The
Reply of Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.
Bible For Today
Baptist Church, and President of the Dean Burgon Society
April 18, 2006
[My comments are in
BOLD TYPE.]
Sunday, April 9, 2006 ASKJO WROTE: "Are you not satisfied
with the Dean Burgon Society where you are a member of?"
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: Our DBS records indicate that the
last date listing Dr. Thomas Cassidy as a "member" of the Dean
Burgon Society Executive Committee was June of 2002. He does
not appear on that DBS Committee in the July, 2003 list. He
was no longer a member because he failed to complete and return the
annual DBS Questionnaire sent to all DBS leaders.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "I am never satisfied by lies or by
liars. If you can prove your assertions against Westcott and Hort by
giving me the title of the writing, and page number, do so. If not,
then you should be honest and retract your false accusations.
When a member of the DBS lies it is just as unconscionable as when
anybody else lies."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: There is a false implication that
"members of the DBS" lie and are "liars." This is completely false.
Our leaders and speakers back up their statements with factual
documentation at all times. This is indeed a libelous charge against
good and godly brethren.
ASKJO WROTE: "was ur position against lying in DBS concerning
its lying abt WH? this seems to be the case of Waite's disciples in
Singapore, who still routinely enjoy burning their effigies."
"do u think those who continue to slander WH here without evidence
shd be named n exposed? haven't they been warned over n again? it
appears it's gone beyond "mindless" accusation; there's something
deliberate going on here. n we know who's the father of lies."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: There is no "lying" on the
part of DBS and its speakers about WH (Westcott and Hort). They were
not either Fundamentalists or even Conservatives in their theology.
For documented proof of this the reader is referred to my two books:
(1) The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort (BFT #595),
and (2) Bishop Westcott’s Clever Denial of the Bodily
Resurrection of Christ (BFT #1131). Further documentation in
their own words of their theological heresies is found in their own
letters, collected by their sons, under the titles of (1) The
Life and Letters of Bishop B. F. Westcott (BFT #1866, 928 pp.)
and (2) The Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort (BFT #1867, 997
pp.). These documents have been available for many years from the
Bible For Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108 USA
on the web at www.BibleForToday.org.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "I was at the meeting of the Executive
Committee when Dr. S. H. Tow (Tow Siang Hwa) was considered for
membership. I was against Dr. Tow's being a member for many reasons,
not the least of which is the polity of the denomination he
superintends in the far east plus the radical and divisive nature of
his bibliology."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: I just played the taped recording
of the DBS Executive Committee meeting held July 10, 1996,
where Dr. S. H. Tow gave his bold and Biblical statement of his
stand against apostasy, neo-evangelicalism, charismaticism, the new
versions, BJU’s position, etc., and in favor of the King James Bible
and those who stand for it. His 10 to 20 minute question and answer
session before the Committee was well received by the men who were
in attendance. Not one negative thing was stated against having him
a part of the DBS Advisory Council. If Dr. Cassidy was against his
admission to the DBS Advisory Council, he never voiced it at that
meeting or to me privately at any time. I explained to the men that
the DBS was not a group of a specific denomination (though most of
the men are Baptists). I formed it that way 27 years ago so that men
who stood for the DBS principles could be welcomed to join in with
us IN DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL BIBLE TEXTS, beginning with the King
James Bible. Dr. S. H. Tow is an enthusiastic supporter of that
Bible. Dr. Tow’s "bibliology" is neither "radical" nor "divisive" in
nature. His "polity" can be his own just like Dr. Cassidy’s can be
his own. The DBS has nothing whatever to say concerning church
polity.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "(The DBS was chartered to "Defend the
Traditional Texts" but was rapidly evolving into a radical KJVO
group.) He was admitted anyway, and others such as Timothy Tow,
Jeffrey Khoo and Quek Suan Yew soon followed, all of which take a
very radical view of bible preservation and translation that is not
only anti-biblical, but which also contradicts the history and
doctrinal position of DBS."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: The DBS still "defends the
traditional texts." It is not "evolving into a radical KJVO group."
It strongly founds the KJB on the verbal, plenary preserved,
inerrant, infallible Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that
underlie the King James Bible. That view does not "contradict the
history and doctrinal position of DBS." Dr. Timothy Tow and Dr. Quek
Suan Yew so far as I know are not DBS members, and certainly did not
"follow" Dr. S. H. Tow in being DBS Advisory Council Members. Dr.
Jeffrey Khoo took the place of Dr. S. H. Tow as a DBS Advisory
Council Member. Dr. Tow was last listed on the DBS Advisory Council
roster in July, 2003. The roster of August, 2004 to date
has the name of Dr. Jeffrey Khoo who took Dr. S. H. Tow’s (his
uncle’s) place.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "That was what began my distancing
myself from the DBS, but it was the dishonesty of D.A. Waite himself
that ultimately led me to refuse to sign a statement that was
dictatorially forced on the Executive Committee by Waite in
contradiction to the vote of the Executive Committee the previous
year."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: If indeed the selection of Dr. S.
H. Tow to the DBS Executive Committee in 1996 "began his
distancing himself from the DBS," why was he content for six more
years to be on the DBS Executive Committee rosters of 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002? Who is being "dishonest" here? He never
said one word of discontent to me throughout those six years, nor
did he ever speak to me against Dr. S. H. Tow’s being elected to be
on the DBS Advisory Council. If he had been against Dr. Tow’s
nomination, it would not have made any difference because Dr. Tow
was voted on to the DBS Advisory Council by unanimous vote. Dr.
Cassidy did not vote against him, and even if he had, he would have
been hopelessly outvoted by the other brethren who hold Dr. Tow in
high esteem as a Chinese Christian leader from Singapore and who
said many "amens" as he presented his doctrinal and practical
position on Bible doctrine and practice.
So far as my alleged "dishonesty" and my allegedly "dictatorially
forcing on the Executive Committee" a "statement" which was "in
contradiction to the vote of the Executive Committee the previous
year," let me say the following. This is verbatim from the DBS
2002 Executive Committee Agenda, p. 5, point #11 (quoting from
the Minutes of July 18, 2001 from 9 a.m. till 12 noon):
‘A major discussion ensued over the use of the word
"inspiration" in conjunction with a translation of the Bible.
Various points of view were expressed. In conclusion of the
mater a paper ballot vote was taken on two definitive questions.
a. Do you believe any translation is "given by inspiration of
God"? i. 18--No 0--Yes 0--Abstained (100% voting No)
b. Do you think that it is technically proper to refer to any
translations as being "inspired of God."
i. 14--No 3--Yes 1--Abstained’ (82% voting No)
All I did for the next year’s meeting (2002) was to put in
the Annual DBS Questionnaire for the leaders, (referring to their
messages on the DBS platform), the following words: "I will not
refer to the King James Bible (or any other translation) as being
‘given by inspiration of God’ (God-breathed) 2 Timothy 3:16)" I did
this because we had 100% accord on that wording. Dr. Cassidy and two
other men argued strongly for saying that the King James Bible was
"inspired." I told the men that so far as I was concerned, the terms
"given by inspiration of God" and "inspired" meant the same thing.
However, at the next year’s meeting after this voting in July,
2001, which would have been in 2002, one of our DBS
Executive Committee men repeatedly referred to the KJB as being
"inspired." Dr. Thomas Strouse said he thought we had settled this
matter the year before (2001). He asked me to speak to this speaker
which I did. He had signed the Questionnaire so I asked him why he
said this in his speech about the King James Bible and why he had
written a booklet saying the same things and placed the booklet on
our DBS book tables. He said he did not believe the KJB was "given
by inspiration of God" but that it was "inspired."
So for the next meeting in July of 2003, I took the stand
with the 14 to 3 men (82% present and voting in 2001) and tightened
up this loophole, so that no speaker would ever have any question
about what was meant. I phrased the Annual DBS Questionnaire as
follows: "If I speak at DBS meetings, I will not refer to the King
James Bible (or any other translation) as being "inspired," "given
by inspiration of God" or "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16)." This
action was not "dictatorially forced" upon the leaders, but it was,
on the contrary, a vote of over 82% of the 17 leaders present and
voting by written ballot on this question. Dr. Cassidy was one of
the three who voted "yes" on question "b." He also argued with me on
the DBS platform trying to convince the audience that the King James
Bible was "inspired." This is all recorded on audio and video tape.
I told the audience that the DBS doctrinal statement denies this and
puts "inspiration" solely at the level of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek Words.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "Yes, I do believe such blatant falsehood
should be exposed. There is no excuse for such falsehood coming from
supposedly regenerate men."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: There was no "blatant falsehood"
and had there been, I would have been the first one to have exposed
it.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "Just an aside regarding what is going
on with Tow, Khoo, et al. They have now come to the point where they
seem to have adopted the "bad seed" theory of regeneration. Quek
Suan Yew has stated that he prays for the salvation of the souls of
those who do not use the KJV, implying they are not saved. My
son-in-law, and his family, use the CUV. To say that prayer is
needed for their salvation because they use the CUV is an attack on
the very regenerating power of the Lord Jesus Christ, implying that
He is unable to redeem those using the CUV (or by implication other
versions except the KJV)."
"That heresy much be exposed and eradicated from the Body of Christ.
It is a cancer that will destroy the very Gospel itself if left
unchecked."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: Though it sounds suspiciously
false, and I know very well that the Chinese CUV is based upon the
false Greek critical text of Westcott and Hort and others, I will
leave to the Drs. S. H. Tow, Timothy Tow, Jeffrey Khoo, and Quek
Suan Yew to answer for themselves on this point since I have no
direct knowledge about it.
ASKJO WROTE: "amen n amen!! i have personal interest in
the Tow-Khoo-Quek triumvirate that's wrecked the Bible-Presbyterian
movement in Singapore, n i'm grateful for the stand u've taken. nor
am i alone, as i know people in the BP movement directly affected by
the cancer n resulting schism."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: Though I have only limited
knowledge of the Bible-Presbyterian situation in Singapore, I am
certain that any such "schism" that might be there is a result of
these brethren seeking to establish Biblical truth in the face of
unbiblical falsehood. I am sure they did their best to excise the
so-called "cancer" unbiblical falsehood. If there was any "wrecking"
that was done, it was done by those who refused to take a Biblical
approach to the question of verbal plenary preservation of God’s
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words. Drs. Tow, Khoo, and Quek are sound
on these principles.
ASKJO WROTE: "btw, if u're comfortable with it, wld u let
us know what form of dishonesty was involved concerning Waite
himself that made u separate fr DBS, whether it concerned the
handling of MSS evidence or WH or readability tests or some such?
having read portions of his Defined KJB n 4-Fold Superiority, it's
hard to pinpoint where the dishonesty lies ... it's all over!"
DR WAITE’S COMMENT: There was no "dishonesty involved"
in either Dr. Cassidy’s need to "separate from DBS," or in "handling
of MSS evidence," or about "WH" (Westcott and Hort), or about
"readability tests." "Dishonesty" and "lies" are not "all over" my
book, DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE. It is filled with truth as I
understand it.
As for Dr. Cassidy’s "separation from DBS, I was one of the 82% (14
to 3) of the DBS leaders who communicated to all DBS speakers, and
to him individually, that he would not be able to say on our DBS
platform that the King James Bible (or any other translation) was
either "inspired," "given by inspiration of God," or "God-breathed."
He was not able to agree with this DBS doctrinal position and so he
refused to submit his Annual DBS Questionnaire and thus forfeited
his right to be on the DBS Executive Committee any longer.
ASKJO WROTE: "good for ur son-in-law to stand w the CUV.
it's one of the good translations available, even if it's not
TR-only (n it's certainly not KJB-based!). in order to retain their
Chinese-speaking supporters, the Singaporean disciples of Waite
avoid pointing out the differences n offer a special dispensation to
the CUV until such a time a 4-Fold Superior Chinese Bible can be
created based on the TR n Bomberg, ha! their principles can be
pretty dynamic in certain situations, it appears! [Laugh]"
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: I disagree that there are
"Singaporean disciples of Waite." They are Christian brethren who
have exercised their minds, hearts, and souls to dig into the Words
of God to come out with the same or similar truth and I have found
in my own search since 1970. They are "Singaporean disciples" of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and I praise God for them! I pray diligently that
their tribe might increase and that their Far East Bible College and
Seminary might send forth hundreds of like-minded students to all of
the countries of the world (including the United States of America)
to proclaim these truths and to disclaim all opposing errors.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "The issue that finally broke this
camel's back was over the use of the word "inspired" regarding bible
translations. At the Executive Committee meeting Waite tried to push
through a resolution that no DBS member could use the word
"inspired" to refer to any bible translation. The year before I had
presented a paper that dealt with the doctrine of derivative
inspiration. I believe translations are inspired in the derivative
sense. That is, the history of the translation is inspired history,
the promises are inspired promises, and the prophecy is inspired
prophecy. In the plenary sense a bible translation can be said to be
inspired, but not in the verbal sense. That has been the orthodox
position for several centuries, possibly for a couple of millennia."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: As clearly stated above on pages 2
and 3, I did not seek to "push through a resolution that no DBS
member could use the word ‘inspired’ to refer to any bible
translation." On the contrary, I asked the 18 DBS leaders present to
respond by secret ballot on two separate questions regarding the
doctrine of Bible inspiration. Of the 17 men present and voting on
the question of "inspiration" of Bible translations, the results
were overwhelming. By a vote of 14 to 3 (82%) the men were solidly
in favor of my own views and that of the Dean Burgon Society’s
Articles of Faith (http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/statement.htm).
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "However Waite declared, by fiat, that
no DBS member could use the word "inspired" to refer to his English
bible. I disagreed, and stood up and said so. I often hold my bible
up and declare it to be the inspired word of God. Everybody knows,
when I say that, I am not referring to the words of the KJV English,
but that the bible, by derivation, is authentic and reliable and the
word of God even if it is given by way of translation. I explained
that there is a big difference between the term "inspired" and the
much more precise (and biblical) term "given by inspiration." I
would never say my English bible was "given by inspiration." We
discussed (argued) about it for about an hour and when it because
obvious that he would not prevail, we voted that we would not use
the term "given by inspiration" when speaking or writing on behalf
of the DBS, but could use the term "inspired" in the derivative
sense. That passed and I thought the controversy was settled."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: I did not "declare by fiat, that
no DBS member could use the word ‘inspired’ to refer to his English
bible." This was decided by a ballot vote, not by "fiat." The
Executive Committee did not vote that DBS speakers or writers "could
use the term ‘inspired’ in the derivative sense." No such resolution
was made nor is it on the tape recording nor is it in the minutes of
the meeting. The only thing that was in the minutes (pp. 2-3 above)
and that was recorded, was the opinions of the 18 DBS leaders
assembled in July, 2001 at Ramsey, Minnesota. The DBS leaders never
agreed to "derivative inspiration" but included their opposition to
that false doctrine within the use of the word "inspiration"
regarding Bible translations. All three of those who believe in the
"inspiration" of the King James Bible and/or other translations are
no longer members of the DBS. They have all refused to sign the
Annual DBS Questionnaire.
DR. CASSIDY WROTE: "Much to my surprise the next year when
I got the paper to sign agreeing to the doctrinal statement of the
DBS it said that I agreed not to use either term when referring to
the English bible, and did not limit that restriction to speaking or
writing for the Society but was all inclusive suggesting to me that
I was being told what I could and could not say from my own pulpit.
It was, in my opinion, dishonest and not what we had agreed to in
the Executive Committee meeting. I refused to sign it and by so
doing gave up my seat on the Executive Committee."
DR. WAITE’S COMMENT: This is totally, clearly, and
complete false and misleading. The DBS Questionnaire (which Dr.
Jeffrey Khoo and all our DBS leaders have in their possession and
can verify the truthfulness of what follows) is very clear. It has
been used ever since this matter was settled in 2001 and
2002 by our DBS men. It does NOT tell him or any DBS Pastor
"what he could and could not say from his own pulpit." Who is being
"dishonest" here? Here is the exact verbatim transcript of question
#2 of our current DBS "Questionnaire for Prospective DBS Executive
Committee and/or DBS Advisory Council" members:
2. [ ] I AGREE, [ ]
I DO NOT AGREE--I have no problem following
unequivocally our DBS documents’ official position on
referring to the King James Bible. If I become, either a DBS
Executive member or Advisory Council member, and if I
speak at DBS meetings, I will be careful to limit my references
to the King James Bible in line with our DBS documents
such as: (1) a "true, faithful, and accurate translation" of
which we can say "This is the Word of God"[ARTICLES,
p. 3]; or (2) "The Authorized Version has been, and
continues to be, the God-honored, most [or "only"] accurate, and
best translation from the proper original language texts of the
inspired, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Word of God
for the English-speaking nations" [BIBLE
PRESERVATION, p. 7 "K"]
Since our DBS documents do NOT state or teach that
the King James Bible (or any other translation) was "God-breathed,"
"given by inspiration of God," or
"inspired,"
(2 Timothy 3:16), if I speak at DBS meetings, I will not
refer to the King James Bible (or any other translation) as
being "God-breathed,"
"given by inspiration of God," or "inspired,"
(2 Timothy 3:16)
As for the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration as taught in our DBS
Articles of Faith, I prepared all of our DBS leaders in minute
detail on this subject. I quoted extensively to each of them our DBS
position on Biblical Inspiration in two separate letters:
1. A 17-page letter dated January 5, 2001 with 586 numbered
lines for easy reference to any line needed to be referenced. Copies
are available upon request if self-addressed and stamped envelopes
are provided.
2. A 6-page letter dated February 1, 2001 outlining once
again the importance for the Dean Burgon Society to take a proper
position on the doctrine of Bible inspiration. Copies are available
upon request if self-addressed and stamped envelopes are provided.
This was not something that took Dr. Cassidy by surprise, but it was
something that had been gone over thoroughly well before the
July, 2001 meeting and the ballot vote on the two questions
mentioned on pages 2-3 above.
I trust that this has clarified many things contained in the
document concerning Dr. Thomas Cassidy and related matters.
For further clarification, you can reach me at 856-854-4747 by
phone, 856-854-2464 by FAX, BFT@BibleForToday.org by E-mail, or by
letter at Bible For Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey
08108 USA.
Sincerely yours for God’s Words,
DAW/w
Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.
President, Dean Burgon Society
|
