My Defence For Circulating My
Open Letter to Dr J Khoo
Lim Seng Hoo
XXX
XXX
Singapore XXXXXX
10 September 2005
The Board of Elders
Calvary Pandan Bible Presbyterian Church
201 Pandan Gardens
Singapore 609337
Dear Elders,
MY
DEFENSE FOR CIRCULATING MY OPEN LETTER TO DR J KHOO
On the basis of being promised a fair, unprejudiced and
un-prejudged hearing, I now happily make my defence before you for my
distributing of my open
letter to Dr Jeffrey Khoo of 13 July 2005, on the following fourfold
grounds: -
I. Defense
Against A New Doctrine
II. Dr
Jeffrey Khoo Circulated First!
III. The
SDA Origin and Divisive Nature of Perfect KJV-VPP!
IV. Rev
Dr Quek’s Incessant Attacks!
Before entering into the fourfold defense, it is useful
first to state: -
PREAMBLE
The BOE Final Statement on the KJB issued on 9 May 04 was
to be a gentlemanly end to all contention stemming from the Perfect KJV-VPP
(“VPP”) theory. However, preaching on VPP did not end but instead
increased in frequency and feverishness. Copies of FEBC publications
distributed freely in our Church contained many VPP articles categorising
those who do not share the view as without saving faith or
Neo-Fundamentalists and liberals.
On 10 Jul 05, Dr J Khoo
again took advantage of our Church pulpit to strongly disseminate his new
and controversial view, that was the subject of my open letter. After
the service, I met some who were dismayed, who when they saw me, shrugged
their shoulders or shook their heads. Clearly, such preaching
introduces a new Bible position not in accordance with our Church
Constitution. I had written sufficient times confidentially to the BOE,
these past two years, but the situation did not improve. Many of our
younger ones and fellowship groups are being taken in, setting the stage for
a future break-up of our Church, and the probable departure of our Chinese
Congregation, whose pastor, Rev Quek had started also to attack.
After prayer and waiting upon the Lord, I felt clearly
that the time left for saving our Church from this divisive doctrine was
short. The Lord requires us to be watchmen, (Eze 3:17, 33:2, 6)
sounding out a warning, where we see danger. This resulted in my open
letter to Dr J Khoo, to expose the untruth of his position, and to invite
him to a public debate on the VPP controversy, which could once and for all
end this controversy for the peace and unity of the churches. If his
position was true and defensible, he would be easily able to defeat me in
the debate, but I was sure that he would shrink away as I had already shown
up his untenable position.
Unlike Dr J Khoo’s Perfect KJV position, the Bible
position in my letter is that “the KJV is reliable, trustworthy, venerable
and beloved”, which accords well with our Church Constitution. I
refrained as much as possible from a personal attack on Dr Khoo (you can
compare the words that he and Rev Quek uses against me!), and I addressed
him in brotherly language and sent him the first copy on 14 Jul 05!
Thereafter, I also emailed this to the leaders of several other fundamental
churches, and to two brothers in Calvary who had expressed deep concern.
In my message to the BOE, I also implicitly checked for
permission to distribute my letter, with the words, “I would appreciate
if the Church prints this out and distribute to all members in fairness and
response of the truth.” If the pastors and elders did not say
anything to the contrary, I would take it that your silence is consent, just
as you had consented silently in not taking Dr Khoo or Rev Quek to task for
preaching their new doctrine in our Church on numerous occasions. On
16 Jul 05, not having received any word, I printed out 60 copies
(representing just 7% of our English Church attendance) of the letter, which
I personally distributed after Sunday service, in the presence of some
elders and Rev Dr Quek, none of whom attempted to stop me.
I.
DEFENCE AGAINST A “NEW DOCTRINE”
As a watchman, I had to arise up and raise a banner
against this new doctrine being continually indoctrinated into our people.
It is manifest that VPP is a new doctrine, not in accordance with our Church
Constitution and the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states in Ch 1
Sect VIII that the Word of God is “kept pure in all ages”, and not just kept
pure from 1611 onwards.
Dr Khoo, in “A Plea for a Perfect Bible”, The Burning
Bush, Jan 2003, p 9, wrote: - “In like manner,
the Lord allowed copyist errors and
corruptions to enter into the transmission process through the pen of
fallible scribes. I believe that in the fulness of time
- in the most opportune time of the Reformation … – God restored from
out of a pure stream of preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the purest
Hebrew and Greek Text of all—the Text that underlies our KJV—that accurately
reflects the original Scriptures.”
In his book “Kept Pure in All Ages”, FEBC Press, 2001, he
wrote: - “Since there were no printing or photocopying machines in those
early days, the production of copies of the NT manuscripts was done
painstakingly by hand, word for word. This tedious process would
invariably result in some copying errors experienced even today by typists
on electronic typewriters or computers.” (p 31) He continues, “By
the providential hand of God, all such typographical and transmission
errors, both accidental and intentional, have been corrected by 1598 in
Theodore Beza’s fifth edition of the Textus Receptus. The printing
machine invented during the 15th century has removed the need to
hand copy the Scriptures, thereby preventing any scribal errors from
recurring in the transmission process.” (p 32)
All of these books are freely circulated in our Church,
paid for in part by our tithes and offerings. If Dr Khoo and Rev Quek
at least had just stopped there, I would have accepted it in good faith, in
the course of being a fellow defender of the KJV. But they went on to
extremes and continual attacks against others! When they started to
attack Rev Tang Wai Kay, I knew that I had to rise up and stand, otherwise
our Chinese Congregation would eventually be divorced from us.
II. DR KHOO
CIRCULATED FIRST!
Our BOE, with the probable exception of Rev Quek, may not
be aware, but Dr Khoo started the public circulation first!
On 3 Jul 05, Dr J Khoo
circulated his response to my Sep 03 “An Evidential Review of the VPP
Theory” to all True Lifers (Exhibit
1). Every member was given a copy compared with my giving out to
only 7% of our Congregation! He also sent this to pastors of various
fundamental churches, requesting them to distribute the same to their
congregation. One of these pastors then spoke to me about this,
without realising that I did not receive any copy from Dr Khoo.
Dr Khoo also openly circulated his “14 Aug 05 Response to
Lim Seng Hoo’s Open Letter” to all FEBC fraternity and again to the pastors
of various fundamental churches. In addition, this response is posted
to the world on the Dean Burgon Society (DBS) website (Exhibit
2).
What I did, printing out and circulating 60 copies of my
letter, to 7% of our English Church, was only symbolic, and meant to
identify with email copies or other copies that may invariably come to our
Church from other churches, to whose pastors and elders, I had send copies
of the same.
You are applying double standards when you do not give me
a prior hearing before judging me for my circulation, whilst you do nothing
against Dr Jeffrey Khoo for his prior provocative public circulations of
many more copies against me, than I had circulated against him.
III. THE SDA
ORIGIN AND DIVISIVE NATURE OF PERFECT KJV-VPP
In Nov 2002, Dr Tow told me about VPP and the divisive
effect at FEBC. I also have a copy of the letter he wrote on 26 Nov
2002 to the Elders of Life Church and the FEBC Board, “Knowing God’s will is
also to do it.” In my research on the VPP theory, I purchased and read
many of Dean Burgon’s books re-published by the DBS at the hands of Dr D A
Waite. I soon learnt that Dean Burgon did not and would not hold to
any VPP view, and I wrote to Dr Waite on 14 Oct 2003 (Exhibit
3), appealing to him to let Rev Timothy Tow know the truth, so as to
help restore the peace at Life BPC. Dr Waite simply ignored my letter.
My further research showed that the DBS was founded by
Otis Fuller, whose publication, “Which Bible” IBTS, 1970, was seminal
in the introduction of VPP to the fundamental and orthodox protestant world.
Before 1970, who has ever heard of VPP? No one in Singapore had ever
heard of VPP prior to 1992, when Dr Waite introduced the same to Rev Timothy
Tow.
More surprisingly, we have now discovered via “The
Great Which Bible? Fraud” by Doug Kutilek, that
KJV-VPPism actually originated with Benjamin G. Wilkinson, (1872 – 1968),
Dean of Theology at the Seventh Day Adventist Columbia Union College,
7600 Flower Avenue, Tomoka Park, MD 20912. Dr Wilkinson’s 1930 “Our
Authorized Bible Vindicated,” postulated the Perfect KJV theory to
counteract the erosion of support for various SDA teachings such as Saturday
Sabbath keeping, soul sleep/annihilation, and exposure of Miller’s prophetic
errors, through the adoption of modern Bible versions. Otis Fuller’s
“Which Bible?” actually reproduced the entire “Our Authorized Bible
Vindicated”, sans all the footnote references to Mrs Ellen White!
Fuller also concealed Wilkinson’s identity, describing him as “all but
unknown in the world of scholarship”, and “taught for many years in a small
and obscure Eastern college”, when he was in fact a leading SDA theologian
and equivalent in SDA ranks to that of a bishop over a large diocese. (Exhibit
4,
4b,
4c and
4d)
We double checked /audited Kutilek findings by purchasing
Fuller’s book and also securing a copy of the original Wilkinson’s
publications from an official SDA website. (Exhibit
5)
Wilkinson’s works also resulted in a great division
and conflict within the SDA! (Exhibit
6) But his works are promoted and sold by the Dean Burgon Society (Exhibit
4e)
To illustrate the heretical and
divisive nature of KJV-VPP: -
Gail A. Riplinger,
a prophetess of the Perfect KJV VPP view, published “New Age Bible
Versions”, where she signed off as G A Riplinger. In “The End Times
Victorious Living Newsletter”, she wrote, “Daily during the six years in
this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought to me the materials and
resources much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not the
result of effort on my part, but of the directed hand of God so much so that
I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently I used G A
Riplinger, which signifies to me God And Riplinger - God as Author and
Riplinger as Secretary.”
Amazing?! And yet more, in
this book, Riplinger viciously attacked David Cloud, a fellow VPP proponent,
forcing Cloud to defend himself against seven of her slanders! (Exhibit
7)
Riplinger’s books are sold by the
DBS website, “The Bible for Today” (Exhibit
8) and her book, “Which Bible is God’s Word?” is also sold at the FEBC
Book Room. (Exhibit
9)
David W Daniels
is a VPP Ruckmanite, yet his book “Answers to your Bible Versions Question”
is also sold by the DBS and at FEBC Book Room. In it he writes, “I have a
very simple suggestion. Grab an interlinear King James New Testament (or Old
Testament or single volume Greek/Hebrew bible) and correct it anywhere the
translation disagrees with the King James. I am not kidding.” (Exhibit
10 &
10b)
Dr Thomas Strouse
is another extreme KJV-VPP proponent, who wrote in “Biblical Defense for the
Verbal, Plenary Preservation of God's Word”, “My Sheep Hear My Voice”.
Christ not only teaches that He will preserve the words of the Father,
but also that believers will hear His voice (Jn. 10:26). Where is the voice
of the Lord Jesus Christ? HIS VOICE IS HIS WORDS. The Lord has given
believers the means by which to verify the "received words." Believers,
indwelt with the Holy Spirit, "hear" and know which words are Christ's
"received words." Furthermore, according to Jn 10:5, believers "know not the
voice of strangers." Consequently, believers not only recognize a "received
text," but believers also reject the voice of strangers ("rejected text").
This is why Christians have maintained that the textus receptus is
the voice of the Lord and that the variants in the modern versions are
the voice of strangers.
Therefore our Chinese Congregation,
who uses the CUV, must be lost! Is not this then Rev Dr Quek’s
connotation when on 24 Jul 05, he prayed for the salvation of my soul
and on 25 Jul 05, in an email response to me, he wrote, “May God have
mercy on your soul.”
Sadly, Dr Strouse works are sold by
the DBS and FEBC Book Room, and also published in the Burning Bush, for
example Jan 2005 (Exhibit
11b).
IV. REV QUEK SUAN
YEW’S INCESSANT ATTACKS!
On 7 Nov 04, in his morning message, “A Little Leaven
Leaveneth the Whole Lump (Gal 5:1-11)”, Rev Quek’s preached severance of
relationship and ex-communication of those who do not hold the Perfect Bible
VPP view! In their attacks, they do not come clean but twist and turn, and
misrepresent that we say that “the Bible has errors”, a most serious and
defamatory charge, when we had merely pointed out scribal errors in the KJV.
(Exhibit
14 in MP3 audio format)
During our 2005 Church Camp, Rev Quek stepped up his
attacks on me and also instructed Deacon Lek to write the following email to
Rev Peter Wong on 12 Jun 05,
“I write with much trembling to request that the
invitation for our dear brother Seng Hoo speaking in the Brunei camp be
withdrawn because of doctrinal differences on the issue of the Perfect Bible
that is harmful to the flock. Brother Seng Hoo informed me of the
invitation. However, I write for the good of our brother Seng Hoo and
that you refrain from inviting him to speak. I understand that he
would be making his way for the camp this coming week with his family.
This is very important for the sake of harmony. Appreciate your
attention in this matter. Praying, Aik Wee”.
(Exhibit 12)
Rev Quek also has much influence on Dr Han Whie Kwang,
who wrote to Rev Dr Peter Ng of Jesus Saves Missions, a letter of 2 Aug
2005, attacking me viciously (Exhibit
13).
I could cite many other examples, but I believe that it
is not necessary for all of you.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I have presented four strong
justifications, each of which I believe, can on its’ own stand as adequate
defence for my limited circulation of 60 copies of my Open letter on 17 Jul
2005, calling on Dr Jeffrey Khoo for a public debate.
I hereby rest my defence.
Humbly, in the grace, mercy and
triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Brother Lim Seng Hoo |
