The Reply of Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.

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)

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)

Sincerely yours for God’s Words,

DAW/w

Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.

President, Dean Burgon Society