 |
| "Sing, you have departed from our Standard Reformed Faith." |
Subject: Peter, a Reformed Baptist, compiled a long email (pasted below). He painstakingly demonstrated that Sing has DEPARTED from the STANDARD REFORMED faith held by him and many Reformed Baptists.
As the leader of a group of seven churches, Peter wrote the lengthy letter below to prove that I have departed from "the
Standard Reformed faith" held by him and some other Reformed Baptists associated with
him. He copied his email to FOUR church members of Sungai Dua Church.
Read and enjoy. Discover what these Reformed Baptist pastors actually believe (through what they disagree with). The larger theological controversy is recorded here: https://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/
------------
From:
Peter Kek <peter@xyz.com>
Date:
Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:58:18 +0100
To:
Sing Foo Lau <singlau@xyz.com>
Cc:
Paulky <paulky@xyz.com>, CKL <sonickl@xxx.com>,
Woon &YL <wcsyl@abc.com>
Subject: A summary of what Sing believes
Dear
Sing,
I
attach a summary of your view. Kindly point out if we have misrepresented you.
Peter
-------
Dear
brothers,
Below
is a summary of Sing's position, quoting him directly from his email (highlighted in green) so as not to misrepresent him.
Let us begin by asking, 'Has Sing changed his doctrinal position? Is his position very different from ours (the "standard reformed faith)? Or is it merely semantics?'
ANSWER: From both our email discussions as well as personal exchanges with him during our Fraternal, I think most of us can agree that Sing has changed his position, and that his position is very different from ours.
He told us openly at our Penang Fraternal that he has changed his view. Sing has also clearly indicated that he has changed his view in his email
dated
17/2/04:
"I
have no difficulties with reformed soteriology. HOWEVER, I do see its
inconsistencies, and therefore its deficiency in the articulation of the doctrine
of justification by faith. If you don't see the inconsistencies as I do, then
you would have no difficulties with reformed soteriology. I can only
say that you are blessed and have no difficulties to sort out.
I don't think materials by GI Williamson and John Murray would be any difference from the standard reformed soteriology expressed by Jim Cromarty. In that sense they would all be pretty standard like yours - and I say this without any derogatory intent.
If you must insist that, in endeavouring to be consistent with the testimony of Scriptures meant that I have moved away from THE standard reformed position, THEN YES, I admit that you are perfectly right in you insistence.
Yes, I must therefore admit that I have moved away from standard reformed position on the subject.
You give me the impression that the standard reformed position is your authority. To be honest, I gave very little thought to the standard reformed position, though I am no less acquainted with it. But I am "sola scritura" in practice." (end quote)
Is his view very different from ours (Standard Reformed faith)?
Sing
said in his email dated 1/3/04:
"Chin
Kaw, I must say, and you yourself do see, that you and I are 1000 worlds apart
in soteriology."
Sing
wrote to Tony on 23/4/04:
"You
say faith is an instrument divinely appointed to receive salvation. If you are
comfortable with that and think that is consistent, it is
fine with me. But I don't think it is just a matter of semantics."
[An
UNsaved man, i.e. still in his native state of sin and death, is able to exercise
faith IN ORDER to receive salvation - that's understood as "standard
reformed faith" by Peter and his gang! - sing]
In another email to Tony on 18/5/04: Sing said:
"I am certain it is more than a matter of emphasis. It is consistency and truthfulness to Scriptures. If it is only a matter of emphasis, and not glaring inconsistencies and contradictions, I would have shut up long ago and not waste my time and weary so many people. I will probably shut up soon, since many are so contentedly settled in their trenches and have no interest to study things.
The same differences exist among those who equally claim to hold to the 1689 LCoF in other parts of the world... and I fear it is often the result of the remaining baggage of the past Arminianism - natural as well religious - which explain all the inconsistencies and contradictions. Arminains proclaim 'justification by faith alone,' reformed people also claim 'justification by faith alone' - ask them what do they mean, they meant precisely the same thing!!! (end quote)
The next question is: What then is Sing's new understanding? Let us try to put them down one by one:
1. On
the issue of regeneration:
Sing
believes that effectual calling and regeneration has nothing to do with the
preaching of God's
word. To him a person could be regenerated (and thus saved), and yet remain
an unrepentant unbeliever [sing: remain unconverted] for many years until he hears the gospel. Should
such a person dies before he hears the gospel, he will still go to heaven.
To
Sing, a person is saved through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit apart
from faith and repentance."
He
wrote to Tony on 13/4/04:
"Eternal
life resulting from the effectual call (involving justification, regeneration, and adoption) is the beginning of the application of
the eternal salvation to an elect. Once spiritual life is begotten, the chief
and essential
part of salvation has been bestowed. Spiritual life is eternal life; with this life, the person is capable of enjoying the many spiritual blessings
which God has in store for his elect in this brief and temporary time
on earth. This includes being brought to saving faith in Christ, be gathered
into the community of God's people in the local church, be instructed
and disciples by the ministry of the word, etc." (end quote)
This
brings us to a number of other related issues:
2. The
place of faith:
Does
a sinner need to come to faith in order to be saved? Sing's answer is 'No'.
He kept insisting that 'faith is not in order to be saved, but obviously an
evidence that one is already saved. That's why he kept insisting that John
3:16 is a declarative rather than a conditional statement (see his exchanges
with Dr. Richard Belcher).
Sing
wrote to Lam and all on 12/4/04:
"Also
'no faith, no salvation' without necessary qualification, unashamedly
CONDITIONS salvation on man's faith! It
is no longer salvation by
grace alone. 'No faith, no salvation' also begs many questions: what kind of
faith is necessary, how much faith is necessary, how persistence must this
faith be, what happen when we become lapse and become faithless ('If we are
faithless, He remains faithful...' 2Tim 2:13) etc. Salvation become TOO MAN-CENTRED!
The eternal destiny of man is now entirely conditioned upon something
he does." (end quote)
Sing
wrote to Tony on 13/4/04:
"To
say that 'faith receives salvation' is something near to moronic [sic]. It
is like saying breathing receives life!!! It makes perfect sense to say that
faith evidences salvation; even so, breath evidences life.
"The idea that faith in Christ 'receives' salvation is foreign to the Bible. We have used it for so long without thinking about it. It is much like the Arminian's idea of 'accepting Jesus Christ.' It smacks of humanism, and contradicts grace."
3. The
issue of faith & justification:
Justification
by faith alone? I once sent this article by Jim Cormarty:
"Where
does faith come in? What part does faith play in justification? Faith is the
gift of God (Ephesians
2:8) and is the "instrument" by which we receive the righteousness
of Christ. The role of faith can be illustrated as follows.
A girl needs a drink of water, but the tap is far away and she cannot reach it. Someone, using a cup, brings the precious water to her. The cup itself cannot quench her thirst, but without it the water cannot reach her. Faith is like that cup, a means provided by God through which the 'water¹ of Christ¹s righteousness is supplied to us, so that we may be justified. We are not justified by the act of believing, as if faith were a work of man. We do not justify ourselves by our faith, for "it is God who justifies¹
(Romans 8:33)." (the above paragraph is Peter's words)
And
below is Sing's response:
"I
now think this is an inadequate and BAD illustration. The illustration
seems to promote a faith by proxy - 'someone using a cup' - who is
using whose faith to convey the righteousness of Christ to who? Did she has the gift of faith or not?
[Actually, the gift is NOT faith; the gift is eternal salvation, freely bestowed by grace WHEN we were DEAD in trespasses and sins. So, stop the hallucination.]
I see this as a horrible error - that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ depends on personal faith. This is to put the cart before the horse! Personal faith manifests that the righteousness of Christ ALREADY APPLIED personally to an elect.
I
believe it would right to say that if she holds forth a cup desiring
to drink, then THAT proves that she already has that spring of living
water in her through the sovereign regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.
John 4:14.
The
author has just contradicting himself because of the confusion... 'We do not
justify ourselves by our faith, for 'it is God who justifies¹
(Romans 8:33). So in what sense are we
justified by faith then, FOR HEAVEN SAKE????????????? HOW DOES FAITH JUSTIFY the believing one? Does it justify the same way God justifies a condemned guilty man? How does your breath justify you? That you are alive, or to bring you to life?
However let me use the illustration to make a elementary point. That girl who thirsts for a drink, and who is capable of drinking - ALREADY has spiritual and eternal life - regenerated by the Holy Spirit UPON the basis of having the righteousness of Christ ALREADY FREELY APPLIED to her personally, by the grace of God. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT have the divine warrant to regenerate any one except those to whom the righteousness of Christ has been applied personally.
Sing
wrote to me on 12/1/04:
"Faith
DOES NOT justify before God - NOW you are horrified that I say
so!!! But let me complete the sentence: Faith does not justify in the sense
that personal faith DOES NOT puts a man right and acceptable before God."
Sing
wrote to me again on 2/3/04
"I am acutely aware that "justified by faith" is understood as faith is the means, instrument,
channel, whereby a person is put in right standing before God. I
used to embrace that wholeheartedly but unthinkingly for many years too as a Reformed Baptist.
But inconsistencies and contradictions in such view caused me to re-study the whole subject. And I DON'T BELIEVE IT ANYMORE. I BELIEVE IT IS A SERIOUS ERROR! See the reasons I have given before. I DO BELIEVE that personal faith in Jesus Christ EVIDENCES that a person is already FREELY justified and put in right legal standing before God through the finished work of Christ, and applied to him by the Holy Spirit. Personal faith IS NOT in order to be put in right standing before God. Personal faith is evidence of having been put in the right standing before God."
On
the same subject, Sing wrote to Chiah Chee (28/2/04):
"Formerly,
I thought personal faith is 'the means, instrument, channel,
whereby a person is put in right standing before God.' I
believe that this is wholly impossible and erroneous. Faith
is the evidence of a man already in right standing before God; EVEN SO, breath is an evidence that the dead has been brought back to life. It's so elementary.
The question then, is, 'when and how was that right standing with God established?' The simple answer is: the legal justification which secured that right standing before God HAS TAKEN PLACE for all the elect at the cross.
And that legal justification is made vital or personal when the righteousness of Christ is applied personally to each individual elect at God's appointed and approved time, and the Holy Spirit regenerating the elect. I believe the Holy Spirit will regenerate ONLY those whom Christ has redeemed, and already freely justified before God. (Have you ever asked, 'does the Holy Spirit has any warrant to regenerate those whom Christ has not justified legally by His blood, and and whom God has not justified personally by His free grace?)
And personal faith in Christ through the hearing of the word by the gospel ministry is an EFFECT of regeneration. That personal faith, the effect of regeneration, is the EVIDENCE that such a person is God's elect, Christ's redeemed and FREELY justified by God based on the finished work of Christ at the cross, and the Holy Spirit regenerated. Personal faith JUSTIFIES that the believing person is INDEED of God's elect, Christ's redeemed and justified in Him, and Spirit's regenerated. (end quote)
What About Abraham? Was Abraham justified by faith alone (Rom. 4:3)? If not, then what happened to Abraham in Romans 4? (Peter shoot these rhetorical questions)
Sing published an article in the SDC Bulletin on 28/3/04 to explain this (the day I preached for him): "Paul introduces the theme of Romans 4 with a question and a reference to Gen. 15:6, "And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness". Paul's question interestingly implies that Abraham was justified by works as well as by faith. There is no hint in Paul's words that Abraham gained eternal standing with God based on his works. The theme of the passage seems far more favourable to our discipleship than to our eternal salvation...
Rom. 4 does not explain how unsaved people gain standing with God, i.e. through faith. Rather it explains how those who presently 'stand in grace' grow in their faith and discipleship. (end quote)
Then what put a man right with God? Sing insists that it is the 'faith of Christ' (faithfulness of Christ in His redemptive work for His people) (Rom. 3:24). I need not go into this as we have all read his lengthy exchanges with Lam on this.
4. The
place of Preaching:
Sing
has openly said at our Camerons Retreat that "gospel preaching is not for
the purpose of saving souls (i.e. eternal salvation)". Why
does he insist that gospel preaching is not for the purpose of saving souls?
Sing
wrote to Lam:
"The
preaching of the word does not gather men into heaven. Christ did that
Himself... Preaching is absolutely necessary. But the question is, 'absolutely
necessary for what?' Is it a means to bring people to eternal glory
or is it a means to make manifest that an elect people has been completely
and sovereignly prepared for glory in Jesus Christ?"
In
another email to Lam, he said:
"I
am glad, mighty glad, that the eternal salvation of God's elect is
not dependent upon man whatsoever... "This is the will of the Father who sent
Me, that of all He has given
Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." John
6:39.
Would Christ have this absolute confidence IF His statement is conditioned or dependent upon some contribution of good men, even good faithful preachers? (end quote)
Sing's great concern here is 'how were those elects in China or India before Carey went, going to be saved, if their salvation depended on the preaching of the gospel?'
5 Reading
into the Bible:
The
followings are Sing's interpretation of various texts in his email to me:
(a) Jesus
said, "...unless you repent (which must include faith) you will
all likewise PERISH." (Luke 13:3). Peter,
what sort of hearers will repent when they hear the gospel?
Is it not only those who God has chosen, Christ has redeemed and reconciled
to the Father by His death on the cross and those regenerated by the
Holy Spirit? I believe only such can repent and believe when they hear the
gospel preached to them. So the passage is perfectly true!!! [see this exchange: https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2022/11/except-ye-repent-ye-shall-all-likewise.html
(b) Peter,
Romans 3:22-24 reads like this: '
22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and
upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus:
First, look carefully please and let it say what it does say. Does it say whether justification has already taken place - 'JUSTIFIED FREELY' - on the basis on something already accomplished, OR does it say justification is made possible on the condition of faith? Look at it again, and look at it hard. I suggest that you don't drain the passage of what it plainly says and don't read into it what is NOT there.
Second:
Please note the word 'all' in verse 22 and 23, and ask, who are those
BEING JUSTIFIED FREELY by God's grace through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus? All
of God's elect have sinned, and come short of the glory OF God (I was tempted
to type 'the glory IN God' <grin>)
ALL of God's elect have been JUSTIFIED LEGALLY by the finished work of Christ at the cross by his grace. When did this take place? The answer is: the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus? When? At the cross. ALL
them that believe evidence that justification that has ALREADY taken place by
God's free grace, and applied personally by the Holy Spirit. (end quote)
(c) Consider also the way he interpreted John 3:16 & 36; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 2:14-15; 1 Peter 1:23-25.
6. Some of Sing's questions
Let
me end by stating some questions that Sing wants answered:
Question
one, (7/4/04)
"I
have said before that gospel preaching is necessary - but the question
is, 'necessary for what?' I
said this to you before, but I have never receive a reply: "... what do you
think is the divine purpose of preaching? I believe preachers need to sort
this MOST BASIC QUESTION carefully and be fully convinced. Have you ever
asked yourself the question? Many say the purpose of preaching is to turn
goats into sheep!" Others would say that preaching the gospel is necessary
condition for the Holy Spirit to regenerate dead sinner. They insist
that the sovereign divine Wind cannot blow unless there is human co-operation.
But what do you say? May be now, you
will give me a reply. State
exactly what you believe to be the divine purpose of the gospel preaching."
And
a related question:
"Now,
please tell me what is the purpose of the gospel preaching and the
ministry of the word. Who is it intended for? I say for lost sheep! Not for
dead sheep! For living sheep (made alive at regeneration) that are lost, and
needed to be gathered into the NT church. Just who do you hope will receive
and believe good news of salvation? Please answer. (end quote)
Question
two, (3/1/04)
"Let
me know your answer and I may know whether I have to wrestle with the possibility
of just ONE elect who by providence have no opportunity to hear the
gospel. If there is none, then the whole exercise would have been in vain.
If there is, I would want to be clear how such ONE elect will get to glory
as predestinated by God. Will man's failure deprive one of Christ's redeemed
and Spirit regenerated (if regeneration is possible without the preached
word - an impossible if for you, sorry) from eternal glory?
Question
three, (12/1/04)
"He
who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe
the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John
3:36).
Peter, in light of the passage quoted, is personal faith in the Son the evidence of eternal life, or the condition of eternal life? Is John 3:36 DECLARATIVE statement, or CONDITIONAL statement? Does one believe because he has eternal life or does one believe to obtain eternal life? Isn't unbelief the evidence of the absence of eternal life... therefore shall not see life... with the wrath of God abiding? Isn't it because God's wrath upon such a one WAS NEVER bore away by Christ at the cross that wrath of God on abides on him!!!
Question
four, (3/3/04)
"For
now, please read Hebrews 11:8, and I would like to put back the same question
to you: Now you tell me, when was righteousness imputed to Abraham? Peter,
is it conceivable to you that God would even call someone whom He has not
first justified and reconciled (in Abram's case and all the elect before the
cross, based prospectively upon the redemptive work of Christ at the cross)?
Would Abram even response UNLESS he was already justified by God's grace and regenerated by the Spirit in Genesis 12:1? What sayest thou, brother Peter? And what sayest ye, my other brothers who are listening?
==================
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2004 16:58:18 +0800
Brethren of Sungai Dua Church,
The
above is a useful email from Peter. He has collated some quotes from some of
the emails exchanged during some of the discussions. I believe he is expressing
his disagreement with my understanding of the teaching of Scriptures as
summarised in the 1689 LBCoF. I believe he will follow up with a separate post
spelling out his disagreement with what he has
quoted. We will look forward to reading that.
Those words which are direct quote from what I have written, I own and stand by them. The rest, you need to credit it to Pastor Kek. Some quotes can do with the broader context; otherwise, it is misleading. A text without its context is a pretext! If you have any problem with any point quoted, ask for clarification. If you need broader context, please ask Peter to forward to you the relevant emails.
I do hope you do read them, and compare them with the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 LBCoF - especially chapters 10-14, 20. I would appreciate if you could get your whole church to read them.
If you have any problem with any point quoted, ask for clarification. If you need broader context, please ask Peter to forward to you the relevant emails.
Some people don't realize that adjusting/changing of doctrinal position is NOT ALWAYS a bad thing!!! Sometimes it is very necessary, especially when consistency and accuracy is needed. Only those who HAVE ARRIVED have no need to change or adjust or move on. May the Lord richly bless such blessed people.
May the truth prevail.
Pastor
Lau
Sungai
Dua Church
------
post script: The summary of the doctrinal controversy is recorded here:
https://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-summary-of-seven-theological-points.html
