I. INTRODUCTION
An Engagement to Study the 1689 Confession of Faith
A little background and explanation are necessary for this work. [You may want to skip this Section I on ‘Introduction’ and proceed to Section II.] Some time in early 2003, I began to engage the pastors and leaders of some churches in Malaysia that have the 1689 Confession of Faith as their church doctrinal standard in seriously studying some of the doctrinal statements in that Confession. In the process, it became painfully obvious that different people interpreted and understood the plain language of the Confession of Faith quite differently. A few of these brethren expressed their settled views freely, while others were quite contented with the views expressed on their behalf. Finally, all these pastors and leaders are convinced that I as the pastor of SDC am in serious error on seven points of doctrine, and that I have departed from their perception of the ‘standard reformed position,’ even though they have not demonstrated the errors of the views I have pointed out to them as summarized in the1689. I have endeavored to show that their views are ‘inconsistent and deficient’ in light of both the Scriptures and the 1689 CoF. What you will read here is a compilation of my responses to those charges of error. I have never claimed that I held to the ‘standard reformed’ view. So it is meaningless to charge that I have departed from their ‘standard reformed position.’
A Meeting Behind Closed Doors
At the annual combined church camp organized by the JB First Community Church in June 2004, Pastor Peter Kek quietly arranged a meeting in the afternoon of June 2. The pastors and leaders of all the other churches that were represented at the camp were present, including those who were unaware of the lengthy discussion on the doctrinal points that had taken place through numerous email exchanges, and some face-to-face meetings. I was enjoying a nice nap while the meeting went on behind closed doors. A kind brother informed me later that words like ‘hypercalvinist’ and ‘antinomian’ were used to describe my beliefs. Pastor Peter Kek, at the instigation of Elder Lam, also complained about two titles that were put on sale by the book ministry of SDC. The two titles are, “Be Ready To Answer” and “Basic Bible Doctrines.” They charged that the books contain ‘hypercalvinistic’ doctrines. Perhaps they would like to tell us what they are and why would they label the doctrines they disagree with as ‘hypercalvinistic.’
A Parting of Ways Hinted
After the camp, some of the campers went on to nearby Rawa Island for a day. Early in the night by the breezy seaside, Pastor Peter Kek, Pastor Ho and I had the opportunity to talk about various things. At the end, it became obvious that Peter was absolutely certain that I had indeed departed from his view of the ‘standard reformed position.’ He had made the same assertion much earlier on at the beginning of the discussion through email exchanges. He indicated clearly that a parting of ways might become necessary if I would not abandon my views. He politely forewarned that if I persisted in holding to my views, then, (I quote his exact words to my face), ‘When the parting of our ways happens in the future, then we are not to be blamed.’ And I said, “If that should happen, it would be very sad indeed. If folks want to be my friends, I would remain a loyal friend. But if you want to withdraw fellowship, to me the Lord’s world is very wide.” Clearly, the parting of ways was already hinted at and being contemplated by the RBF, if not already quietly pursued. Perhaps it was a veiled threat! I had hoped that my interpretation was uncalled for but subsequent events justified what I had anticipated. Peter used the pronoun ‘we.’ So I inquired who are the ‘we.’ He said, ‘all the other churches’ – i.e., those that had met with him in the said meeting at the combined church camp. To this day, they continue to act as one ecclesiastical block with a self-appointed leader. So I will assume that Peter speaks as their spokesman. I kindly reminded him, “You should learn to speak for yourself unless you have been specifically delegated to speak for others.” A self-appointed spokesman is a dangerous creature, and the cause of much trouble.
An Official Meeting of the Reformed Baptist Fraternal
On August 24, Pastor Peter Kek with several other pastors and leaders convened a meeting at Serdang Grace Baptist Church to discuss what to do with my serious ‘errors.’ Out of that specially convened meeting came the formal and official letter, written and signed by Peter Kek on behalf of seven churches, lodged with the SDC. Out of that same meeting came the Theological Paper by Elder Lam stating the official views of the RBF on salvation. The meeting had come to my knowledge before it took place through Pastor Ho’s email to me. He wrote thus:
Dear brother Sing… “This Aug 24, a few of us are meeting in Serdang to discuss your view and make a summary of your view, with the intention that we can have a meeting with you sometime in Oct. to discuss whether we have correctly understood your present understanding on various doctrinal teachings. If we have not understood you correctly, then in that Oct. meeting, there will be opportunity for you to clarify or explain and also for us to explain why we have difficulties with your present doctrinal conviction, if we have understood you correctly.
“I am seeking your permission to use our discussion on Cornelius to explain your understanding of regeneration, the purpose of preaching the gospel, etc. I think this will help the rest to understand your position better. Will that be OK with you?” Brother Eng Ghee. [End quote]
To me, it was obvious that the meeting suggested for October was not going to be a meeting for discussion. Sane and clear minded people don’t hold a meeting to have discussion with one whom they have already made up their minds is in ‘serious error’ on ‘fundamental and serious issues.’ It is a meeting for the assumed ‘heretic’ to stand trial and defend himself before the ‘judges.’ It was a meeting to pass judgment. As events unfolded, the suggested meeting never came about.
I replied to Pastor Ho’s email thus, and I copied to the seven churches and all the members of SDC:
Dear brother Eng Ghee,
“Please do what your heart desires to do. Here are a few conditions or suggestions rather: Print out all the exchanges and have them read by everyone present at the discussion. This way, you don’t have to ‘share’ my view. This way, my written words speak for themselves. If anyone has questions or needs further clarification, or has problems with my view, let them ask me, in written words. There are still many of my questions in those posts that remained unanswered. You folks want discussion, but are not willing to answer my questions. I find that it is a very funny way of discussion. Discussion is not just stating your view and shutting up.
“After you and others have done so, send me a copy of your finding, making note of those present at the so-called ‘discussion.’ This will help me to know the names of those who do differ. In your finding, please state where I have gone contrary to Scriptures, [as summarized in the 1689] and please state them clearly, don’t be vague. Don’t just quote Scriptures… but exegete the Scriptures quoted.
“If I am convinced that I have departed from Scriptures as summarized in the Confession, I will inform the church and step down honorably as the pastor of the SDC, OR go through with the church those chapters of the Confession, and see where they stand… and reconstitute the Church as a 1689 Church and cease to be a ‘Reformed Baptist’ church. There are many groupings of independent free grace Baptist churches that do hold to the 1644 LBCoF and are not known as Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist is relatively a new breed of recent origin in the long history of the free grace Baptists traditions.
“I don’t see any further need to meet for discussion. What more is there to discuss? You folks have met behind closed doors and passed your considered judgment that I am in ‘fundamental and serious errors.’ We have both stated our views. You and others are very convinced that I am in error. The purpose of your discussion tomorrow is only to formalize that conviction! I am equally convinced that your views are inconsistent and deficient. [Inconsistent means there are glaring contradictions in those positions. Deficient meant the views are inadequate to express the whole counsel of God. It is stating a part of the truth as the whole truth, thus ending up as a lie!]
“Enjoy the ‘discussion’ among yourselves. Any clarification you need could be done through writing in black and white. I have learned from experience that is the safest way to communicate… because that way it is least liable to be misunderstood. This is because words carry precise meaning, even though everyone seems to read through the ‘glasses’ he presently wears.
“Ask any question you like… if I have an answer, I will answer you. But be ready to answer hard questions too. And for heaven’s sake, let each man speak for himself. If he speaks for any others, let him state the names of those on whose behalf he is speaking. I remain your brother, though we do differ on several things. Brother Sing.” [End quote]
An Official Letter With Seven Theological Statements - Lodged with SDC Charging Pastor Lau of 7 ‘Serious Errors’
The next thing I knew was the following official and formal letter dated September 1, written and signed by Pastor Peter Kek ‘on behalf’ of seven church leaders and their churches. The letter was addressed specifically to the SDC, requesting the members to take note of the seven theological points believed by the seven churches, and by implication, their pastor is in ‘fundamental and serious’ error on those seven points. I am thankful that these brethren took the trouble to express their mind. The letter reads thus:
Dear Sing,
Attached is a letter (self-explanatory). We do not know who your church’s secretary is. We appreciate that you forward this to him so that the church may be aware of our position on the issue. Peter Kek.
To Pastor Lau Sing Foo, Sungai Dua Church.
Cc. Church Secretary
1 September 2004.
We, Eng Ghee, James, Andrew, Chin Kaw and Peter have met on 24th August 2004 in Serdang to discuss the development relating to your difficulties with the doctrines held by our churches. Lai Hoe, Tony and Boon Seong were unable to attend due to practical reasons and other commitments. However, they have been informed of the details of the discussion.
In the past one and a half year or so, you have been raising questions to challenge the doctrines held by our churches, which you consider as “inconsistent and deficient.” The doctrines you have difficulties with include:
1. Effectual calling & regeneration – that sinners are effectually called by the Word (Gospel) and Spirit; and that regeneration takes place in connection with effectual call, and pushes itself into consciousness in the response of faith and repentance.
2. The place of repentance and faith in salvation – that unless one believes (John 3:16 ‘whosoever believes’) he will not have eternal life; & unless one repents he will perish in hell (Luke 13:3 – ‘unless you repent you will all perish’).
3. The ‘Gospel’ – the gospel is that if the sinner turns from his sins and trusts in Christ alone for salvation he will be saved. The gospel is therefore good news to sinners that they may be saved.
4. The purpose of preaching – that we have been given the Great Commission to go into all the world to make disciples of all the nations. We therefore preach the gospel so that sinners might come to faith in Jesus Christ and be saved from eternal damnation.
5. Justification by faith alone – that faith is the sole ‘instrument’ by which we receive the righteousness of Christ.
6. Irresistible Grace – that the Spirit works powerfully to bring the elect to conversion. Faith and repentance are God’s gifts, and they cannot resist the Spirit’s work. All of the elect will believe and obey the gospel.
7. Perseverance of the saints – that all the elect will be saved, and kept in faith and holiness by the power of God and thus all persevere to the end.
In expressing your difficulties, you also charge us as:
i) Being in error as the Arminians – “Arminians proclaim ‘justification by faith alone,’ reformed people also claim ‘justification by faith alone’ – ask them what do they mean, they mean precisely the same thing!!!” (Your email dated 18/5/04).
ii) Being in error as Rome – “Rome and her Protestant daughters have taken this vanity to new depths with their sacramental religion. All seven sacraments of Rome and the two sacraments of Protestants are contrary to the Bible,” (the booklet which you printed, p. 8).
We are preparing to send you our response to the issues you have raised, detailing your new understanding of those doctrines and explaining why we have difficulties with your new position. We also feel that should you have any difficulties with our doctrines, you should have addressed your concern to the leadership in our fraternity and waited for a response. It is unwise of you to raise your difficulties with our members as well, bringing complication to our pastoral duties. It is our hope that you will not be hasty to turn to a position so drastically different from the standard reformed position embraced not only by us but also the vast majority of the reformed churches.
By His grace, for His glory,
Ho Eng Ghee, Serdang Grace Church
Andrew Liu, Miri Reformed Baptist Church
Peter Kek, JB First Community Church
Lam Chin Kaw, Melaka Reformed Baptist Church
Ang Lai Hoe, Kuala Kubu Chapel
Woo Boon Seong, Woodlands Reformed Baptist Church
James Indran, Sovereign Grace Church (Tamil). [End Quote]
[From here on, for brevity sake, these seven brothers representing their seven churches will be abbreviated as ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches.’]
It is obvious that these brothers signed the letter in their capacity as official representatives of their respective churches, and acted as one ecclesiastical block, the Reformed Baptist Fraternal. Some do believe that there is safety in numbers! It is also obvious that in stating that the pastor of SDC has ‘difficulties’ with those seven theological statements of beliefs, the seven churches are explicitly implying that the pastor of SDC is in serious error on those seven theological points. They also boldly claim that what they do embrace and defend is the standard reformed position. In any case, complying with these brethren’s expressed request, I wrote to inform the members of the SDC. The same reply was copied to the seven leaders of the churches who issued the official letter.
Dear members of SDC,
Below is a letter signed by seven leaders of seven (7) churches to all of you. They specifically request that the SDC should be made aware of their position on various doctrinal points stated. Please do read it carefully. We will have opportunity to study the beliefs that they have stated in the seven (7) points. Your brother & servant of Christ, Pastor Lau. [End quote]
The Fussing about the Official Letter of Complaints
Pastor Kek wrote in reply to the above e-mail thus:
Dear Sing,
Just to clarify that the letter is to you and not to the church. Our difficulties are with your new doctrinal view, not theirs. We have no difficulties with the church that was founded on the standard Reformed view & our understanding of the 1689 CoF. You are the one who claim that you have changed your view, not they. Hope we can deal with the present issue with this perspective. P Kek [End quote]
In subsequent emails on this thread, Pastor Kek and others fussed a great deal that the formal letter signed by the leaders of the seven churches was addressed personally to the Pastor of SDC, was meant for the pastor as an individual, and not for SDC. However, the unsophisticated members of SDC understood plainly that they are specifically requested by the seven churches to take note of their doctrinal positions, which Pastor Lau considers ‘inconsistent and deficient’ with good reasons. I have kindly granted Pastor Kek’s stated request for the members of SDC to know the doctrinal positions of the seven churches on those seven points stated in the letter lodged against the pastor of SDC. He should be thankful that I complied with his desire so readily. However most of their own churches are not aware that their pastors and leaders have issued such a formal and official letter to SDC.
It is without any doubt that the formal letter was signed by seven men in their official capacity as leaders and representative of their churches, and specifically addressed to the members of SDC. To deny such expressed intention is to do violence to the plain meaning of words. This same problem often surfaces in the process of theological discussion – such things like – “the 1689 CoF cannot be understood; we need to appeal to the ‘original documents’ to make sense of it.” One can and often does make mistakes, but denying the plain meaning of words is dishonourable.
In any case, it is very presumptuous for a man to speak of his personal position as ‘the standard reformed view.’ With ten presumptuous men, you will have ten ‘standard reformed’ views! It is simply presumptuous to claim one’s understanding of the 1689 CoF, or even that of the Scriptures itself, as the standard view when it actually openly contradicts the plain language of the Confession. You will see some of this later. I wonder on whose behalf was Pastor Peter Kek speaking when he wrote, ‘our understanding of the 1689 CoF.’ Do all the seven men really do believe all those seven ‘standard reformed’ doctrines? Isn’t it sheer presumption to claim that the SDC was founded upon their understanding of the 1689 CoF. It is frightening to hear!
I replied to Pastor Kek’s mail above, and copied to all others.
TO: ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches’
Dear brethren,
You are dealing with the SDC… the views that you have difficulty with are the views that the SDC will study together to compare the ‘standard reformed position’ espoused by you and your churches with the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. If you are interested in corresponding further, please inform SDC of the contact for your Church secretary.
I claim that my view is now consistent with the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689, even though I have been goaded from the start to comply with Peter’s insistence that I have departed from his undefined ‘standard reformed position,’ something which I care very little for.
We shall proceed on this manner. I reserve my right to inform your members of what I endeavour to show from the Confession of Faith to be your errors. Let’s play on a level field, how about that? There is nothing to hide. Let there be open and free inquiry for the truth. You all are capable teachers to teach the truths to your flocks, and expose my ‘errors’ for them. Pastor Lau [End quote]
Another brother protested and said:
“My understanding is this, we deal with you in the fraternal level, and I plead with you in Christ’s name do not allow this situation to “explode” in out of proportion; and I fear that if we are not careful and in our love for Christ’s sheep we may be accountable in destroying Christ’s Church and the Reformed works in Malaysia.” I replied to this tenderhearted brother:
Dear brother,
In case you didn't remember what you have written formally to SDC, let me refresh your memory. (Please note the highlighted part (italic red) of your letter pasted below and see carefully whether your letter is dealing with the issue at the fraternal level or officially at the churches level. I go by what has been written and signed by you and other brothers
--------------
We do not know who your church's secretary is. We appreciate that you forward this to him so that the church may be aware of our position on the issue.
To Pastor Lau Sing Foo
Sungai Dua Church.
Cc. Church Secretary
We, Eng Ghee, James, Andrew, Chin Kaw and Peter have met on 24th August 2004 in Serdang to discuss the development relating to your difficulties with the doctrines held by our churches. Lai Hoe, Tony and Boon Seong were unable to attend due to practical reasons and other commitments. However, they have been informed of the details of the discussion.
In the past one and a half year or so, you have been raising questions to challenge the doctrines held by our churches, which you consider as "inconsistent and deficient". The doctrines you have difficulties with include:
Ho Eng Ghee, Serdang Grace Church, Andrew Liu, Miri Reformed Baptist Church, Peter Kek, JB First Community Church; Lam Chin Kaw, Melaka Reformed Baptist Church; Ang Lai Hoe, Kuala Kubu Chapel, Woo Boon Seong, Woodlands Reformed Baptist Church, and James Indran, Sovereign Grace Church (Tamil)
--------------
You are a mature brother. So I do hope that your church is aware of the letter that you have signed on behalf of your church to SDC. The official letter states plainly that your church has difficulty with my teachings as pastor of SDC and wants the SDC to be informed. So, I thought a mature response is to tell your church what I do believe as pastor of SDC and leave them to decide what they want to do.
If the situation explodes, the blood is fully upon your own head and others who pursue this matter to the church level. On 14 July I responded to Peter these words, "Just take it that I have ‘erred’ from the plain teaching of Scriptures... We are traveling on parallel roads on those points. They will never meet. In any case, we have spent enough time discussing. So do continue believing what you do believe. It is alright with me."
And now, he and other mature men like you have brought this matter to the church level. Since that's what you insisted, I want your churches to hear from my mouth what I do believe.
I have no intention to stumble anyone. Your letter stated that your churches have problems with my teaching. I thought I owe your churches an explanation of what I do believe. What do you want me to do? To remain silent! Some have openly stated that I am in serious error on those 7 points mentioned in your letter. I am not without errors. I am still seeking and learning, and have shed errors as I am taught along the way. But if I am in error on those seven points, I will vacate the teaching office willingly and without the least fuss - to please the seven churches. I am just being honest. I am no sentimentalist when it comes to the truth of the gospel.
Please read carefully what you have written and signed. This is how SDC and I understood what you have signed on behalf of your own church! I can't read your mind. I can only read what you have written and signed. Note the part I highlighted. What do you expect me to understand what you have written and signed on behalf of your churches? Put your hand on your heart, and tell me what you expect me to understand what you and 6 other representatives of your churches have stated in your letter.
It will benefit everyone when the truth is heard and errors are exposed. No one with a humble and ready mind to learn the truth of Scriptures will be hurt or stumbled. Let your church hear what I believe. Then you will have ample opportunity to expose what you have charged as ‘fundamental and serious’ errors. Sometimes the truth is easier taught side by side with the error.
My intention to send to your church secretary is purely to reciprocate in kind. I forwarded your letter to SDC to the church secretary, and as a faithful secretary, he distributed your letter to all the members. I hope your secretary will do the same. At least he will know that the letter from your RBC is responded to. Whether you comply with my reciprocal request or not is entirely your liberty. I am only doing what is necessary. I am responding to an official letter of complaint from your church to SDC - that's what the letter claimed anyway. Read it again.
I am willing to listen to you. So, speak your mind. Advise me what I should do. Do I just keep quiet and let the charges stand? Thanks for your patience with me.
Your brother Sing
An Engagement to Study the 1689 Confession of Faith
A little background and explanation are necessary for this work. [You may want to skip this Section I on ‘Introduction’ and proceed to Section II.] Some time in early 2003, I began to engage the pastors and leaders of some churches in Malaysia that have the 1689 Confession of Faith as their church doctrinal standard in seriously studying some of the doctrinal statements in that Confession. In the process, it became painfully obvious that different people interpreted and understood the plain language of the Confession of Faith quite differently. A few of these brethren expressed their settled views freely, while others were quite contented with the views expressed on their behalf. Finally, all these pastors and leaders are convinced that I as the pastor of SDC am in serious error on seven points of doctrine, and that I have departed from their perception of the ‘standard reformed position,’ even though they have not demonstrated the errors of the views I have pointed out to them as summarized in the1689. I have endeavored to show that their views are ‘inconsistent and deficient’ in light of both the Scriptures and the 1689 CoF. What you will read here is a compilation of my responses to those charges of error. I have never claimed that I held to the ‘standard reformed’ view. So it is meaningless to charge that I have departed from their ‘standard reformed position.’
A Meeting Behind Closed Doors
At the annual combined church camp organized by the JB First Community Church in June 2004, Pastor Peter Kek quietly arranged a meeting in the afternoon of June 2. The pastors and leaders of all the other churches that were represented at the camp were present, including those who were unaware of the lengthy discussion on the doctrinal points that had taken place through numerous email exchanges, and some face-to-face meetings. I was enjoying a nice nap while the meeting went on behind closed doors. A kind brother informed me later that words like ‘hypercalvinist’ and ‘antinomian’ were used to describe my beliefs. Pastor Peter Kek, at the instigation of Elder Lam, also complained about two titles that were put on sale by the book ministry of SDC. The two titles are, “Be Ready To Answer” and “Basic Bible Doctrines.” They charged that the books contain ‘hypercalvinistic’ doctrines. Perhaps they would like to tell us what they are and why would they label the doctrines they disagree with as ‘hypercalvinistic.’
A Parting of Ways Hinted
After the camp, some of the campers went on to nearby Rawa Island for a day. Early in the night by the breezy seaside, Pastor Peter Kek, Pastor Ho and I had the opportunity to talk about various things. At the end, it became obvious that Peter was absolutely certain that I had indeed departed from his view of the ‘standard reformed position.’ He had made the same assertion much earlier on at the beginning of the discussion through email exchanges. He indicated clearly that a parting of ways might become necessary if I would not abandon my views. He politely forewarned that if I persisted in holding to my views, then, (I quote his exact words to my face), ‘When the parting of our ways happens in the future, then we are not to be blamed.’ And I said, “If that should happen, it would be very sad indeed. If folks want to be my friends, I would remain a loyal friend. But if you want to withdraw fellowship, to me the Lord’s world is very wide.” Clearly, the parting of ways was already hinted at and being contemplated by the RBF, if not already quietly pursued. Perhaps it was a veiled threat! I had hoped that my interpretation was uncalled for but subsequent events justified what I had anticipated. Peter used the pronoun ‘we.’ So I inquired who are the ‘we.’ He said, ‘all the other churches’ – i.e., those that had met with him in the said meeting at the combined church camp. To this day, they continue to act as one ecclesiastical block with a self-appointed leader. So I will assume that Peter speaks as their spokesman. I kindly reminded him, “You should learn to speak for yourself unless you have been specifically delegated to speak for others.” A self-appointed spokesman is a dangerous creature, and the cause of much trouble.
An Official Meeting of the Reformed Baptist Fraternal
On August 24, Pastor Peter Kek with several other pastors and leaders convened a meeting at Serdang Grace Baptist Church to discuss what to do with my serious ‘errors.’ Out of that specially convened meeting came the formal and official letter, written and signed by Peter Kek on behalf of seven churches, lodged with the SDC. Out of that same meeting came the Theological Paper by Elder Lam stating the official views of the RBF on salvation. The meeting had come to my knowledge before it took place through Pastor Ho’s email to me. He wrote thus:
Dear brother Sing… “This Aug 24, a few of us are meeting in Serdang to discuss your view and make a summary of your view, with the intention that we can have a meeting with you sometime in Oct. to discuss whether we have correctly understood your present understanding on various doctrinal teachings. If we have not understood you correctly, then in that Oct. meeting, there will be opportunity for you to clarify or explain and also for us to explain why we have difficulties with your present doctrinal conviction, if we have understood you correctly.
“I am seeking your permission to use our discussion on Cornelius to explain your understanding of regeneration, the purpose of preaching the gospel, etc. I think this will help the rest to understand your position better. Will that be OK with you?” Brother Eng Ghee. [End quote]
To me, it was obvious that the meeting suggested for October was not going to be a meeting for discussion. Sane and clear minded people don’t hold a meeting to have discussion with one whom they have already made up their minds is in ‘serious error’ on ‘fundamental and serious issues.’ It is a meeting for the assumed ‘heretic’ to stand trial and defend himself before the ‘judges.’ It was a meeting to pass judgment. As events unfolded, the suggested meeting never came about.
I replied to Pastor Ho’s email thus, and I copied to the seven churches and all the members of SDC:
Dear brother Eng Ghee,
“Please do what your heart desires to do. Here are a few conditions or suggestions rather: Print out all the exchanges and have them read by everyone present at the discussion. This way, you don’t have to ‘share’ my view. This way, my written words speak for themselves. If anyone has questions or needs further clarification, or has problems with my view, let them ask me, in written words. There are still many of my questions in those posts that remained unanswered. You folks want discussion, but are not willing to answer my questions. I find that it is a very funny way of discussion. Discussion is not just stating your view and shutting up.
“After you and others have done so, send me a copy of your finding, making note of those present at the so-called ‘discussion.’ This will help me to know the names of those who do differ. In your finding, please state where I have gone contrary to Scriptures, [as summarized in the 1689] and please state them clearly, don’t be vague. Don’t just quote Scriptures… but exegete the Scriptures quoted.
“If I am convinced that I have departed from Scriptures as summarized in the Confession, I will inform the church and step down honorably as the pastor of the SDC, OR go through with the church those chapters of the Confession, and see where they stand… and reconstitute the Church as a 1689 Church and cease to be a ‘Reformed Baptist’ church. There are many groupings of independent free grace Baptist churches that do hold to the 1644 LBCoF and are not known as Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist is relatively a new breed of recent origin in the long history of the free grace Baptists traditions.
“I don’t see any further need to meet for discussion. What more is there to discuss? You folks have met behind closed doors and passed your considered judgment that I am in ‘fundamental and serious errors.’ We have both stated our views. You and others are very convinced that I am in error. The purpose of your discussion tomorrow is only to formalize that conviction! I am equally convinced that your views are inconsistent and deficient. [Inconsistent means there are glaring contradictions in those positions. Deficient meant the views are inadequate to express the whole counsel of God. It is stating a part of the truth as the whole truth, thus ending up as a lie!]
“Enjoy the ‘discussion’ among yourselves. Any clarification you need could be done through writing in black and white. I have learned from experience that is the safest way to communicate… because that way it is least liable to be misunderstood. This is because words carry precise meaning, even though everyone seems to read through the ‘glasses’ he presently wears.
“Ask any question you like… if I have an answer, I will answer you. But be ready to answer hard questions too. And for heaven’s sake, let each man speak for himself. If he speaks for any others, let him state the names of those on whose behalf he is speaking. I remain your brother, though we do differ on several things. Brother Sing.” [End quote]
An Official Letter With Seven Theological Statements - Lodged with SDC Charging Pastor Lau of 7 ‘Serious Errors’
The next thing I knew was the following official and formal letter dated September 1, written and signed by Pastor Peter Kek ‘on behalf’ of seven church leaders and their churches. The letter was addressed specifically to the SDC, requesting the members to take note of the seven theological points believed by the seven churches, and by implication, their pastor is in ‘fundamental and serious’ error on those seven points. I am thankful that these brethren took the trouble to express their mind. The letter reads thus:
Dear Sing,
Attached is a letter (self-explanatory). We do not know who your church’s secretary is. We appreciate that you forward this to him so that the church may be aware of our position on the issue. Peter Kek.
To Pastor Lau Sing Foo, Sungai Dua Church.
Cc. Church Secretary
1 September 2004.
We, Eng Ghee, James, Andrew, Chin Kaw and Peter have met on 24th August 2004 in Serdang to discuss the development relating to your difficulties with the doctrines held by our churches. Lai Hoe, Tony and Boon Seong were unable to attend due to practical reasons and other commitments. However, they have been informed of the details of the discussion.
In the past one and a half year or so, you have been raising questions to challenge the doctrines held by our churches, which you consider as “inconsistent and deficient.” The doctrines you have difficulties with include:
1. Effectual calling & regeneration – that sinners are effectually called by the Word (Gospel) and Spirit; and that regeneration takes place in connection with effectual call, and pushes itself into consciousness in the response of faith and repentance.
2. The place of repentance and faith in salvation – that unless one believes (John 3:16 ‘whosoever believes’) he will not have eternal life; & unless one repents he will perish in hell (Luke 13:3 – ‘unless you repent you will all perish’).
3. The ‘Gospel’ – the gospel is that if the sinner turns from his sins and trusts in Christ alone for salvation he will be saved. The gospel is therefore good news to sinners that they may be saved.
4. The purpose of preaching – that we have been given the Great Commission to go into all the world to make disciples of all the nations. We therefore preach the gospel so that sinners might come to faith in Jesus Christ and be saved from eternal damnation.
5. Justification by faith alone – that faith is the sole ‘instrument’ by which we receive the righteousness of Christ.
6. Irresistible Grace – that the Spirit works powerfully to bring the elect to conversion. Faith and repentance are God’s gifts, and they cannot resist the Spirit’s work. All of the elect will believe and obey the gospel.
7. Perseverance of the saints – that all the elect will be saved, and kept in faith and holiness by the power of God and thus all persevere to the end.
In expressing your difficulties, you also charge us as:
i) Being in error as the Arminians – “Arminians proclaim ‘justification by faith alone,’ reformed people also claim ‘justification by faith alone’ – ask them what do they mean, they mean precisely the same thing!!!” (Your email dated 18/5/04).
ii) Being in error as Rome – “Rome and her Protestant daughters have taken this vanity to new depths with their sacramental religion. All seven sacraments of Rome and the two sacraments of Protestants are contrary to the Bible,” (the booklet which you printed, p. 8).
We are preparing to send you our response to the issues you have raised, detailing your new understanding of those doctrines and explaining why we have difficulties with your new position. We also feel that should you have any difficulties with our doctrines, you should have addressed your concern to the leadership in our fraternity and waited for a response. It is unwise of you to raise your difficulties with our members as well, bringing complication to our pastoral duties. It is our hope that you will not be hasty to turn to a position so drastically different from the standard reformed position embraced not only by us but also the vast majority of the reformed churches.
By His grace, for His glory,
Ho Eng Ghee, Serdang Grace Church
Andrew Liu, Miri Reformed Baptist Church
Peter Kek, JB First Community Church
Lam Chin Kaw, Melaka Reformed Baptist Church
Ang Lai Hoe, Kuala Kubu Chapel
Woo Boon Seong, Woodlands Reformed Baptist Church
James Indran, Sovereign Grace Church (Tamil). [End Quote]
[From here on, for brevity sake, these seven brothers representing their seven churches will be abbreviated as ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches.’]
It is obvious that these brothers signed the letter in their capacity as official representatives of their respective churches, and acted as one ecclesiastical block, the Reformed Baptist Fraternal. Some do believe that there is safety in numbers! It is also obvious that in stating that the pastor of SDC has ‘difficulties’ with those seven theological statements of beliefs, the seven churches are explicitly implying that the pastor of SDC is in serious error on those seven theological points. They also boldly claim that what they do embrace and defend is the standard reformed position. In any case, complying with these brethren’s expressed request, I wrote to inform the members of the SDC. The same reply was copied to the seven leaders of the churches who issued the official letter.
Dear members of SDC,
Below is a letter signed by seven leaders of seven (7) churches to all of you. They specifically request that the SDC should be made aware of their position on various doctrinal points stated. Please do read it carefully. We will have opportunity to study the beliefs that they have stated in the seven (7) points. Your brother & servant of Christ, Pastor Lau. [End quote]
The Fussing about the Official Letter of Complaints
Pastor Kek wrote in reply to the above e-mail thus:
Dear Sing,
Just to clarify that the letter is to you and not to the church. Our difficulties are with your new doctrinal view, not theirs. We have no difficulties with the church that was founded on the standard Reformed view & our understanding of the 1689 CoF. You are the one who claim that you have changed your view, not they. Hope we can deal with the present issue with this perspective. P Kek [End quote]
In subsequent emails on this thread, Pastor Kek and others fussed a great deal that the formal letter signed by the leaders of the seven churches was addressed personally to the Pastor of SDC, was meant for the pastor as an individual, and not for SDC. However, the unsophisticated members of SDC understood plainly that they are specifically requested by the seven churches to take note of their doctrinal positions, which Pastor Lau considers ‘inconsistent and deficient’ with good reasons. I have kindly granted Pastor Kek’s stated request for the members of SDC to know the doctrinal positions of the seven churches on those seven points stated in the letter lodged against the pastor of SDC. He should be thankful that I complied with his desire so readily. However most of their own churches are not aware that their pastors and leaders have issued such a formal and official letter to SDC.
It is without any doubt that the formal letter was signed by seven men in their official capacity as leaders and representative of their churches, and specifically addressed to the members of SDC. To deny such expressed intention is to do violence to the plain meaning of words. This same problem often surfaces in the process of theological discussion – such things like – “the 1689 CoF cannot be understood; we need to appeal to the ‘original documents’ to make sense of it.” One can and often does make mistakes, but denying the plain meaning of words is dishonourable.
In any case, it is very presumptuous for a man to speak of his personal position as ‘the standard reformed view.’ With ten presumptuous men, you will have ten ‘standard reformed’ views! It is simply presumptuous to claim one’s understanding of the 1689 CoF, or even that of the Scriptures itself, as the standard view when it actually openly contradicts the plain language of the Confession. You will see some of this later. I wonder on whose behalf was Pastor Peter Kek speaking when he wrote, ‘our understanding of the 1689 CoF.’ Do all the seven men really do believe all those seven ‘standard reformed’ doctrines? Isn’t it sheer presumption to claim that the SDC was founded upon their understanding of the 1689 CoF. It is frightening to hear!
I replied to Pastor Kek’s mail above, and copied to all others.
TO: ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches’
Dear brethren,
You are dealing with the SDC… the views that you have difficulty with are the views that the SDC will study together to compare the ‘standard reformed position’ espoused by you and your churches with the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. If you are interested in corresponding further, please inform SDC of the contact for your Church secretary.
I claim that my view is now consistent with the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689, even though I have been goaded from the start to comply with Peter’s insistence that I have departed from his undefined ‘standard reformed position,’ something which I care very little for.
We shall proceed on this manner. I reserve my right to inform your members of what I endeavour to show from the Confession of Faith to be your errors. Let’s play on a level field, how about that? There is nothing to hide. Let there be open and free inquiry for the truth. You all are capable teachers to teach the truths to your flocks, and expose my ‘errors’ for them. Pastor Lau [End quote]
Another brother protested and said:
“My understanding is this, we deal with you in the fraternal level, and I plead with you in Christ’s name do not allow this situation to “explode” in out of proportion; and I fear that if we are not careful and in our love for Christ’s sheep we may be accountable in destroying Christ’s Church and the Reformed works in Malaysia.” I replied to this tenderhearted brother:
Dear brother,
In case you didn't remember what you have written formally to SDC, let me refresh your memory. (Please note the highlighted part (italic red) of your letter pasted below and see carefully whether your letter is dealing with the issue at the fraternal level or officially at the churches level. I go by what has been written and signed by you and other brothers
--------------
We do not know who your church's secretary is. We appreciate that you forward this to him so that the church may be aware of our position on the issue.
"Buy the truth and sell it not."
