|
FEBC Under Siege by Life BPC:
Pray for Peace and Unity Based on
Truth and Charity
CLARIFICATION OF CONFESSION BY
BRUTUS BALAN
Re: Preservation of God’s Word
To Charles Seet and the Board of Elders of Life
BPC,
As an interested observer and FEBC graduate and
fellow fundamentalist I am baffled by this unholy downward spiral over words.
To be so self-right is not to see one’s own inconsistency and contradictions.
Consider the following:
1. Far Eastern Bible College Statement
(The Burning Bush, Vol 12 Number 1,
Editorial, pg 2,)
“The infallible and inerrant words of Scripture
are found in the faithfully preserved Traditional/Majority manuscripts
and fully represented in the Printed and Received Text...that underlies the
Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV...” (#4)
Life BP Church Statement
(‘Our Statement of Faith on the preservation
of God’ Word, 8 Nov 2005, 2nd para)
“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 the closest to the
original autographs of the Bible.”
Comment: Both
agree that The Received Text is providentially preserved by God
that underlies the KJV. The omission in Life BPC statement is the word ‘faithfully
preserved’ but included in the FEBC tenet.
2. FEBC:
“God has supernaturally preserved each and every one of His inspired...words...kept
intact without any lost of His word” (#1)
Life BPC:
Life BPC states that the originals were
providentially preserved in the Received Text and are closest to the
originals. ‘Closest’ implying not word perfect ( The “...Perfect Bible debate
is all about the Hebrew and Greek texts (or copies) immediately underlying the
KJV...We do not ascribe perfection to them (i.e. 100% exact replica of
the autographs) or say that they are THE preserved texts to the exclusion to
the other manuscripts within the family of Received Texts.”)
Comment: It
is clear that Life BPC believes that the Received Text is not the only
providentially preserved text and that it is inadequate as THE Word of
God. But FEBC says that it is an exact copy of the original revelation and
therefore inerrant and infallible (#4) and IS THE Word of God.
3. FEBC: “The
Bible is not only infallible and inerrant in the past (in the autographs), but
also infallible and inerrant today (in the apographs)”. The Bible has no
errors, period (#1, #5, p2).
Life BPC: The
original writings (autographs) were “inerrant, infallible (obviously
perfect)’ in the past but the ‘providentially preserved’ copies (apographs)
we have today have errors “after the originals were lost”. If it is so,
how then can you claim to hold to an ‘INERRANT and INFALLIBLE BIBLE and the
FULL preservation of God’s holy Word.’?
Comment: It
makes non-sense of the phrase ‘divine providential preservation’ if it
means less than perfect if God was involved in the transmission of His own
words in writing. To say it was not miraculous but providential
is semantic silliness. The miraculous would be the actual preservation of
the originals not the copies of the originals. The Verbal
Plenary Inspiration of the originals must by reason of logic
guarantee Verbal Plenary Preservation if
not in the Received Text, surely in the Majority texts which then need to be
textually recognized and any variance rectified and harmonized to know for
certain the exact, word perfect, infallible and inerrant words of God as in
the originals (cf. The Burning Bush, Editorial Vol 12, No 1, p2, #6).
If you believe that the word perfect Word of God
cannot be known even in the body of the manuscripts of The Majority Texts,
you cannot then hold to your position of ‘INERRANCY and INFALLIBILITY’ as
stated in your declaration of the 8th November 2005. It’s a
contradiction. Note your quote, “...we hold to an INERRANT and INFALLIBLE
Bible and the full preservation of God’s holy Word.” What is “full
preservation”? Does full means not full? Deceptive words are not of the
Holy Spirit!
You can’t have it both ways. Note your quote
again in the words of G. I. Williamson,
“We see that God determined that the early
copies of the original would be made. True, each erred in a slight degree, but
they did not err in the same points...............And so, while the true (or
perfect) original text would not be entirely reproduced in a single copy, yet
it would not be lost or inaccessible because by the majority testimony of
several copies, error would always be witnessed against. The true text would
be perfectly preserved within the body of witnesses.
(The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study
Classes; pp 14-17.)
Analysis of the above quote:
1. God
determined the copies be made of the original (providential preservation).
2. Each
copy of the original ‘erred’ but not in the same points (granted).
3. The
true originals are not found in one single copy (eg. the Received Text) but in
the witness of the Majority text (agreed).
4. Yet
the true original words are not lost or inaccessible because by the
majority testimony of several copies, error can be recognized and the true
words (text) of the original can be established (textual
recognition, rectification and harmonization
(cf. The Burning Bush, Editorial Vol 12, No 1, p2, #6).
5. Therefore,
the “true text (words of the originals) would be
PERFECTLY PRESERVED within the body of witnesses” (The original
words are intact to the jot and tittle).
CONCLUSION OF ANALYSIS:
The Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the original true
text does exist within the body of witnesses of the Majority Texts. That’s
exciting!
Since Life Church quoted Williamson, it will be
true to say that Life BPC subscribes to the Verbal Plenary Preservation
of the originals by the process of textual recognition, rectification and
harmonization by a simple comparison of the received Majority Texts and
thereby concur with FEBC that the word PERFECT, INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE Bible
exists. Isn’t this the clear statement in the Constitution of The Life BPC,
article 4.2.1, “We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of
the Scriptures in the original languages, (and in) their
consequent inerrancy and infallibility...”?
FEBC concedes that others can differ with them “over the absolute certainty as
regards the underlying texts or words” but as long as other VPP and KJV
defenders “...maintain VPP in the lineage of Byzantine/Majority manuscripts
and the Textus Receptus...” and deny the Westcott-Hort Text and also deny the
existence of scribal errors, “...slight differences of opinion over the
verbally preserved texts/words among KJV defenders should remain as non
issues...”(The Burning Bush, Vol 12, No 2, pp80-81, Non issues).
If G.I Williamson is believed, Life BPC
shouldn’t use the KJV any longer for it is not based on the body of the
Majority Text (witness) but on a single text - The Received Text. Therefore,
the KJV cannot be the closest to the originals and therefore not “the very
Word of God” and “fully reliable.” For Williamson, The majority texts are the
source of finding the providentially preserved Bible which was kept under
God’s “singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentical (sic)...” as Life BPC puts it. Again do words mean exactly
what they are meant to mean?
Life BPC Constitution further states, that the
debate is all about the Hebrew and Greek texts (or copies) immediately
underlying the KJV. And that the Received Text is not, “THE preserved texts
to the exclusion of other manuscripts within the family of Received Texts.”
If that be the case, it is reasonable then to say that the Received Text being
a ‘single copy’ without the benefit of the collective witness of the majority
testimony of several copies, cannot be the best text to fully access the
perfectly preserved words of the originals. One then will surmise that the KJV
cannot be the best translation because the translators had not the benefit of
the other majority manuscripts at that time. Why then does Life BPC still
use a translation based on an inferior text? It is muddled reasoning and
theological hypocrisy. Your discerning members will be in a mental knot to
unravel such contradiction of statements, words that don’t mean what they
meant to mean and the inconsistent practice of Life leadership.
At least the VPP/Received Text/KJV proponents
are consistent in conviction and practice.
You have the most inconsistent and contradictory
position over this matter and yet the charge of heresy is thrown at FEBC. It
has ceased to be a theological debate and has become personal. Now the legal
threat to evict the college over your own inconsistent stand is heartless. To
drag FEBC into the pagan arena to the cheers and jeers of the Lord’s enemies
and then to ally with the diabolical lion to prowl and devour a Bible College
which still stands true to His Word is not the Spirit of the Lord. The fiery
darts of evil have struck deep the armor-less leadership. Isn’t there any one
in the Life BP church session with wisdom and understanding? Will not the
silent church rise to wake the dead? God have mercy!
Brutus Balan
Hobart, Tasmania
AUSTRALIA
30 January 2008
Top
/ Back
|
