Rev Dr Quek Suan Yew

Questions Asked at Church Camp (2)

1. Why can Christians eat halal food but not food offered to idols?

The Bible’s teaching regarding not eating food offered to idols is very explicit. 1 Corinthians 10:19-33 (KJV), "What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." [Emphasis added] If the believer does not know that the food he had eaten was offered to idols, he has not sinned. The reason is that idols are not real gods. There is only one living and true God and He is the God of the Bible, the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. However, if he has been told that the food has been offered to idols he is not supposed to eat for the sake of faith so that his eating will not stumble anyone and cause the person to sin.

Halal food is not like food offered to idols. The reason is that there is no idol involved in making the food "halal".

2. If we adopt such practices from the people of old who were God-fearing, what is the church’s reason for adopting such practices?

This question is not very clear regarding "practices". If it is linked to question one, i.e. on food offered to idols, then the reply is that it is not a practice but a teaching from the Bible that all believers must obey. A practice is defined as part of a particular culture like Jewish culture. The church does not follow any Jewish culture. However, we draw lessons from all the practices in the Bible (for the people of Israel) because all Scripture is the Holy Word of God given to us for our learning. For example, it is the culture of the Jews to observe the Feast of Booths of Tabernacles. This was a feast to remind the children of Israel that they are strangers and sojourners on the earth with the purpose of being a living witness for Christ. Believers today do not keep the Feast of Booths to remind themselves that they are strangers and sojourners on this earth with the same purpose of being a living witness for Christ. The principle is practised without the form of booths.

3. The Bible says that we should "keep the Sabbath Day holy" and Sabbath is the 7th day of the week. Why then are we having church worship services on Sundays? Is it in disobedience to God’s law of condemnation in the 10 commandments? Even if we have worship services on Saturday, the number of people present is immaterial and not a priority. If we are truly God’s children, should we not listen and follow every word God says?

Yes, all believers are to keep the Sabbath day holy. However, the day for keeping it holy was changed to the first day of the week for the Christian church. For the nation of Israel, it was the sixth day of the week they were to keep holy. When God replaced the national witness with the ecclesiastical witness, God changed it to the first day because Christ was resurrected on the first day of the week. That is why believers call Sunday the Lord’s day. This is attested by the early church that gathered for worship on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7 (KJV), "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." To be gathered on the first day of the week for worship was also the injunction by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:2 (KJV), "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." In Revelation, it is called the Lord’s Day. Revelation 1:10 (KJV), "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet."

We have not broken the 10 Commandments when we worship the Lord on the Lord’s day. The rest of the questions is not consequential since it is God’s teaching for believers in the church to worship on the Lord’s day. There is no fear of losing numbers. God’s clear teaching is for the church to worship the Lord on the Lord’s day, also known as the first day of the week.

4. The Bible also does not say or command that we have infant baptism. Why then do we conduct infant baptism? Is it "adding to God’s Word"?

The doctrine of Infant Baptism is a biblical teaching. It is based upon the covenantal relationship God has with believers today. Those who argue that baptism is for believers who accept Christ only is in error because there is no such definition. There is a definition for believers’ baptism as deduced from the incident in Acts 8:36-37 (KJV), "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This definition for believers is accepted by all believers including those who believe in the doctrine of infant baptism. However, to limit it as the only definition of water baptism is like a person limiting the definition of circumcision as only for infants! The doctrine of circumcision was for the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham. Abraham was the first to receive the covenant of circumcision. He was to pass it on to Isaac and to Jacob who later became the nation of Israel through the multiplication of Jacob’s twelve sons. When God gave the covenant of circumcision to Abraham, it was given with both meanings intact. It has the meaning of infant circumcision which is as a sign that the children born into the nation of Israel were already part of God’s covenant and therefore ought to be circumcised. The parents’ obedience to this sign of the covenant means that they promise God to bring their child up in the fear and admonition of God according to Holy Scriptures and to also claim the covenantal promise of blessings for their child. The meaning of the adult circumcision is the believer’s public expression of their inward faith that they were believers of Jehovah, i.e. Christ. Abraham was circumcised when he was 99 years old which means that he was circumcised because of his faith in Christ (cf. Gen 17:24). Isaac was circumcised by Abraham when he was an 8 day old infant according to God’s command (cf. Gen 21:4). If a Gentile family accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour in OT times, and wanted to be identified with God’s people in Israel, then all the males, fathers and sons of all ages would have to be circumcised (both adult and infant circumcision). This is taught clearly in Exodus 12:48-49 (KJV), "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Just as the sign of the covenant of circumcision for the national witness of God’s grace and mercies in Christ has dual significance, so does the sign of the covenant of water baptism for the ecclesiastical witness. To reject the dual meaning for the covenant of water baptism is to reject the dual significance of the covenant of circumcision. Conversely, to accept one is to accept the other.

When God replaced the national witness of Israel with the ecclesiastical witness, God also replaced the sign of the covenant. God replaced the sign of circumcision for Israel with the sign of water baptism for the local church. The sign was replaced but not the significance. That is why the child of a believing parent is considered holy in the sight of God as taught in 1 Corinthians 7:13-14 (KJV), "And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." This holiness is not unto salvation but toward covenantal blessing. This was true also in OT times when God said that Israel was a holy nation. It does mean that all in Israel were believers. Salvation is always personal but the covenantal blessing after salvation always includes the family. Just like the Israelite parents in the Old Testament who circumcised their children because they were already part of the covenant, so also the Christian parents who baptize their children today. It is not to bring them into the family of God, for they are already part of the family of God because of the believing parent. Baptism of infants is the parent’s claim of the covenantal blessings that God promised all the children of a believing parent for Christ’s sake. Conversely, not to baptize a believer’s child is the parent saying to God that he does not want to claim the promises. This is the sad part. Christian parents are not made aware of this blessing and therefore they fail to claim this promise, which means that they are not aware of their covenantal responsibility. The blessing could have been bestowed upon their children if only they would claim it through the baptism of their children by water.

The passage of the Bible that teaches the replacement of the sign of the covenant with the sign of water baptism is taught in Colossians 2:11-12 (KJV), "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This is as clear as it can get from God. This passage is about the circumcision of the heart of which the circumcision of the flesh represents, just as the sign of water baptism is a reflection of Christ baptizing believers with the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless the replacement of the sign of circumcision with water baptism is clearly taught here.

The doctrine of water baptism is NOT an unbiblical teaching but a very biblical one. There is no issue of adding to God’s Word here.

5. I am a new Christian wanting to learn more about God’s Word. Could I know why we do not use other musical instruments other than organ and piano in our singing of hymns/praise and worship? Is it wrong to have drums, flutes and violin to enhance the musical aspect?

Calvary Pandan B-P Church uses only the piano and organ for worship because we need only these instruments to assist us in proper worship. As the congregation grows, singing as one body becomes more difficult. This is the purpose of musical instruments. If there is a blackout or no pianist available, we will continue to worship by singing acapella. The danger of having more instruments is the problem and fear of distraction. The worship is from the worshippers of God whereby God is the focus and not the worshippers. Instruments like the drums, flute and violin can become a distraction. If the organist or pianist play in a manner that is distracting, he/she will be counselled. If they refuse to be counselled they will be asked to stop playing for the church. The organist and pianist must play in such a way that they become "invisible". If they play in a manner that draws attention to themselves, they are trying to rob God of His glory. This is a sin.

The more instruments there are, the greater the danger. It is therefore not wrong per se to use drums or flute or violin or any other musical instrument but it is not expedient in our context. In Singapore, the use of drums and many of these instruments are not only not expedient but it has the problem of association. These musical instruments are used by Charismatic and neo-evangelical churches for the promotion of the end time one world church of Satan and the Antichrist. For this reason, conservative churches like Calvary Pandan BPC will abstain from all appearance of evil. It is sad and tragic that some B-P churches have compromised in their form of worship by using these instruments to sing contemporary Christian music and songs. However, it is not surprising as it is a reflection of their theological demise and down-grade of God’s Word because these churches also believe that the Bible has mistakes. When churches have a low view of God’s Word, they have a low view of God. Man cannot separate the Word of God from God. To attack one is to attack the other. The symptom of this attack on God and His perfect Word is in their man-centred worship with these musical instruments.

6. A co-worker notes that you are a Christian and asks you to join a lunch time prayer meeting. Not knowing at that point what sort of Christian the co-worker is, what response should one take in that circumstance? If it is later on ascertained that the prayer meeting is "non-fundamental", what would be the appropriate response?

The first thing to do in this Christian climate of ecumenism is to ask which church the co-worker comes from. If one is not sure about what the doctrines of the church are, then ask the person questions like: does your church believe in tongues speaking; do they support the Navigators or Campus Crusade for Christ or the Varsity Christian Fellowship (which are well known para-church groups that are members of the World Council of Churches).

If one is already in such a group and then finds out that it is not fundamental, then graciously tell them that you are leaving and give them the biblical reasons for your departure. This is a good opportunity to teach them the truth which their church would probably not teach.

7. Why do some B-P Churches forbid women from speaking at their Annual Congregation Meeting? Is it a biblical practice? If the answer is yes (i.e. women are to keep silence in public), what about women in public prayer (e.g. at prayer meeting) or teaching or sharing a passage of Scripture?

The reason some B-P churches forbid women from speaking at their Annual Congregation Meeting (ACM) is because of the teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV), "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." These churches understand this as a norm that is unyielding and cannot be broken and therefore no exception can be made. They apply this to all public meetings and not only to worship services which is the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is not what we believe in Calvary Pandan BPC. Our belief if also based upon what we have learned from the late Rev Timothy Tow. Rev Tow’s position is also Calvin’s position. Calvin’s comment on the above verses is instructive and right. He said, "It appears that the Church of the Corinthians was infected with this fault too, that the talkativeness of women was allowed a place in the sacred assembly, or rather that the fullest liberty was given to it. Hence he forbids them to speak in public, either for the purpose of teaching or of prophesying. This, however, we must understand as referring to ordinary service, or where there is a Church in a regularly constituted state; for a necessity may occur of such a nature as to require that a woman should speak in public; but Paul has merely in view what is becoming in a duly regulated assembly." That is why in the past, we had lady missionaries who went to small towns in Malaysia bringing the gospel to all. When a church was founded, the lady missionary was the speaker at the Sunday worship service until such time when the men within the church matured in spirituality and could take over. It is important to note that these lady missionaries were not ordained.

The above answer also answers the remaining questions. As long as the church has only male leaders as her highest body, which is the Board of Elders, the other ministries can have women overseeing them such as fellowship groups and Sunday School or Junior Worship. However, whenever there are men in the ministries, they should grow spiritually and become godly leaders and examples to God’s people.