A Reply to Correct Some Insinuations Expressed in the Letter of Complaints
To ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches’:
Dear brethren,
Thank you for your letter. I assume that each one of you are representing your churches in writing the said letter to SDC, and that your members are aware of what you have written. Can you please confirm this? We want to be sure that your members are aware that you have written the said letter to SDC. This letter is, and all subsequent ones on this matter shall be, copied to all the members of SDC.
The church Secretary has distributed your letter to the members last night. Before I shall respond to your seven theological statements one by one, please let me clear some insinuations.
Concerning raising matters with ‘our members’: please be specific who are ‘our members’ you mentioned? I suggest that each one of you learn to speak for your self, unless you are specifically delegated to speak on others’ behalf. Otherwise there may be misunderstanding.
Brother CC of Woodlands RBC was a former member of SDC. As his former pastor I have a moral obligation to inform him and help him to understand why what I have taught him before is deficient and inconsistent. In recent posts, CC copied his mail to his Elder, so in my reply to him, I likewise copied it to his Elder. Do you, Peter Kek, have problem with that? Am I not free to communicate with his Elder as fellow elders if I choose to? Is Elder BS under your oversight also? So what’s the fuss?
As for Serdang Church, some posts on the discussion were copied to sister Debbie by her personal request. And it was done with her pastor’s FULL knowledge. A few mails on a specific topic were copied to brother KM because brother KY mentioned that he spoke to KM and Pastor Ho and discovered their difficulty with the issues of ‘irresistible grace’ and ‘effectual calling.’
The above is only to set the record straight. May God be merciful for the needless insinuations! Brethren, if any other member of your churches can validate your baseless insinuation, let him stand up to point the finger.
Your suggestion to address the issues in the pastors’ meetings is reasonable. I did that, didn’t I? We resort to discussion through email – which is far better because it requires each one to write down his thoughts in black and white… that can be referenced at later date. But where did it get us? After I replied to Peter’s post, and having shown that his views were inconsistent and deficient, he just clamped up! If you all have heeded your own wisdom, you would not have held that secret meeting at the church camp at Mersing and slandered me, in the presence of some men who knew nothing about the discussion, as one heading towards hyper-calvinism and antinomianism. [What do these terms mean? Until today, none of you wish to define the term for me.] Such behaviour discredited yourselves entirely, that you would act in such a manner toward one you claim as a brother in Christ!!! The slanders and your silent consent of them have traveled half way round the world and came back to my ears – reported in my hearing in person. When you heard the slanders, did you care to find out the fact of the matter from the one slandered? Have we forgotten that the Lord is watching and hearing all that we do and say? Is there no fear of God anymore?
Please don’t impute to me what others wrote. SDC prints and distributes lots of articles, and booklets for people to read. If you have a problem with anything printed, take it up with the specific authors. I have no liberty to delete those bits that I may not agree with. If you disagree with anything I have written, freely express your disagreement and state why. That way there may be mutual understanding.
Concerning the similarity between the ‘standard reformed’ position and the free-willer Arminains - a Reformed Baptist pastor has gladly acknowledged that in spite of all the major differences between the ‘standard reformed’ people and the Arminians there is one crucial similarity between them – at least they both believe in justification by faith alone! So the ‘standard reformed’ folks and the free-willers are in unity on this most crucial point though they seem to differ ‘drastically’ on so many other major doctrines. My observation that the ‘standard reformed’ folks is no different from the free-willer Arminians on this particular point is not wrong at all. The hat does fit!
Sungai Dua Church is a church that holds to the 1689 CoF. It was my ordination oath that I would hold fast and instruct the church the doctrines of the Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. You and your churches that signed this letter most likely have the 1689 CoF as the doctrinal standard of your churches too. In a time of controversy and disagreement, one of the great usefulness of the Confession of Faith becomes evident. I intend to lead the church under my charge to believe the teaching of the Scriptures as summarized in the Confession of Faith as long as the 1689 CoF remains the doctrinal standard of the church. I intend to expose as errors those ‘doctrines’ contrary to that summarized in the Confession, even if the other churches holding to the same Confession popularly embrace such errors. I have no use for your ‘standard reformed position’ – if there is one such position at all – if it contradicts the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 Confession.
Meanwhile I await your elaboration of what you believe and why you disagree with my present understanding. I will answer your 7 points and show that they are indeed deficient and inconsistent. We may still disagree. And please let your members read the exchanges. Let truth prevail. I assume from now on that members of your churches are aware of these issues. Let all be informed of the issues at stake, and let truth prevail. Seeking and learning, Sing [End quote]
Let There be Freedom to Inquire and Buy the Truth
At this point a simple fact needs to be told. A Pastors’ Fraternal meeting was held at SDC premises in March 2004. Pastor Kek took full liberty to raise and discuss the matter privately with a mature member of SDC. I knew all about it, but I did not say a word. With a Berean-like spirit, the brother began to ask and seek to understand the issue of justification and faith. I was glad that he freely expressed his disagreement with me and quoted from some theological giants. I didn’t see this as ‘pastoral complications.’ I am always glad when my people disagree and ask questions. It shows that they are thinking and wrestling to grasp the truth. This will only drive all concerned back to the Scriptures. And it is always a great blessing to search the Scriptures together. When we are still disagreed as to what the Scriptures teach, then we have to resort to what the Doctrinal Standard of our churches says. It is always wise to consult the ancient Particular Baptist forefathers and see how they understood the various matters. So the church was led through a series of study on the 1689 CoF for the fourth time, but this time through chapters 10-14 and 20 over a period of many weeks. That simple exercise cleared the minds of many and settled the matter in their minds. They see for themselves that what these seven churches charged as “new doctrinal view” are only views taught by the ancient Scriptures and summarized by our old Particular Baptist forefathers.
So who is acting unethically? Christ asked “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Who is acting wisely in his own eyes?
Who is causing pastoral complication? Some pastors do feel very uncomfortable when their members start to ask them hard questions. But I don’t see church members asking their pastors hard questions as pastoral complication. I see that as an excellent opportunity for everyone to learn, including the pastors! Even ‘ordinary’ folks like Aquila and Priscilla in our churches are able to assist preachers who are eloquent and mighty in Scriptures to make some progress! (Acts 18). But how often pastors look upon their members as untaught and uninformed children, who cannot think for themselves! What grievous insult to the children of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit! Perhaps they are just spoon-fed, and a Berean-spirit of free inquiry for the truth is not instilled in them and are not trained to think and search and study the Scriptures. Any good pastor would encourage his members asking questions, even if this means that his cherished view is being discussed and scrutinized in the plain light of Scriptures. Some pastors get very annoyed when members ask questions that graciously point out the deficiency and inconsistency of their views, e.g. “Pastor, you teach us that regeneration must precede faith, how is it then that you also teach us that it is by faith that we obtain eternal life? How could a spiritually dead person believe?” An opportunity to learn and to rightly divide the word of truth is seen as a pastoral complication! How sad!
It has come to light that a brother, now a member of a church under the oversight of Pastor Kek, freely exercised his liberty in calling up members of SDC, to persuade them of his ‘standard reformed view.’ I wrote to encourage him in his good work:
Dear brother C, Brother W said that you had a good talk with him on the phone. I am glad that you are in touch with the folks here. Keep it up. All have very good memories of you and your wife. My policy of churchmanship is very different from that of other pastors. I openly encourage the people under my charge to interact freely with Christians from other churches. I believe they are intelligent folks. When there is free flow of information and discussion, truth will always prevail. I am a full-blown capitalist when it comes to free inquiry for the truth. I don’t deprive the people under my charge the liberty to inquire for the truth freely. Truth has no fear. Those in error have everything to fear to be shown inconsistent and deficient, or outright unbiblical in their beliefs. Those who do love the truth would certainly want to be shown their errors too. Pastor Lau. [End quote]
Lastly, in this lengthy ‘Introduction’, one question needs to be asked, and has been asked by the SDC. What was the intention of these seven churches writing such an official and formal letter to inform the members of SDC that they disagree with Pastor Lau on those seven ‘fundamental and serious’ theological points? Surely such an official letter had a definite purpose in mind.
A Reply from the SDC to the Seven Churches
The SDC held a regular members’ meeting on Nov. 3, 2004 and the formal letter from the seven churches was noted. The church requested to know the purpose of the official letter. So on Nov. 19, I wrote to the churches to inquire.
To ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches’
Dear brethren,
The SDC, at its members’ meeting held on November 3, formally requested to know the purpose of your letter that informed the SDC concerning your churches’ doctrinal positions. The Church is now aware of the position of your churches on the seven points raised in your letter. What is your purpose of wanting SDC to be aware of your churches’ position on those seven points? Do you want the SDC to reply to your churches what SDC does believe on those seven points? Kindly reply so that the church may know how to respond to the official letter from your churches.
I did inform the church at the members’ meeting concerning Peter Kek’s response of “just ignore the letter” to my question put to him in person, “So what do you want the SDC to do with your letter?” at the Nov. 1 afternoon meeting in SGBC. When I informed the church about this on our Nov. 3 meeting the members were very puzzled. They asked, “Why would seven men of God convened a special meeting and lodge an official letter of complaint with the SDC and now say ‘just ignore the letter?’ Surely such a formal letter was written with clear intention in mind.” Now, you put your hand to your heart, and without sophistry, tell the artless folks here the reason why you are so desirous of informing the Church concerning your churches’ doctrinal position on those seven points. They are flabbergasted when I explained that Peter insisted that the letter was for me personally.
In any case, I have replied to 5 of the seven points you and your churches do believe and defend. I do respect your conviction on those seven points. I always prefer men with conviction though inconsistent and deficient in their views over against those with no conviction at all. I do hope you are now better acquainted with what I do believe. I will respond to the remaining two. I would no longer send them out to you through e-mail. I will compile the seven responses together with your formal letter and ‘A Response of the RB Fraternal’ and my response to it, and have them printed for any who would like to read. This seems to be the only way for much of the misrepresentation and caricatures that have taken place to be corrected. This will also give you ample opportunity to expose what you consider “serious errors” on my part. The Bereans in our churches will search and know the truth for themselves. Remember, theology is for all of God’s people, not just for the few.
May God bless each one of us as we lead our people to know the truth by rightly dividing the word of truth. Sing.[End quote]
Sadly, none of the seven church leaders ever replied to the simple inquiry. Everyone is keeping mum. Apparently the leaders issued the letter in the name of their churches without their knowledge! Some members of SDC could only second-guess that the veiled intention of the letter was to stir SDC to remove its pastor because he differs from the seven churches and believes that they hold to views that are biblically inconsistent and deficient, and plainly contradicting the teaching summarized in the Confession. Perhaps there is truth in the perception of these artless folks who love Christ and His truth.
This little work you are reading is basically a compilation of my replies to the seven theological statements of these seven churches. These replies were developed from the notes used in our Wednesday evening Bible Study. To me the theological statements issued by the seven leaders on behalf of their churches are inconsistent and deficient. I am content with these adjectives. Whether there is truth with this conclusion, let each reader judge for himself. I have no pleasure to push what I understand as God’s truth on anyone, but I am all for the free inquiry and buying of the truth. Let my ‘errors’ be exposed and truth be promoted. I have been accused and slandered as the troubler of the churches of the Reformed Baptist Fraternity.
Whatever is claimed by those who espouse and defend the ‘standard reformed’ position, it is my considered judgment that their view of the order of salvation is NOT that of the 1689 LBCoF. I will endeavour to justify my point in what follows.
To ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches’:
Dear brethren,
Thank you for your letter. I assume that each one of you are representing your churches in writing the said letter to SDC, and that your members are aware of what you have written. Can you please confirm this? We want to be sure that your members are aware that you have written the said letter to SDC. This letter is, and all subsequent ones on this matter shall be, copied to all the members of SDC.
The church Secretary has distributed your letter to the members last night. Before I shall respond to your seven theological statements one by one, please let me clear some insinuations.
Concerning raising matters with ‘our members’: please be specific who are ‘our members’ you mentioned? I suggest that each one of you learn to speak for your self, unless you are specifically delegated to speak on others’ behalf. Otherwise there may be misunderstanding.
Brother CC of Woodlands RBC was a former member of SDC. As his former pastor I have a moral obligation to inform him and help him to understand why what I have taught him before is deficient and inconsistent. In recent posts, CC copied his mail to his Elder, so in my reply to him, I likewise copied it to his Elder. Do you, Peter Kek, have problem with that? Am I not free to communicate with his Elder as fellow elders if I choose to? Is Elder BS under your oversight also? So what’s the fuss?
As for Serdang Church, some posts on the discussion were copied to sister Debbie by her personal request. And it was done with her pastor’s FULL knowledge. A few mails on a specific topic were copied to brother KM because brother KY mentioned that he spoke to KM and Pastor Ho and discovered their difficulty with the issues of ‘irresistible grace’ and ‘effectual calling.’
The above is only to set the record straight. May God be merciful for the needless insinuations! Brethren, if any other member of your churches can validate your baseless insinuation, let him stand up to point the finger.
Your suggestion to address the issues in the pastors’ meetings is reasonable. I did that, didn’t I? We resort to discussion through email – which is far better because it requires each one to write down his thoughts in black and white… that can be referenced at later date. But where did it get us? After I replied to Peter’s post, and having shown that his views were inconsistent and deficient, he just clamped up! If you all have heeded your own wisdom, you would not have held that secret meeting at the church camp at Mersing and slandered me, in the presence of some men who knew nothing about the discussion, as one heading towards hyper-calvinism and antinomianism. [What do these terms mean? Until today, none of you wish to define the term for me.] Such behaviour discredited yourselves entirely, that you would act in such a manner toward one you claim as a brother in Christ!!! The slanders and your silent consent of them have traveled half way round the world and came back to my ears – reported in my hearing in person. When you heard the slanders, did you care to find out the fact of the matter from the one slandered? Have we forgotten that the Lord is watching and hearing all that we do and say? Is there no fear of God anymore?
Please don’t impute to me what others wrote. SDC prints and distributes lots of articles, and booklets for people to read. If you have a problem with anything printed, take it up with the specific authors. I have no liberty to delete those bits that I may not agree with. If you disagree with anything I have written, freely express your disagreement and state why. That way there may be mutual understanding.
Concerning the similarity between the ‘standard reformed’ position and the free-willer Arminains - a Reformed Baptist pastor has gladly acknowledged that in spite of all the major differences between the ‘standard reformed’ people and the Arminians there is one crucial similarity between them – at least they both believe in justification by faith alone! So the ‘standard reformed’ folks and the free-willers are in unity on this most crucial point though they seem to differ ‘drastically’ on so many other major doctrines. My observation that the ‘standard reformed’ folks is no different from the free-willer Arminians on this particular point is not wrong at all. The hat does fit!
Sungai Dua Church is a church that holds to the 1689 CoF. It was my ordination oath that I would hold fast and instruct the church the doctrines of the Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. You and your churches that signed this letter most likely have the 1689 CoF as the doctrinal standard of your churches too. In a time of controversy and disagreement, one of the great usefulness of the Confession of Faith becomes evident. I intend to lead the church under my charge to believe the teaching of the Scriptures as summarized in the Confession of Faith as long as the 1689 CoF remains the doctrinal standard of the church. I intend to expose as errors those ‘doctrines’ contrary to that summarized in the Confession, even if the other churches holding to the same Confession popularly embrace such errors. I have no use for your ‘standard reformed position’ – if there is one such position at all – if it contradicts the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 Confession.
Meanwhile I await your elaboration of what you believe and why you disagree with my present understanding. I will answer your 7 points and show that they are indeed deficient and inconsistent. We may still disagree. And please let your members read the exchanges. Let truth prevail. I assume from now on that members of your churches are aware of these issues. Let all be informed of the issues at stake, and let truth prevail. Seeking and learning, Sing [End quote]
Let There be Freedom to Inquire and Buy the Truth
At this point a simple fact needs to be told. A Pastors’ Fraternal meeting was held at SDC premises in March 2004. Pastor Kek took full liberty to raise and discuss the matter privately with a mature member of SDC. I knew all about it, but I did not say a word. With a Berean-like spirit, the brother began to ask and seek to understand the issue of justification and faith. I was glad that he freely expressed his disagreement with me and quoted from some theological giants. I didn’t see this as ‘pastoral complications.’ I am always glad when my people disagree and ask questions. It shows that they are thinking and wrestling to grasp the truth. This will only drive all concerned back to the Scriptures. And it is always a great blessing to search the Scriptures together. When we are still disagreed as to what the Scriptures teach, then we have to resort to what the Doctrinal Standard of our churches says. It is always wise to consult the ancient Particular Baptist forefathers and see how they understood the various matters. So the church was led through a series of study on the 1689 CoF for the fourth time, but this time through chapters 10-14 and 20 over a period of many weeks. That simple exercise cleared the minds of many and settled the matter in their minds. They see for themselves that what these seven churches charged as “new doctrinal view” are only views taught by the ancient Scriptures and summarized by our old Particular Baptist forefathers.
So who is acting unethically? Christ asked “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Who is acting wisely in his own eyes?
Who is causing pastoral complication? Some pastors do feel very uncomfortable when their members start to ask them hard questions. But I don’t see church members asking their pastors hard questions as pastoral complication. I see that as an excellent opportunity for everyone to learn, including the pastors! Even ‘ordinary’ folks like Aquila and Priscilla in our churches are able to assist preachers who are eloquent and mighty in Scriptures to make some progress! (Acts 18). But how often pastors look upon their members as untaught and uninformed children, who cannot think for themselves! What grievous insult to the children of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit! Perhaps they are just spoon-fed, and a Berean-spirit of free inquiry for the truth is not instilled in them and are not trained to think and search and study the Scriptures. Any good pastor would encourage his members asking questions, even if this means that his cherished view is being discussed and scrutinized in the plain light of Scriptures. Some pastors get very annoyed when members ask questions that graciously point out the deficiency and inconsistency of their views, e.g. “Pastor, you teach us that regeneration must precede faith, how is it then that you also teach us that it is by faith that we obtain eternal life? How could a spiritually dead person believe?” An opportunity to learn and to rightly divide the word of truth is seen as a pastoral complication! How sad!
It has come to light that a brother, now a member of a church under the oversight of Pastor Kek, freely exercised his liberty in calling up members of SDC, to persuade them of his ‘standard reformed view.’ I wrote to encourage him in his good work:
Dear brother C, Brother W said that you had a good talk with him on the phone. I am glad that you are in touch with the folks here. Keep it up. All have very good memories of you and your wife. My policy of churchmanship is very different from that of other pastors. I openly encourage the people under my charge to interact freely with Christians from other churches. I believe they are intelligent folks. When there is free flow of information and discussion, truth will always prevail. I am a full-blown capitalist when it comes to free inquiry for the truth. I don’t deprive the people under my charge the liberty to inquire for the truth freely. Truth has no fear. Those in error have everything to fear to be shown inconsistent and deficient, or outright unbiblical in their beliefs. Those who do love the truth would certainly want to be shown their errors too. Pastor Lau. [End quote]
Lastly, in this lengthy ‘Introduction’, one question needs to be asked, and has been asked by the SDC. What was the intention of these seven churches writing such an official and formal letter to inform the members of SDC that they disagree with Pastor Lau on those seven ‘fundamental and serious’ theological points? Surely such an official letter had a definite purpose in mind.
A Reply from the SDC to the Seven Churches
The SDC held a regular members’ meeting on Nov. 3, 2004 and the formal letter from the seven churches was noted. The church requested to know the purpose of the official letter. So on Nov. 19, I wrote to the churches to inquire.
To ‘The 7 Leaders and their 7 Churches’
Dear brethren,
The SDC, at its members’ meeting held on November 3, formally requested to know the purpose of your letter that informed the SDC concerning your churches’ doctrinal positions. The Church is now aware of the position of your churches on the seven points raised in your letter. What is your purpose of wanting SDC to be aware of your churches’ position on those seven points? Do you want the SDC to reply to your churches what SDC does believe on those seven points? Kindly reply so that the church may know how to respond to the official letter from your churches.
I did inform the church at the members’ meeting concerning Peter Kek’s response of “just ignore the letter” to my question put to him in person, “So what do you want the SDC to do with your letter?” at the Nov. 1 afternoon meeting in SGBC. When I informed the church about this on our Nov. 3 meeting the members were very puzzled. They asked, “Why would seven men of God convened a special meeting and lodge an official letter of complaint with the SDC and now say ‘just ignore the letter?’ Surely such a formal letter was written with clear intention in mind.” Now, you put your hand to your heart, and without sophistry, tell the artless folks here the reason why you are so desirous of informing the Church concerning your churches’ doctrinal position on those seven points. They are flabbergasted when I explained that Peter insisted that the letter was for me personally.
In any case, I have replied to 5 of the seven points you and your churches do believe and defend. I do respect your conviction on those seven points. I always prefer men with conviction though inconsistent and deficient in their views over against those with no conviction at all. I do hope you are now better acquainted with what I do believe. I will respond to the remaining two. I would no longer send them out to you through e-mail. I will compile the seven responses together with your formal letter and ‘A Response of the RB Fraternal’ and my response to it, and have them printed for any who would like to read. This seems to be the only way for much of the misrepresentation and caricatures that have taken place to be corrected. This will also give you ample opportunity to expose what you consider “serious errors” on my part. The Bereans in our churches will search and know the truth for themselves. Remember, theology is for all of God’s people, not just for the few.
May God bless each one of us as we lead our people to know the truth by rightly dividing the word of truth. Sing.[End quote]
Sadly, none of the seven church leaders ever replied to the simple inquiry. Everyone is keeping mum. Apparently the leaders issued the letter in the name of their churches without their knowledge! Some members of SDC could only second-guess that the veiled intention of the letter was to stir SDC to remove its pastor because he differs from the seven churches and believes that they hold to views that are biblically inconsistent and deficient, and plainly contradicting the teaching summarized in the Confession. Perhaps there is truth in the perception of these artless folks who love Christ and His truth.
This little work you are reading is basically a compilation of my replies to the seven theological statements of these seven churches. These replies were developed from the notes used in our Wednesday evening Bible Study. To me the theological statements issued by the seven leaders on behalf of their churches are inconsistent and deficient. I am content with these adjectives. Whether there is truth with this conclusion, let each reader judge for himself. I have no pleasure to push what I understand as God’s truth on anyone, but I am all for the free inquiry and buying of the truth. Let my ‘errors’ be exposed and truth be promoted. I have been accused and slandered as the troubler of the churches of the Reformed Baptist Fraternity.
Whatever is claimed by those who espouse and defend the ‘standard reformed’ position, it is my considered judgment that their view of the order of salvation is NOT that of the 1689 LBCoF. I will endeavour to justify my point in what follows.
"Everyone is in favor of free speech.
Hardly a day passes without it being extolled,
but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like,
but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."
Winston Churchill
Hardly a day passes without it being extolled,
but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like,
but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."
Winston Churchill
No comments:
Post a Comment