Scandals in Singapore churches
-
Actually Martin Luther did approach the leadership, but it was probably the red tape that kept things from being done.Originally posted by Icemoon:In some ways, he is like Martin Luther (we wonder why didn't Luther approach the leadership first). If you do not split .. it means you think the church still have a chance. That's probably why a debate to poll the congregation opinion (like AGM voting? haha) can be useful. No one wants to stay on a sinking ship. -
Good riddance! One less group of heretics around.Originally posted by vince69:If the theologians truely knows the heart of God, they won't be laughing.
however the devil will be the one laughing, as he sees the downfall of a church and the confusions set upon its members.
a sad day indeed.
-
It is funny because BP are famous for the KJV-only argument. That the KJV is "most perfect" is like a statement of faith for their leaders. IMHO, there's not much he can do to change their [stubborn] views.Originally posted by vince69:ok, my apology, just reread mine, the IMHO before that is on pointing to something else, anyway, its my personal opinion.
in this case, not AGM liao, its EGM he is calling.
yes, agree with you, if not happy, especially on things like which version of the Bible to use, can always leave church and find another.
my question is, is it such a big deal on this type of issue like what version of the Bible is being used?
It is sad to see someone's spiritual life affected because of such incidents. -
hmmm....
my daily bible is the KJV, study bible is NIV, devotional NKJV and if i wan layman terms NLT so have i been reading wrong translation??? -
Your daily bible is not your devotional bible?Originally posted by babyys:hmmm....
my daily bible is the KJV, study bible is NIV, devotional NKJV and if i wan layman terms NLT so have i been reading wrong translation???
Which means your devotion is not daily based?
And when you do your devotion, you don't study or think?
Or when you read your bible daily, you don't give thought to it?
Sibeh blur.
-
oops!! my bad!!Originally posted by vince69:Strictly speaking, JW not counted also...
for one, they deny the trinity, the deity of our Lord Jesus, and also His bodily resurrection. .... etc -
I have all three spread out wen i do my QT. daily bible is the 1 which i carry around wz me la.Originally posted by M©+square:Your daily bible is not your devotional bible?
Which means your devotion is not daily based?
And when you do your devotion, you don't study or think?
Or when you read your bible daily, you don't give thought to it?
Sibeh blur. 
-
Lots of scandals. U dont know meh?Originally posted by Dr Who:Got meh? Not many lah...... I mean real scandal, not the sing-song type......
1. Priest who took church money and buy house with god-daughter.
2. Pastor who abandon church/wife to marry Turkish girl
3. ??? cannot think opf any more. -
Does anyone remember the "House of Israel" incident? I think got child abuse involved.
Also, Central Christian Church sued SPH over the media giant's labelling of it as a "cult". -
I realise scandals involving churches are more publicised than scandals involving other religions. Just an observation.Originally posted by Dr Who:Got meh? Not many lah...... I mean real scandal, not the sing-song type......
1. Priest who took church money and buy house with god-daughter.
2. Pastor who abandon church/wife to marry Turkish girl
3. ??? cannot think opf any more. -
That's why this case is rather ridiculous in my opinion. Would you attend a Catholic Church if you disagree with the doctrine that Mary was conceived without sin (immaculate conception) or the infallability of the Pope when he pronounces doctrines on matters of faith and morals ex-cathedral?Originally posted by Icemoon:It is funny because BP are famous for the KJV-only argument. That the KJV is "most perfect" is like a statement of faith for their leaders. IMHO, there's not much he can do to change their [stubborn] views.
It is sad to see someone's spiritual life affected because of such incidents.
Knowing the teachings of the BP church on the Bible, what did he expect the pastors to do with him when he disagreed on a central belief of the BP church? It's like being a Muslim trying to assert his right to believe that Mohammad is not a prophet.
I do not agree with the BP church's doctrinal views but I cannot see what options the pastors have apart from ex-communicating him. -
He probably thought the BP church needs some reform.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That's why this case is rather ridiculous in my opinion. Would you attend a Catholic Church if you disagree with the doctrine that Mary was conceived without sin (immaculate conception) or the infallability of the Pope when he pronounces doctrines on matters of faith and morals ex-cathedral?
Knowing the teachings of the BP church on the Bible, what did he expect the pastors to do with him when he disagreed on a central belief of the BP church? It's like being a Muslim trying to assert his right to believe that Mohammad is not a prophet.
I do not agree with the BP church's doctrinal views but I cannot see what options the pastors have apart from ex-communicating him.
The idea that the KJV is most perfect is not even biblical. To stick to this unbiblical dogma is an insult to our modern intelligence (backed by the latest biblical scholarship). -
There is a good reason why the BP church rejects all other versions of the Bible. If you understand English history and the publication of the Authorized Bible by James 1 in 1611, you will understand why.Originally posted by Icemoon:He probably thought the BP church needs some reform.
The idea that the KJV is most perfect is not even biblical. To stick to this unbiblical dogma is an insult to our modern intelligence (backed by the latest biblical scholarship).
The KJV was published to remove the vestiges of Roman Catholicism in Britain. James 1 was Protestant and is in keeping with the sentiments of Protestant England. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots was executed by Elizabeth I primarily because she was Catholic and not acceptable to the English nobles, who were also afraid that she might try to seize the English throne and impose Catholicism. The KJV became the only authorized version of the Bible (instead of the Latin Vulgate used by Catholics) to prevent the laity from falling to the influence of Rome.
The BP church has always been clear that they see the Roman Catholic Church as a perversion. It is not surprising therefore, that they object to all other versions of the Bible which involved Catholic scholars in their preparation. -
your argument is way off.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a good reason why the BP church rejects all other versions of the Bible. If you understand English history and the publication of the Authorized Bible by James 1 in 1611, you will understand why.
The KJV was published to remove the vestiges of Roman Catholicism in Britain. James 1 was Protestant and is in keeping with the sentiments of Protestant England. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots was executed by Elizabeth I primarily because she was Catholic and not acceptable to the English nobles, who were also afraid that she might try to seize the English throne and impose Catholicism. The KJV became the only authorized version of the Bible (instead of the Latin Vulgate used by Catholics) to prevent the laity from falling to the influence of Rome.
The BP church has always been clear that they see the Roman Catholic Church as a perversion. It is not surprising therefore, that they object to all other versions of the Bible which involved Catholic scholars in their preparation.
They reject even NIV which is a more recent translation. how do you explain that? -
It has nothing to do with the date of the translation. The NIV is a dynamic translation, making the text easier to read, but losing the literal meaning of some words. The BP church insists on a literal reading of the scriptures and teach that the bible means what it says literally. In addition, they would probably object to some of the contributors who are considered to hold more liberal views on the bible.Originally posted by Icemoon:your argument is way off.
They reject even NIV which is a more recent translation. how do you explain that?
You can disagree with their doctrine but surely they are entitled to hold their own opinion. If you disagree with the teachings of the pastor, you can leave the church. But if you submit to the authority of the particular church, you will have to accept the discipline of the church leadership.
I would be surprised if this case can go anywhere. The plaintiff will have to prove damage to his reputation and more importantly, demonstrate that the damage is due to his ex-communication. I do not think many businessmen would care about your doctrinal views when deciding who to do business with, anymore than which football team you support.
That is hard enough but on top of that, it is difficult to refute the defence argument that the BP church was only exercising its right to discipline a member who by his continued membership submits to the teaching of the church. -
It has everything to do with the date of the translation. In general, the later bibles reflect the discovery of more ancient biblical manuscripts. The KJV could be most "perfect" when it was first published, but not so anymore. Is it so hard to acknowledge this fact?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:It has nothing to do with the date of the translation. The NIV is a dynamic translation, making the text easier to read, but losing the literal meaning of some words. The BP church insists on a literal reading of the scriptures and teach that the bible means what it says literally. In addition, they would probably object to some of the contributors who are considered to hold more liberal views on the bible.
Furthermore if they yearn so much for a literal, they could have embraced other literal bibles that are later. I believe KJV is not the only literal bible around.You can disagree with their doctrine but surely they are entitled to hold their own opinion. If you disagree with the teachings of the pastor, you can leave the church. But if you submit to the authority of the particular church, you will have to accept the discipline of the church leadership.
Maybe he wanted to be kei gao before he left.
Certain doctrines are non-negotiable, but definitely not bible version. At the end of the day, they might still use KJV (because of literary style) because of preferences but perhaps should also acknowledge that it is no longer that "perfect". Is it so hard to do so? Nobody asking you to renounce Christ right?I would be surprised if this case can go anywhere. The plaintiff will have to prove damage to his reputation and more importantly, demonstrate that the damage is due to his ex-communication. I do not think many businessmen would care about your doctrinal views when deciding who to do business with, anymore than which football team you support.
The damage was already done before the ex-communication.A DIFFERENCE in opinion over theology has escalated into a church-goer suing his pastors for defaming him in church.
Read the parts in bold.
Mr Lim Seng Hoo, a member of the Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church since 1996, claims its leaders - senior pastor Tow Siang Hwa and pastor Quek Suan Yew - have tarnished his reputation.
In March, the church's Board of Elders barred the 50-year-old businessman from all church services for six months, when the threat of a lawsuit against them looked imminent.
The dispute arose from a translation of the Bible, the King James version, which the Pandan Gardens church has used for 27 years.
Over 20 English versions of the Bible exist. Some of the more widely used ones here are the New International and New Jerusalem versions.
Mr Lim, who read theology in a local bible college, believes the King James Bible - widely thought by theologians as the most accurate - is not as perfect as his pastors claim.
He made his view known to 60 church members following church service in July last year, by handing out copies of a petition for a public debate on the issue; he also e-mailed other church members.
Stinging responses came from the pastors via e-mail, church bulletins and sermons, which he felt hurt his standing as a businessman and a devout Christian.
In his statement of claim against the pastors, he said they had repeatedly run him down in church in front of people with whom his firm may have business dealings. His company distributes metrological instruments to the region.
In their written defence, the pastors, who have hired Harry Elias Partnership to represent them, said any damage to Mr Lim's reputation had been brought about by himself and that their actions had 'no consequence on his trade reputation'.
Mr Lim, who will be represented by Mr Chia Boon Teck and Ms Jamie Seah of Khattar Wong Partnership, claims his church friends have shunned him and discriminated against his four children.
He told The Straits Times that taking up a civil suit was a 'last resort', especially since he regarded senior pastor Tow as a father figure.
In the course of the dispute, he said, the insults had grown sharper. He listed some made by the pastors, which he felt caused him 'serious injury'. In particular, he was upset at being likened to Satan and referred to as an 'evil and sinister enemy'.
Senior pastor Tow said in his written defence: 'It is the teaching of the Bible that any attack on the members of the church and the pastors would be seen as a satanic attack, as Satan is the mastermind behind all disturbances within the church.'
He added that as senior pastor and church founder, he had to shield his flock from incorrect, divisive doctrines.
Mr Lim is also asking the court to quash his suspension from church, which he alleges was aimed at stopping him from presenting the church's accounts, which he audited.
He also claims to have found 'questionable' flows of about $450,000 from the church funds to the pastors.
Pastor Quek said Mr Lim had broken his vows to the church to submit to its leaders and not raise divisive issues.
In a statement to this newspaper, church elders said he failed to attend six counselling sessions following his suspension.
The statement also said it was a 'very sad day' when a church member took to suing his own pastors: 'Such an action is against the clear teaching of Jesus Christ in God's Holy and perfect Word.'
I think the church leadership already tried to run him down between july last year and his ex-communication this march. Furthermore I think we missed the part about the church account also. Notice he was the auditor.That is hard enough but on top of that, it is difficult to refute the defence argument that the BP church was only exercising its right to discipline a member who by his continued membership submits to the teaching of the church.
I think this is missing the point. The whole thing is about defamation isn't it?
The part in red is a joke. Do they mean to tell me their action of gunning him down is very Christ-like?
Notice the church leadership never deny the allegation, in their written defence - "any damage to Mr Lim's reputation had been brought about by himself and that their actions had 'no consequence on his trade reputation'"
They never categorically deny those actions. -
I thought the KJV bible was Anglican (CoE) and the BP church were an offshoot of the Calvinists. Correct me if I am wrong.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a good reason why the BP church rejects all other versions of the Bible. If you understand English history and the publication of the Authorized Bible by James 1 in 1611, you will understand why.
The KJV was published to remove the vestiges of Roman Catholicism in Britain. James 1 was Protestant and is in keeping with the sentiments of Protestant England. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots was executed by Elizabeth I primarily because she was Catholic and not acceptable to the English nobles, who were also afraid that she might try to seize the English throne and impose Catholicism. The KJV became the only authorized version of the Bible (instead of the Latin Vulgate used by Catholics) to prevent the laity from falling to the influence of Rome.
The BP church has always been clear that they see the Roman Catholic Church as a perversion. It is not surprising therefore, that they object to all other versions of the Bible which involved Catholic scholars in their preparation. -
The BP should be offshoot from P who came from John Knox.Originally posted by iveco:I thought the KJV bible was Anglican (CoE) and the BP church were an offshoot of the Calvinists. Correct me if I am wrong.
Is there a church of Calvin today? There is Lutheran Church .. but Calvinist Church got meh? -
Here's more
Pastor Kong of CHC gets paid 8k per month
-
Because they have the most devotees in the world and they are supposed to set a example and not teach your kids to take drugsOriginally posted by Insomic:I realise scandals involving churches are more publicised than scandals involving other religions. Just an observation. -
maybe he is underpaid if you go by congregation size and wealth.Originally posted by Agenda:Here's more
Pastor Kong of CHC gets paid 8k per month
wait .. is he still paid by the church? I thought he earn more from his speaking tour? -
earn so muchOriginally posted by Icemoon:maybe he is underpaid if you go by congregation size and wealth.
wait .. is he still paid by the church? I thought he earn more from his speaking tour?
lets go learn and we can preach -
I want to be a pastor and have a lot of cute goddaughters and i can shower them with fatherly love.
-
A pastor could be the person who baptise you and who officiate at your wake.Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:I want to be a pastor and have a lot of cute goddaughters and i can shower them with fatherly love.
the feeling sucks .. trust me.
you wouldn't want to be there when someone in your congregation dies. especially those who die young.
you wouldn't want to console the breaved. you certainly won't say "congrats your child is now in heaven" right? -
Not everyone agrees with that. It is true that later translations had access to older manuscripts but as I said, the BP church objects to the participation of scholars who take a more liberal doctrinal view. Rightly or wrongly, they feel that they cannot accept other translations where a 'liberal' scholar has participated as the translation would have been tainted by liberal doctrines.Originally posted by Icemoon:It has everything to do with the date of the translation. In general, the later bibles reflect the discovery of more ancient biblical manuscripts. The KJV could be most "perfect" when it was first published, but not so anymore. Is it so hard to acknowledge this fact?I think this is missing the point. The whole thing is about defamation isn't it?
An allegation is not the same as defamation. The defence has not refuted the allegation. Their defence is likely on the grounds of fair comment on a doctrinal matter that has been the position of the BP church for years. They will also show that there was no damage and if there had been any damage, it was not caused by the doctrinal dispute with the church.
The part in red is a joke. Do they mean to tell me their action of gunning him down is very Christ-like?
Notice the church leadership never deny the allegation, in their written defence - "any damage to Mr Lim's reputation had been brought about by himself and that their actions had 'no consequence on his trade reputation'"
They never categorically deny those actions.
Whether their actions were Christ-like or not has nothing to do with a legal dispute.