and I were in attendance) about the Perfect
Bible and challenged the congregation to drag
you down, and you post-dated the Burning Bush
(January 2003) just to state your paper "A Plea
for a Perfect Bible' early you had ample opportunities
to present your views loud and clear. Dr Khoo,
you are a PhD in Theology and you should appreciate
that you actually had several opportunities to
get a fair hearing. When the 21 members presented
the paper to the Sunday School, notice that it
was a Sunday School lesson to Adults, not a debate
or forum; and NOT to the entire church at the
pulpit. We dare not desecrate the pulpit for this
purpose. This was the only window for us to make
a presentation to our members in the Sunday School
at least - the Church Constitutional view. Let
me state with all sincerity and let GOD be the
Judge that when you raised your hand to make a
query, I assumed, on 1st Dec, I honestly did not
see it. I was told by a member later that you
did raise your hand, but I was not looking at
the direction where you were seated. In any case,
the time was 10.25 am, I could not have taken
any question from any one because I normally take
questions from my class privately after the class.
You said that your telephone is in the church
directory and I could have called you to clarify
your view. Likewise, I am always contactable on
my phones - why didn't you call me instead, but
resort to sending out the Session document and
your paper to the church which is confusing and
damaging. I was the one who finally took the initiative
to call you on the telephone.
Dr Khoo - I want to believe that you really love
the Lord and His people as you claimed, please
consider carefully all that we have tried to put
across to you, lest, what Rev Tow had built in
the last 52 years of B-P movement may be destroyed
by this untenable position.
Many of my colleagues in the Session have advise
me not to reply, but I had chosen to speak out
and share my thoughts with you in this reply.
I hope you now have a clearer picture of the time
sequence of the email you had referrred to. Please
do not be so quick to conclude so poorly of me
or any other Session member again. My conscience
is clear before the Lord as far as this matter
From: Far Eastern Bible College [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, 22 December 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Using Anonymous Email Address is
Dear Elder ...
Thank you for your clarification. May I please
also take the opportunity to clarity that the
"For God" email which I claimed responsibility
(as in the email below), I was the author who
sent the covering note/explanation and attachment
to the person who is "For God" to disseminate
it to Lifers. For that one email, it was my responsibility.
I am also responsible for asking "For God"
to distribute my Answers to the Session. (I am
not responsible for any other emails (past, present
or future) that "For God" has disseminated
to Lifers.) I felt strongly that I was unable
to have a fair hearing while much was said against
me and requested "For God" to assist
in sending it out on my behalf, since there was
already a previous email disseminated. I will
not ask "For God" again to disseminate
my emails to Lifers. As for the other email account
(Putri Sami), I am not responsible for it. I agree
that we should indeed continue to keep the lines
of communications open. May the Lord bless you
and your family, and have a blessed Christmas.