R.E. Slater - Divine Sovereignty - What Is It?

Divine Sovereignty - What Is It?

Is It Near or Far? Controlling or Uncontrolling? Fully Knowledgeable

or Processually Affected in It's Divine Knowledge, Power, and Presence?

by R.E. Slater

December 16, 2022

A Fresh Perspective of Divine Omnipotence

When thinking of a Divine God with Divine Power it perhaps is better think in terms of Divine Love....

Shocking?

Perhaps.

But certainly much more in line with a "biblical" God than if casting Divinity in terms of non-Loving power and control. (aka, church-like dominionism with its legalisms, rites, and beliefs).

For a process theologian when speaking of God we prefer to speak of a God who is loving at all times rather than some times... or maybe not at all.

Too, if divine Sovereignty were cast in terms of a divinely Loving God at all times than the traditional terms of power and control must also be altered to better reflect a loving God.

As example, for the traditional language of omnipotence let's recast it in terms of "amnipotence" - that is, LOVING power (see Oord's articles below).

Let's also do the same with the very unhealthy word "control" which Christians love to sing about and speak to when praising God's omniscient determination of our own affairs and the world's.

A process theologian will do away with words like "divine control" altogether when speaking to a divinely-loving sovereignty within processual categories of divine processual indeterminancy. By which we mean, that creation, if it were to follow it's inherently- divine "Imago Dei" of God birthed within it (and yes, even today does this divine birth continue - as versus just one time "in Adam" ala Paul's voluminous characterization of Adam's sin in the book of Romans).

And further, because divine Love created creation in God's Image (Imago Dei) it also was created by Love (and not by divine fiat) with intermittant freewill.

That is, creational freewill agency - just like our own freewill agency - is fraught between generative, or valuative, good and sin and evil, which are not generatively good or valuative of someone or something outside itself.

A Processual Divinity Takes on a

New Divine Character and Attributes...

Hence, process theology generally teaches of a loving and uncontrolling (or noncontrolling) divine Sovereignty which, though genuinely powerful is genuinely loving and noncontrolling per the processual metaphysics found throughout the universe's "cosmic being".

Which cosmic being may also give rise to someone or something that isn't just "IS," in itself, but also "BECOMING" more than itself in itself.

So when when describing God as a processual God a process metaphysician (or metatheologian?) will say that God is not only complete in himself but also has the capacity in God's Godness of transcendence to be 100% present and immanent to creation's "processual" being. Which is to say that God in God's relationship with creation will "grow" and "become" with creation as it becomes.

When saying this a process theology is stating that neither party is static but continually evolving in relationship to itself and with creation as a whole. And that an IMMANENT God - in God's timeful existence - processually evolves with our own existence. An existence which, unlike God's divine Self, may also devolve in it's processually timeful existence.

Take note: "God qua God is complete." God is infinitely Becomed or Evolved. But in God's processual relationship with an evolving or devolving freewill and indeterminant creation, God is continually processing - or urging - that creation to become what it inherently is in itself re its Divine Imago; than to lean into the dark side of its unloving, devolving freewill which is as "uncontrollable" as its upside potential is.

Processual divine Sovereignty then speaks to an evolving/devolving creation which is and may become more than it is or may become less than it is.... And further, it is by God's redemptive power imbued into creation (as depicted by God's atoning redemption) that a freewilled, indeterminant creation may be released from its devolvement towards a processually good and generatively valuative part of the creational whole when partnering with salvific God of creation.

Thus and thus, the classical church teachings re divine omnipotence, omniscience, even omnipresence, when recast processually completely change the nuances of a truly divine loving sovereignty. And when done, show us a divine God who is much more who God is than our own images of God cast into our own religious images however "Christian" or "biblical" they claim to be. Let's read below Thomas Oord's thoughts on a few of these Christianized aspects of God....

Blessings & Merry Christmas!

R.E. Slater

December 16, 2022

https://open.spotify.com/episode/55JiRaUOL47X3mmgqZggOu

Part 1

The Death of Omnipotence

(and Birth of Amnipotence)

https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the-death-of-omnipotence

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 16th, 2022

I’m writing a new book. My tentative title is “The Death of Omnipotence… and Birth of Amipotence.”

As the title suggests, I’ll argue that God is not omnipotent. But instead of simply saying, “God can’t do…,” I’m also proposing a view of divine power I think is more biblically supported, philosophically coherent, and experientially justified. I call it “amipotence.” (Here’s a 3-minute ORTShort describing the word.)

Here’s how I plan to start the book…

THERE’S NOTHING THAT HE CANNOT DO?

“My God is so big, so strong, and so mighty there’s nothing that He cannot do.”[1] These lines from a children’s song give voice to what many people believe: God can do anything.

Other song lyrics proclaim the glory of an all-powerful God. In his Messiah concerto, George Frideric Handel’s oft-repeated lines ring out:

For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah![2]

Contemporary worship choruses promote omnipotence, declaring a sovereign God cannot be thwarted nor the divine will be frustrated. It’s common for believers, enraptured in praise, to lift their voices to the One they call “almighty” and proclaim, “our God reigns!”

OMNIPOTENCE

“Omnipotence” expresses in formal language the “God can do anything” view. A God with all (omni) power (potent) apparently can do anything we imagine and more. Augustine made this connection, saying the omnipotent God is “He who can do all things.”[3]

In some theologies, God actually exerts all power and is the cause of everything; call this “theological determinism” or “monergism.” In others, God could do everything but chooses not to. God so conceived controls from time to time but generally opts to allow creatures to exert power; call this view “voluntary divine self-limitation.”[4]

Among the attributes theists ascribe to God, omnipotence is likely best known. For many, it’s a placeholder for God – “the Omnipotent.” Although distinctions can be made, the term is often thought synonymous with other words and phrases describing divine power: “sovereign,” “all-powerful,” and “almighty.”[5] These describe what many think necessary of a being worthy of worship: unlimited power.

Christian creeds refer to God’s almightiness. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” begins the Apostle’s Creed. The Nicene Creed starts similarly: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” The Westminster Confession speaks of a God who, in “sovereign” or “almighty” activity, saw fit to “ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

THREE MEANINGS

Theists espouse various meanings of omnipotent, almighty, or all-powerful. In this book, I address three common among scholars and laity. To say God is omnipotent typically means at least one of the following:

1. God exerts all power.

2. God can do absolutely anything.

3. God can control others or circumstances.[6]

Amazon

Some theists affirm one or two meanings but not all. Some reject the idea God exerts all power, for instance, but believe God can control others. Others say God can do anything but also say God doesn’t always control creatures. Many claim God can singlehandedly determine outcomes but cannot do what is illogical or self-contradictory. And it’s common for believers to say God is omnipotent but appeal to mystery when vexing questions arise.

CONCLUSION

I’d love to hear your questions, suggestions, and thoughts. Now that you know the general aim of the book, what issues should I be sure to address?

(I explain amipotence a bit in my book, Pluriform Love. Also, see this essay from Jay McDaniel.)

[1] Ruth Harms Calkin, “My God is so Big” (Permission to quote granted from Nuggets of Truth Publishing).

[2] Handel seems to be drawing from Revelation 19:6, which in Latin and in the King James Version of scripture is translated “omnipotent” but in most contemporary biblical translations is rendered “almighty.”

[3] Augustine, De Trinitate, IV 20, 27 (CChr.SL), 50, 197: “Quis est autem omnipotens, nisi qui omnia potest.” Despite this claim, Augustine also notes a number of things God cannot do.

[4] Theologians have explored the distinction between God’s potential power and the actual expression of divine power. See, for instance, Ian Robert Richardson, “Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Question of ‘Whether the omnipotence of God should be considered as potentia ordinata or potentia absoluta?” Doctoral Dissertation (King’s College London, 2002), 17.

[5] In previous writings, I’ve said we could rightly call God almighty in the senses. God is 1) the mightiest, 2) exerts might upon all, and 3) the source of might for all. Gijsbert Van Den Brink argues for “almightiness” over omnipotence in Almighty God: A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993).

[6] By “control,” I mean acting as the sufficient cause of some creature, circumstance, or event. To describe such control, I use phrases like “singlehandedly decide outcomes,” “unilaterally determine,” or others that depict God as the sole cause. I will argue that God never has controlled and, in fact, cannot control others.

* * * * * * * *

Part 2

Omnipotence Not in Scripture

https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/omnipotence-not-in-scripture

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 27th, 2022

I’m currently writing a book that rejects the doctrine of divine omnipotence. I’ll suggest a replacement I call divine amipotence – the power of love. I introduced the writing project in this previous blog essay.

One chapter in my book addresses God’s power described in what Christians call the Old and New Testaments. I’ll argue that omnipotence — even the Hebrew and Greek words often translated “almighty” or “all-powerful” — are not in the biblical texts.

God’s Power in Scripture

Authors of sacred writ describe a God who does amazing things, including creating the heavens and the earth, enacting miracles, providing salvation, and promising ultimate victory over evil. While English translators typically avoid “omnipotence” when translating Hebrew and Greek texts, they do use “almighty.” Many people believe biblical writers portray God as all-powerful.

Given this reading of scripture, Arthur Pink puts the significance of omnipotence this way: “If God were stunted in might and had a limit to His strength, we might well despair. But seeing that He is clothed with omnipotence, no prayer is too hard for Him to answer, no need too great for Him to supply, no passion too strong for Him to subdue, no temptation too powerful for Him to deliver from, no misery too deep for him to relieve.”[1]

According to many, only an omnipotent God can save.

The Hopelessness of Omnipotence

Omnipotence does not inspire hope in everyone, however. It leads many to despair and unbelief. To those who suffer, a God who can singlehandedly liberate seems asleep. Or this God doesn’t care enough to rescue the hurting from horrors and holocausts. Fervent prayers for healing go unanswered; cries for help from the sexually abused elicit few godly rescues.

Consequently, many people have no desire to live forever with a deity who allows evil now. An almighty God isn’t trustworthy.

I will argue that Christian scripture does not support omnipotence, at least as understood in the three ways I’ve identified. God doesn’t have all power, there are many things God cannot do, and God can’t control others.

Biblical authors talk about divine action, and they consider God’s power immense. But the Hebrew and Greek words translated “almighty,” “sovereign,” and the like support neither classic nor popular understandings of God as all-powerful.

Amazon

In fact, writers of scripture acknowledge limits to divine power. And they point to the role creatures play in bringing about outcomes.

Omnipotence isn’t born of scripture.

Issues to Address?

As you see it, what words, passages, or issues should I address when talking about God’s power described in Scripture?

[1] Arthur Pink, 67.

Process Theology: Inspiration

PROCESS THEOLOGY:

INSPIRATION

by R.E. Slater

July 16, 2022

They live in a cyberpunk distopia but they look fly while doing it...

- Ashe, WestWorld, Season 3.6

First Observation

I'm a WestWorld Sci-Fi Junkie and just like the TV Series Wheel of Time can't get enough of these Isaac Asimov-like worlds of the future.

When I heard this cyberpunk statement in a video commentary by Collider or HaxDogma I couldn't help but think of BibleWorld - the world I live in, and have lived in, all my life. And as in my past, and now currently, am trying to do a better job of listening to, and understanding, OtherWorlds, from yet another perspective produced by my deep interest in process theology.

In the past I had mistakenly assumed BibleWorld was JesusWorld which includes at its core GodisLoveWorld. But lately, it does not seem this way as BibleWorld has become more like WestWorld in its violence towards others and self-centered attitudes. Though I'm sure SecularWorld has crept into BibleWorld there is also an UsWorld which is secular to it's core; very pagan; very indifferent to God; unloving; and, well, self-centered in everything it does. In contrast, A Jesus-centered Process theology teaches the inherent worth of others and to see life from their perspective. 

But before I go any further let me just say that mankind, as is creation, are infilled with the Image of God. That the Divine Imago Dei is loving, altruistic, selfless, sacrificial, and Other-oriented - and we can be this way too when we want to be. Meaning, we fight this ying-yang within ourselves of good v. evil, or a spiritual lack v. a Spirit infilling of our words and actions. But a fight that fundamentally was won by Jesus on the Cross of Calvary. A fight which is now being waged in the living lives of humanity and creation. A creation which can be more than itself but it takes a resurrected God of redemption to have made this so.

Second Observation

My BibleWorld is being replaced yet again by JesusWorld. Religious tradition like anything else needs refocusing from time to time. But in the BibleWorld of Christianity such as we see in the Biblebelt Churches of America, BibleWorld has conveniently forgotten Jesus' warnings and anti-Temple practices to Love God and not power as he stood against Judaism's current version of legalism over God's grace. Hence, BiblebeltWorld was not infilling its gospel with JesusWorld but  instead with MeWorld or ReligiousWorld. And it has been heartbreaking to watch.

I live in anguish and anger at BibleWorld's destruction of itself and society around it. It's religious rage is harming, destructive, demeaning. It believes itself to be acting like Jesus in righteous anger but has only shown itself to be acting like the religious hypocrites Jesus railed against. And the legalistic, religious Domionists of BibleWorld are also breaking apart a floundering American Democracy wishing to expand its democracies to all citizens and not just to the sectarian nationalists who are claiming their rights and beliefs as supreme over all other rights and beliefs. Whether it was Native Americans, Blacks in slavery, or groups like BLM/LGTBQ/Women, BibleWorld is often oppressive to those around it.

My new world - as I am trying to construct it and live it, albeit with my many flaws - is now becoming JesusWorld = GodisLoveWorld. No longer is BibleWorld at its theological center with all its many socio-political structural flaws, inequalities, racisms, and bigotries of every kind.

I've decided if i) the God I worship isn't Love, and ii) God's Love isn't the center of Jesus' Gospel, than all I've believed and have lived for is but chaff worthy of the fire or like a clanging brassy cymbal with its excessive grinding noise upon my migraine-induced church headache and theological ear.

I've had enough of EvangelicWorld. FundamentalWorld. JudgementalWorld. Of God'sWrathWorld. I wish to lean into RedLetterChristianWorld not only by word and deed but by doctrine, theology, and try to stay away from theological dogma, rules and laws, and self-righteous idolatry.

Third Observation

At the heart of all of this uproar is how BibleWorld reads it's Bible. I use to think the verbal plenary inspiration of the bible (VPI) was true. The church doctrine of VPI insists that the bible is true in all its words, tenses, and uses of its words (verbal); and is true in everything it describes across all of life, its events, and knowledge (plenary)

Now I find this doctrine deeply unhelpful. I was taught to read the bible literally, grammatically, historically, and contextually. All good except for reading the bible literally. This isn't good. Literalism has been the byproduct of reading the bible unquestioningly in its verbal and plenary forms which then has lead to the errant doctrine of biblical inerrancy which means the bible is error free even in its errors... (I know, a bit of an oxymoron).

The short of it is... the bible is a collection of cultural beliefs... some of which narratives speak of God but mostly speak of ancient religious beliefs about God. Since those days I would like to suggest we have done a lot more thinking of God which are just as worthy of consideration as those in the bible. Heresy! Right? No, process theology has a different take on Divine Inspiration which I'll explain in the addendum further below.

Fourth Observation

Over the years I've searched and searched and can find no helpful hermeneutic of the bible which can save it from the polarizing diatribes of preachers and congregations. My own hermeneutical preference is centered on some hash of Process-based Covenant Reformed Theology because its what I'm familiar with. It's also how I intend to revise Covenant Theology underlaid by Process Philosophy.

In the past I did a lot of work on biblical themes of promise, community, continuity v discontinuity between the Testaments, Law v Grace, Jesus as the Midpoint of Salvific History, Kingdom, Messianic Christ, as so forth. Now I intend these themes are restate them in process terms hoping to lift up BibleWorld back into JesusWorld and GodisLoveWorlds again.

What I am leaving behind is WesternChurchWorld = JohnCalvinTheologyWorld (determism) = EvangelicalWorld. I began with ArminianWorld (freewill) then lifted it up to include OpenandRelationalTheologyWorld and lastly discovered ProcessWorld easily incorporated the last two ventures into its  own OpenandRelationalProcessWorld. At the last, ProcessWorld seems a much healthier version of GodisLoveWorld = JesusWorld = RedLetterChristianWorld.

In contrast, a Self-Professing Bible built on today's evangelical church beliefs admits to closed, circular arguments of its doctrines and its religious communities circumspection of life. The problem? It cannot disprove itself because its artificial churchy boundaries have been raised so high and are attended to daily. Thus, their ApologeticWorld is more like BlindMindedWorld than it is IlluminatingWorld.

In my own experience, Christian friends have willfully closed their ears, overtalked me in arguments, showed great indifference to the church's movement away from its first love in Jesus, and have either unfriended, abandoned, or consigned me to their version of anathema... even as they have consigned their own faith to anathema by not listening to people like myself, or say, Rachel Held Evans, who have expressed deep concerns, criticisms, and movement in other directions more helpful to the Christian faith. At the last, I can no longer subscribe to the verbal, plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the bible as proper church confessions to my own faith profession. Its results are choking the church with unlove and excluding fellowship and all the while misleading the Church of God down the wayward paths of idolatrous biblicism.

Conclusion

And so, I've left BibleWorld's fortresses and bastions and have headed out across a WestWorld of God's own lands and countries to find another world more like God'sWorld and less like CardboardWorld.

Central in my journeys must be a God of love; a Christ who redeems; the need to advocate for loving redemption; and a healthy suspicion towards those who speak for God when seeing death and destruction coming by their words and deeds of sin and evil. At the last,

We all live in our own cyberpunk distopias but perhaps rather than looking fly about it in appearance to others we might better concentrate on a loving heart honoring God and neighbor.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

July 16, 2022

Verbal, Plenary Inspiration (VPI = VPP preservation)

Definition: We believe that the inspiration of the Bible is plenary (inspiration extends to all parts of the Bible equally), verbal (inspiration extends to the words, letters, tenses and other parts of speech used in Scripture).

A Qualifier to the Idea of Divine Inspiration

A new Process definition of Inerrant VPP is both a delimiting, yet expanded, version of Divine Inspiration from its Classic Version:

In fact, God has been speaking to mankind throughout time immemorial of the homo sapien journey - including its evolving idea of God. Even as God has been speaking to creation since the beginning of time, in everyway possible, and by all means possible - whether through creational evolution or by the socio-political theologies of evolving religions, God has not stopped speaking. It is on us to hear God's heart aright and bring His Words to light by the best possible means.

Moreover, in order for God to speak to creation God must be presently immanent within-and-about creation. No man, or any part of creation, may restrict God's Words to a culturally, temporally, or geographically-limiting location by way of dead documents or religious interpretations holding to an admixture of God's Words with man's errant religious beliefs. God's Words of Love are transportable across time and cultures by loving words and deeds regardless of the religious institution, even that of the Church, which says otherwise. - re slater

Inspiration's Historical Perspective

Presently, when God speaks, God is speaking everywhere and through everyone - especially to those the Church may not deem Christian. Such is the nature of divine inspiration. It is wide open, expansive, unrestraining, and most of the time troubling to behold when understanding the deafness we give to it. The prophets of the bible were especially upset over God's people not loving one another or their neighbors. In effect, Israel doomed itself on its rise to power and prominence but restricting God's loving words and deeds to forms of institutionalization of God's heart via man-made laws and doctrines. They had lost God's speech within their own speech and works.

Further, whenever God speak's into our minds and hearts I don't expect for a minute that God's inspiration comes out "inerrant and error-free, all-knowing or all-fulfilling, or even to be beheld as unquestioning." It simply is coming out through the filters of lives God is speaking to both then and now. How we might hear God's inspiration to us would be different from another of the same message. 

In this case, I can point to the process community I've discovered. At present, we are all speaking of the same God of love in many different ways and forms. It's how the Spirit of God works and is comforting to see as a body "politic" comes together in solidarity to what Christian is and isn't. However, that doesn't mean that this same community cannot be corrupted some time in the future. Especially if it is institutionalized by the Church via doctrine and dogma. Which is why I and others write so vociferously to help guide Process Christians in principle rather than by dogma.

Conclusion

So forgive me if I read the bible as a collection of imperfect documents sharing the narratives of men and women who, like us, were trying to figure out what a God of love meant to them in their lives, their tribes, their heritage, traditions, folklores, believes, and relationships with those around them.

If God is a God of Love then that Love must be judicially restorative, generative, renewing, valuative, and conjoining. If it is just all blood and guts, legalisms, stonings, and genocides than no, those bible people got it wrong back then just like today's Church of bible people have gotten it wrong again in inspiration's hit-and-miss history.

R.E. Slater

July 17-18, 2022

Verbal plenary preservation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

In Protestant theology, verbal plenary preservation (VPP) is a doctrine concerning the nature of the Bible. While verbal plenary inspiration ("VPI") applies only to the original autographs of the Bible manuscript, VPP views that, "the whole of Scripture with all its words even to the jot and tittle is perfectly preserved by God in the apographs^[1][2] 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; and every book, every chapter, every verse, every word, every syllable, every letter is infallibly preserved by the Lord Himself to the last iota so that the Bible is not only infallible and inerrant in the past (in the autographs), but also infallible and inerrant today (in the apographs)."^[3]

Basis

The doctrine of VPP is founded on God's promise in the Scripture to perfectly preserve his words and this is affirmed in the historical confessional statements of the Christian faith.^[4][5][6]

Scripture

God's inspired words once given will be forever preserved: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6-7). Those who deny that the Bible teaches preservation say that verse 7 here refers to the preservation of God's people, not His words.^[7][8]

The late Carl McIntire, the founding pastor of the historic Bible Presbyterian Church, understood verse 7 to mean preservation of the divinely inspired words of God as he had preached in 1992 a sermon entitled "Help, Lord!", from Psalm 12, saying:^[9]

"Now come verse 6, ‘The words of the LORD are pure words,’ not one of them is mistaken, ‘as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times.’ All the dregs are out. Here is a marvelous affirmation and vindication that God's Word is perfect. ... Now, ‘The words of the LORD are pure words.’ And then verse 7, how I love this: ‘Thou shalt keep them O LORD,’ that is, keep His words; ‘thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.’ No matter what happens, one generation come and another passes away, God is going to preserve His words ... from one generation to another. The words of God will be preserved throughout all the generations.

Other Bible verses quoted to support divine preservation being verbal (words) and plenary (all, full, entire or complete) include the following:^{[10][3][11][12]}

• Psalm 105:8: "He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations."
• Ecclesiastes 3:14: "l know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him."
• Matthew 4:4: "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (See also Luke 4:4 for similar verse.)
• Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
• Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (See also Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 for similar verses.)
• John 10:35: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken."
• 1 Peter 1:25: "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

Confessional statements

The confessional statements supporting VPP include the following:^[13][11][14]

Westminster Confession of Faith ("WCF") (1643–1648)

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Chapter 1:8)

The 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, the 1677/1689 London Confession of Faith and the 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith all follow WCF 1:8.^[15][16]

Helvetic Consensus (1675)

God, the supreme Judge, not only took care to have His Word, which is the ‘power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth’ (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to the present time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore, the church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a ‘sure word of prophecy’ (2 Pet 1:19) and ‘holy Scriptures’ (2 Tim 3:15), from which, though heaven and earth perish, ‘one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass’ (Matt 5:18). (Canon I)

Like the Helvetic Consensus Formula, the Westminster Confession of Faith cites Matthew 5:18 as proof text of the special providential preservation of the divinely inspired Holy Scripture.^[17][11][18] The late Rev Dr Carl McIntire also understood Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith to be teaching the special providential preservation of God's words when continuing from what was quoted above in his 1992 sermon entitled "Help, Lord!", from Psalm 12, he said with regard to verses 6 and 7:^[19]

Now I am very happy that in the great Confessions of the Christian world, our Confession—the Westminster Confession—has its Chapter 1 on the Word of God. ... Now the Lord says, "I am going to keep my Word—it is like silver that has been tried. I am going to keep that to all generations, all generations." That means that no matter what the conditions are, God is going to have on this earth some churches and some pastors until the last generation were taken away who will maintain this Word like we are doing here and like we are seeking to do throughout the whole Christian world.

Views

Timothy Tow (Singapore)

On VPI and VPP the late Rev Dr Timothy Tow, founding pastor of the Bible-Presbyterian Church and founding principal of Far Eastern Bible College ("FEBC"), wrote: "We believe the preservation of Holy Scripture and its Divine inspiration stand in the same position as providence and creation. If Deism teaches a Creator who goes to sleep after creating the world is absurd, to hold to the doctrine of inspiration without preservation is equally illogical. ... Without preservation, all the inspiration, God-breathing into the Scriptures, would be lost. But we have a Bible so pure and powerful in every word and it is so because God has preserved it down through the ages."^[20]

Ian Paisley (Northern Ireland)

On the same twin doctrines the late Rev Dr Ian Paisley, moderator of the Ulster Free Presbyterian Church for more than 57 years,^[21] said: "The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures demands the verbal Preservation of the Scriptures. Those who would deny the need for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as committed to verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word of God today then the work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished."^[10]

Edward F. Hills (U.S.)

The late Dr Edward F. Hills also penned: "If the doctrine of divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament Scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of these Scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special, providential control over the copying of the Scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God's people in every age. God must have done this, for if He gave the Scriptures to His Church by inspiration as the perfect and final revelation of His will, then it is obvious that He would not allow this revelation to disappear or undergo any alteration of its fundamental character."^[22]

William Aberhart (Canada)

William Eberhart (1878-1943), pastor, high school principal, Bible school dean, radio Bible teacher and Premier of Alberta from 1935-43, wrote in 1925: "I can still believe the Lord Jesus Christ, when he said: ‘For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled’ (Matt. 5:18). ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away’ (Matt. 24:35). If these words mean anything, they inform us that the Lord Jesus intended to see to it that the Bible, His Word, would be preserved for us in a perfect, infallible state."^[23]

Others

More views upholding the doctrine of perfect preservation or VPP can be found quoted in "The Historic Views of the Church Concerning Preservation" by Rev (Dr) P. S. Ferguson. These views include those of English puritan Thomas Cartwright (1535–1603), Professor William Whitaker (1548–1595), Bishop and Divine John Jewel (1522–1571), Cambridge-educated puritan preacher Nicholas Gibbens, German Lutheran dogmatician Johannes Andreas Quenstedt (1617–1688), English Presbyterian clergyman John Flavel (1627–1691), English puritan and theologian Edward Leigh (1602–1671), Puritan Thomas Watson (1620–1686), Puritan John Owen (1616–1683), first regent and first principal of the University of Edinburgh Robert Rollock (1555–1599), Swiss-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian Francis Turretin (1623–1687), Westminster divine Richard Capel (1586–1656), original member of the Westminster assembly John Lightfoot (1602–1675), Pastor Dr Jack Moorman, Professor Albert J. Hembd and the Rev N. Pffeifer.^[24]

Identification of the Preserved Text

Garnet Howard Milne (New Zealand)

Garnet Howard Milne, who has served as pastor of two Reformed churches in Wainuiomata and Wanganui in New Zealand,^[25] in Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture (2017) writes that Presbyterian William Jenkyn (1613-1685), who succeeded the distinguished Westminster divine William Gouge (1575–1653) at West Friars London, believed with Augustine and Whitaker that the “inspired words had been preserved and could be identified and that if they could not, they could have no assurance that they have the Word of God at all”.^[26]

Milne in the same book, after quoting Professor Whitaker (1548-1595) at p. 328 Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: The University Press, 1849), says “the canon of Scriptures was confirmed and received individually throughout the centuries ever since God had dictated those Scriptures for the church” and this means “the common or received Greek text of the New Testament and the Masoretic text of the Old” which Whitaker sees as “the authentic texts of Scripture” and such a view precludes the possibility of discovering any ancient codex in the future that would recalibrate the Word of God with a fundamentally different text than the one “endorsed by the Holy Spirit in the multitude of believers”. Quoting pp. 165 & 117 Disputation on Holy Scripture, Milne says that Whitaker also believes in the very words of the text, and not merely the sense, to be important and “the church possessed the very words, and all the words of the Holy Spirit in the extant originals in his day”, i.e. the Hebrew and Greek texts or the apographa which “so closely reflected the autographs that ‘in one sense’ could be called ‘originals’”.^[27]

Milne goes on to say that the believing church has always taught God’s Word is locatable in the Masoretic text of the OT and the Greek common or majority text of the NT, which have not been hidden, and, where there are variants in the manuscripts, the church has not found it an onerous task to collate the texts and arrive at the authentic autographic text, the Holy Spirit confirming the divine authority of God’s Word in the hearts of His people down through the ages, while the lack of spiritual insight is possibly why those who are not or are less spiritually awakened have adopted without much thought or consideration translations based upon the critical texts and eclectic texts of Westcott and Hort and other modern textual critics.^[28]

Samuel Joseph (Singapore)

Samuel Joseph in The Preservation of God’s Inspired Words in the Holy Scriptures says that if God has promised to preserve His Word, and has in fact preserved it down to every jot and tittle according to His promise, the crucial question is whether He has told us where to find His Word today as there would be little point in saying that the preserved words of God are “somewhere out there,” if we did not know where and had no way to find out; he goes on to say that the application of the principles codified into seven “biblical axioms” by Dr Jeffrey Khoo (The Burning Bush, July 2011, pp. 74-95) leads unmistakeably to the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament being the Preserved Text.^[29]

Bible Presbyterian Church and School in Collingswood, NJ

The Bible Presbyterian Church of Collingswood, NJ, U.S. – pastored previously by McIntire and currently by Christian S. Spencer – state at 4. Bible Translations: “We believe that God literally and verbally inspired the text of the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (including certain passages in Daniel and elsewhere, in Aramaic). We also believe that God has faithfully and accurately preserved this original text in the Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the ‘Textus Receptus’ (New Testament), the ‘majority text’ manuscripts used to translate the King James Version of the Bible”.^[30]

The Faith Christian School, also in Collingswood NJ, U.S., leaves no room for doubt about the school’s belief in VPI and VPP and where the autographic text can be found today in the school’s Statement of Faith at Inspiration: “We believe that ... the 66 canonical books of the Bible are alone the inspired, "God breathed", Word of God ... We believe that the inspiration of the Bible is plenary (inspiration extends to all parts of the Bible equally), verbal (inspiration extends to the words, letters, tenses and other parts of speech used in Scripture), ... inerrant (contains no factual error), infallible (never teaches error as truth although it records the sins and folly of man and reveals it as such), authoritative (is the final authority for the believer in all areas of faith and practice) and preserved today in the Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying the King James Version of the Bible, not merely in the original manuscripts.”^[31]

Thomas Ross and Kent Brandenburg / Bethel Baptist Church, CA

Thomas Ross^[32] and Kent Brandenburg,^[33] both of Bethel Baptist Church in CA in the U.S., subscribe to VPI and VPP and identify where all of the inspired words can be found; they believe that “the Bible’s very words, and all of its words, are inspired, and that those very words, and all of those words, are perfectly and providentially preserved (that is, verbal, plenary inspiration and verbal, plenary preservation) in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text) that underlies the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible”.^[34][35]

Other persons and churches in the U.S. and the U.K.

Among the many persons and organisations cited by Paul Ferguson as pro-KJV and VPP – i.e., they accept that the perfectly preserved words of God in the Holy Scripture are the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the KJV – are (a) Clarence Sexton, Founder and President of Crown College of the Bible and Pastor of Temple Baptist Church in Powell, TN; (b) Lloyd Streeter, co-pastor (until his resignation) of Campus Church (click The Bible) of Pensacola Christian College; (c) the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland; and (d) Ian Paisley, Founder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. In respect of (d), Ferguson says it is clear, from Paisley’s quoted words in pp. 102-3 and 106 of My Plea for the Old Sword: the English Authorised Version (KJV) (Belfast: Ambassador, 1997), that the “‘true Scriptures’ were only preserved in a ‘full, complete, perfect’ manner in the ‘true copies of the originals... at hand’”: Tyndale’s translation of God's Holy Word into English and the KJV were translated from the ‘Preserved Word of God’, not the ‘Perverted Word of God’, in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus.^[36]

Trinitarian Bible Society ("TBS") England

The TBS in England “maintains that the providentially preserved true and authentic text is to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts” (bold and italic added) and in so doing, the society “follows the historic, orthodox Protestant position of acknowledging as Holy Scripture the Hebrew and Greek texts consistently accessible to and preserved among the people of God in all ages” (bold and italic added), these being the texts “in common use in different parts of the world for more than fifteen centuries” which “faithfully represent the texts used in New Testament times”. The society views that the doctrine of providential preservation teaches that the Church is - and always has been - in possession of the true text of Scripture; it rejects the Majority Text of Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (1982) which allows for the discovery of further manuscripts that could change minority readings to majority readings, or vice versa.^[15]

The International Council of Christian Churches ("ICCC")

The ICCC – a worldwide fellowship of fundamental churches opposed to liberalism, ecumenism, charismatism and neo-evangelicalism – passed a resolution at Jerusalem in 2000, when McIntire was President, affirming the council's belief that the King James Version in English has been faithfully translated from the God-preserved Masoretic text for the O.T. and the Textus Receptus for the N.T., which texts combined gave the complete Word of God, the Holy Scripture, the originals fully inspired and without errors preserved in all ages for all eternity as the Westminster Confession of Faith standard says – “the O.T. in Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek... being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are therefore authentical ....”^[37]

Neutral Arbiter of VPP

Although VPP is embraced in many countries in the world, the VPP issue was litigated for the first time before a neutral secular arbiter in Singapore.^[38][39]

FEBC on VPP

FEBC embraces the VPP doctrine based on WCF 1:8 (see Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-1648) above) and teaches that God has supernaturally preserved each and every one of His inspired Hebrew/Aramaic OT words and Greek NT words to the last jot and tittle so that God's people will always have in their possession His infallible and inerrant Word kept intact without the loss of any word, and that the infallible and inerrant words of Scripture are found in the faithfully preserved Traditional/Byzantine/Majority manuscripts and fully represented in the Printed and Received Text (or Textus Receptus) that underlie the Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV, and NOT in the corrupted and rejected texts of Westcott and Hort that underlie the many modern versions of the English Bible like the NIV, NASV, ESV, RSV, TEV, CEV, TLB, etc.^[3]

Disagreement of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (“Life BPC”) with FEBC on VPP

The Board of Elders (“BOE”) of Life BPC disagreed with FEBC and called VPP a “theory”.^[40] FEBC responded by asserting that VPP is a biblical doctrine.^[41]

The BOE of Life BPC issued in January 2008 their paper headed Mark Them Which Cause Divisions to declare the church’s non-VPP position and to require the FEBC to give a written unconditional undertaking that the college would not promote the VPP doctrine in its night classes or it would not be allowed to use the premises from that month onwards as the BOE viewed VPP to be a heresy because it is ‘new’, ‘infectious’ and ‘dangerous’.^[42] FEBC rebutted with Jeffrey Khoo’s response headed Making the Word of God of None Effect which argued that without a presently infallible and inerrant Word of God to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18), the elders of Life BPC had no basis to condemn VPP as a heresy and VPP proponents as heretics.^[43]

Paul Ferguson^[44] chimed in with his paper entitled also Mark Them Which Cause Divisions to criticise Life BPC for misusing the word “heresy”, maligning godly men as “heretics”, displaying inconsistency and muddled up thinking on the VPP issue, totally misrepresenting the VPP position as a "new" concept, and showing poor scholarship and research in plagiarising the views of anti-KJV and anti-Preservation writers.^[36]

Brutus Balan (now retired from pastoring Faith Baptist Church in Hobart, Tasmania) wrote a letter dated 30 January 2008 addressed to Charles Seet and the BOE of Life BPC with a plea to them to avoid carrying out their legal threat to evict the college from the Gilstead Road premises and remarking that Seet and the elders had the most inconsistent and contradictory position over the matter – saying the original writings (autographs) were ‘inerrant, infallible’ in the past and the ‘providentially preserved’ copies (apographs) today have errors and then claiming to hold to an ‘inerrant and infallible Bible and the full preservation of God’s holy Word’ with the use of ‘full’ being questionable for ‘not full’ preservation – but yet accused the FEBC of heresy.^[45] Balan’s plea and admonition failed to stop Life BPC from commencing Suit 648 in the High Court less than eight months later.

Court of Appeal's Judgment on VPP

On 15 September 2008, the church sued the college's directors, including Timothy Tow (the church's founding pastor), over allegedly "deviant Bible teachings" to evict FEBC from the Gilstead Road premises shared by both parties.^[46][47] However, the church failed as the Court of Appeal, the apex court in Singapore's legal system (coram: Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang Boon Leong and V.K. Rajah JJ.A), ruled unanimously on 26 April 2011 – after examining WCF 1:8 – that:^[48]

1. "the VPP doctrine is actually closely related to the VPI doctrine which both parties [i.e., the College and the Church] adhere to,” (rejecting the Church's contention in [59] of the Court of Appeal Judgement that it is “an entirely different creature from the VPI doctrine)";”
2. "the College, in adopting the VPP doctrine, has not deviated from the fundamental principles which guide and inform the work of the College right from its inception, and as expressed in the Westminster Confession;"
3. "[i]t is not inconsistent for a Christian who believes fully in the principles contained within the Westminster Confession (and the VPI doctrine) to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine;" and
4. "[i]n the absence of anything in the Westminster Confession that deals with the status of the apographs, we [the Court] hesitate to find that the VPP doctrine is a deviation from the principles contained within the Westminster Confession."

The Court of Appeal at [94] of its judgment noted that adherents of the VPP doctrine believe that the KJV is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Although Life BPC under Charles Seet as Pastor does not subscribe to the VPP doctrine, the Court of Appeal at [99] of its judgment noted that Seet had admitted during cross-examination (in the High Court) that Life BPC has always subscribed to the view that the KJV is the best English translation of the Bible because of its textual superiority [in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the KJV].^[49] (Life BPC’s use of the KJV has been entrenched as when Life BPC started as the English service of Say Mia Tng in 1950 with Timothy Tow as its founding pastor, he wanted the service that he founded and pastored to be a distinct Bible-believing church and to also stick to the KJV.^[50])

See also

• Bible code
• Biblical inerrancy
• Biblical literalism
• Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)
• Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others

References

1. ^ "Definition of apograph". Harper Collins Publishers Limited. Retrieved 7 January 2017.
2. ^ apograph, an exact copy Ian Brookes, Editor-in-chief (2006). Chambers Dictionary, 10th Edition, p. 65. Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd 2006. ISBN 978-0550-103116. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b c "The Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Sacred Scriptures". Far Eastern Bible College. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
4. ^ Jeffrey Khoo (July 2011). "Seven Biblical Axioms In Ascertaining The Authentic and Authoritative Texts of the Holy Scriptures" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 17 (2): 75–76, Epangelical Axiom. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
5. ^ Carol Lee (July 2005). "A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 11 (2): 69–81. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
6. ^ Rev (Dr) P.S. Ferguson. "The Historic Views of the Church Concerning Preservation" (PDF). confessionalbibliology.com. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
7. ^ Jeffrey Khoo (July 2011). "Seven Biblical Axioms In Ascertaining The Authentic and Authoritative Texts of the Holy Scriptures" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 17 (2): 75, Epangelical Axiom. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
8. ^ Quek Suan Yew (July 2004). "Did God Promise To Preserve His Words? Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 10 (2): 96–98. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
9. ^ Dr Carl McIntire. Help, Lord! Psalm 12. sermonAudio.com. Event occurs at 11:58-12:34 mins.
10. ^ Jump up to:^a b Dr. Ian K.R. Paisley. "The history of the English Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible is unsurpassably pre-eminent, having preserved for centuries the Word of God for the English speaking peoples of the whole world, and those evangelised by them". European Institute of Protestant Studies. Archived from the original on 2016-09-14. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
11. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Carol Lee. "A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation". Far Eastern Bible College. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
12. ^ Timothy Tow (July 2005). ""My Glory Will I Not Give To Another" (Isaiah 42:8)" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 11 (2): 67–68. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
13. ^ Rev (Dr) P.S. Ferguson. "The Historic Views of the Church Concerning Preservation" (PDF). confessionalbibliology.com. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
14. ^ Jeffrey Khoo (July 2011). "Seven Biblical Axioms In Ascertaining The Authentic and Authoritative Texts of the Holy Scriptures" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 17 (2): 76, Epangelical Axiom. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
15. ^ Jump up to:^a b "Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture". Trinitarian Bible Society. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
16. ^ "A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith, the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith". www.proginosko.com. Retrieved 12 June 2021.
17. ^ "Westminster Confession of Faith (Adapted)" (PDF). Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church. p. 246 (ref 17). Retrieved 13 June 2021.
18. ^ Jeffrey Khoo (July 2011). "Seven Biblical Axioms In Ascertaining The Authentic and Authoritative Texts of the Holy Scriptures" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 17 (2): 75–76, Epangelical Axiom. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
19. ^ Dr Carl McIntire. Help, Lord! Psalm 12. sermonAudio.com. Event occurs at 12:35-13:46 mins.
20. ^ Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo (1998). A Theology for Every Christian: Knowing God and His Word (PDF). Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1998, p. 47. ISBN 981-04-0076-4. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
21. ^ "Church elects new moderator". BBC News. 19 January 2008. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
22. ^ Edward F. Hills (1984). The King James Version Defended. Christian Research Press, p. 2 (from Introduction). ISBN 978-0915923007. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
23. ^ "Testimonies of KJV Defenders - William Aberhart (updated 28 July 2004)". www.wayoflife.org. 26 August 1999. Retrieved 16 December 2021.
24. ^ Rev (Dr) P.S. Ferguson. "The Historic Views of the Church Concerning Preservation" (PDF). confessionalbibliology.com. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
25. ^ Milne, Garnet Howard (December 2007). The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation. ISBN 978-1556358050.
26. ^ Garnet Howard Milne (7 August 2017). Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture. pp. 91, 215, 221 & 223. ISBN 9781522039150.
27. ^ Garnet Howard Milne (7 August 2017). Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture. pp. 89–92. ISBN 9781522039150.
28. ^ Garnet Howard Milne (7 August 2017). Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture. pp. 299–302. ISBN 9781522039150.
29. ^ Samuel Joseph (July 2019). "The Preservation of God's Inspired Words in the Holy Scriptures" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 25 (2): 82–86. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
30. ^ "What We Believe – A Summary". Bible Presbyterian Church of Collingswood. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
31. ^ "Statement of Faith". Faith Christian School of Collingswood, N.J. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
32. ^ "Thomas Ross: My Background". Retrieved 9 June 2021.
33. ^ "Meet the Pastors". Retrieved 9 June 2021.
34. ^ "The Biblical Doctrines of Inspiration and Preservation: A Video". Faith Saves. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
35. ^ "Verbal, Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture: A Video". Kent Brandenburg. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
36. ^ Jump up to:^a b Paul Ferguson. "Mark Them Which Cause Divisions". The Dean Burgon Society. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
37. ^ Paul Ferguson (January 2009). "The Resolutions of the ICCC and SCCC on Bible Versions" (PDF). The Burning Bush. 15 (1): 1-40 [34-38]. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
38. ^ "Singapore Court of Appeal explores issues concerning breach of charitable purpose trust". Legal Bulletin. Allen & Gledhill. pp. 31–34. Retrieved 12 June 2021.
39. ^ "FEBC IS SAFE! TO GOD BE THE GLORY GREAT THINGS HE HAS DONE" (PDF). The Burning Bush. Far Eastern Bible College. 17 (2): 66–67. July 2011. Retrieved 12 June 2021. Dr D A Waite (President, Dean Burgon Society, USA): Interesting that the three appeal judges could see that the Westminster Confession allowed for both VPI and VPP. Truth has prevailed in FEBC in Singapore in the vital doctrine of Bibliology. Would that God would permit this truth to prevail in the fundamentalist schools in our United States of America as it has in Singapore. Rev Michael Koech (Principal, Bomet Bible Institute, Kenya): I read all the 55 pages of the judgement. Their argument about VPP was particularly interesting because it came from an independent observer.
40. ^ "A Statement on the Theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)" (PDF). Life Bible-Presbyterian Church. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
41. ^ Jeffrey Khoo. "Inspiration, Preservation, And Translations: in Search of the Biblical Identity of the Bible-Presbyterian Church". Far Eastern Bible College. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
42. ^ "Mark Them Which Cause Divisions" (PDF). Life Bible-Presbyterian Church. January 2008. Retrieved 22 December 2016.
43. ^ Jeffrey Khoo. "Making the Word of God of None Effect". Far Eastern Bible College. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
44. ^ "Our Leaders". Cornerstone Church. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
45. ^ "Clarification of Confession Re: Preservation of God's Word". Far Eastern Bible College. Retrieved 9 June 2021. Brutus Balan: 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!
46. ^ Jeffrey Khoo, ed. (2012). To Magnify His Word: Golden Jubilee Yearbook of Far Eastern Bible College (1962–2012) (PDF). Far Eastern Bible College (2012), "Chronology of Events", p. 250. ISBN 978-981-07-3148-9. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
47. ^ John, Arul (18 December 2008). "Church sues Bible college directors". The New Paper. Retrieved 9 June 2021.
48. ^ "Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others". www.singaporelaw.sg, paras 91,94,95 and 98. Archived from the original on 10 January 2017. Retrieved 8 August 2016.
49. ^ "Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others [2011] SGCA 18" (PDF). Singapore Law Watch, para 99. Retrieved 6 June 2021.
50. ^ Chua Choon Lan (General Editor); Editors: Quek Swee Hwa, David Wong and Daniel Chua (2018). Heritage & Legacy of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore. Finishing Well Ministries. p. 172. ISBN 978-981-48-0725-8. {{cite book}}: |author1= has generic name (help)

Further reading

• "A Course on: The Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation" (PDF). Dean Burgon Society. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
• H.D. Williams, ed. (2008). VPP of the Bible -- A Course on the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation. The Old Paths Publications. ISBN 978-0981798547. Retrieved 17 August 2016.
• "Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture". Trinitarian Bible Society. Retrieved 12 June 2021.
• Forever Infallible and Inerrant (PDF). Far Eastern Bible College Press. 2011. ISBN 978-981-07-0109-3. Retrieved 10 August 2016.