40 Breaches of Confession

‘The Old Testament in Hebrew… and the New Testament in Greek… being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.’

If your ‘presiding pastor’ was raised up to engage in furious controversies, even refuting ‘the False Prophet’, how is it that he neither learned Hebrew and Greek himself, nor encouraged anybody in his ministry to learn these languages in order to ‘finally appeal unto them’? If his calling was to ‘restore all things’, then why did he study only in English, knowing that the Authorized Version is (as is every translation) subject to error and not immediately inspired by God?

‘The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.’

This article is oft repeated within The Westminster Tradition, but rarely put into practice. When you have a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, do you search the Scriptures yourself, or simply defer to your leaders? Is your motto, “Presiding pastor said it, I believe it, that settles it?”

‘The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruptions of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.’

When you have suffered manifold temptations, been chastised by God for former sin, or come to know the corruption and deceitfulness of your own heart, were you led to believe that it proves you are not yet justified? If the Westminster Divines believed this, why did they describe these as the experiences of God’s ‘own children’? Also, why did they choose the word ‘chastise’ [see 1 Cor 11:32; 2 Cor 6:9; Heb 12:5-11; Rev 3:19] over ‘judge’? Were they presumptuous?

In this life, corruption remains even in the regenerate. Remaining corruption is not proof that a person is unregenerate (as is often asserted in an implied way in The Westminster Tradition).

‘Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.’

In practice, your ‘presiding pastor’ amended this point. He did not teach the same as Thomas Hooker (see ‘Thomas Hooker and Conversion’ by Iain Murray) or the Westminster Divines, but implied that by ‘submitting to the law’ we could prepare our hearts for Christ. Do you believe that by welcoming humiliations, slaps and ‘blastings’, you are making progress towards salvation? Are you proud that you have endured ‘the application of the law’ for so many years? Then you are no closer to the truth than the Roman Catholics and the Arminians, who believe in ‘prevenient’ or ‘resistible’ grace! God prepares the heart. We have no part in it – we cannot even cooperate.

‘By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein… But the principle acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.’

Your ‘presiding pastor’ taught that we must WAIT upon the Holy Spirit for justification. The Westminster Confession teaches that we must ACCEPT, RECEIVE and REST upon CHRIST ALONE. Waiting for forgiveness of sins is unbelief, not faith. If we are sincere, Christ will not delay. Among the proof texts is Acts 16:31 – ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou SHALT be saved’.

The Westminster Confession teaches that weak faith can be saving faith. In one of their proof texts (Matt 6:30), Jesus reproves His hearers as having ‘little faith’ – yet says their heavenly Father knoweth their needs. If they were not already sons, He would not be their Father. Do you believe that you cannot be saved when your faith is weak? Then you reject this article. It is also taught by some within The Westminster Tradition, that if a person is justified they will certainly know it (will have full assurance). The Westminster Divines would disagree.

It is not appropriate to demand that people confess their private sins in public prayer meetings. These should be confessed privately to God in the closet. But when our sin is against another, there should be confession to that brother, with reconciliation (James 5:16). ‘Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Matt 5:23-24).’ 

(See comments for points 11 & 12)

Anybody in The Westminster Tradition who founds their assurance upon God’s promises is labelled as presumptuous. Anybody who founds their assurance upon inward evidence of grace is likewise labelled as presumptuous. The Westminster Divines would not have treated immature assurance with such disdain.

This is contrary to the teaching of some of the Westminster Tradition missionaries who say that if you are justified you will certainly know it. True believers may not be certain that they are called and elect. Your ‘presiding pastor’ used 2 Pet 1:10 in the exact opposite manner to the Westminster Divines. Peter wrote to believing brethren, encouraging them to diligence: they were called and elect, but they needed to make these things sure, lest their doubts rob them of peace and joy of heart, love and thankfulness to God, and strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience – all things which seem sorely lacking within The Westminster Tradition.

Have you been taught in The Westminster Tradition that the fifth commandment was actually your duty to God (i.e. the ten commandments are divided 5/5 and not 4/6?) This is not what the Westminster Confession says. The Westminster Tradition is full of children who are deeply disrespectful to their fathers and their mothers. Some of them have even been encouraged to denounce and ridicule their parents. The primary meaning of ‘honour thy father and thy mother’ is literal. No amount of honour given to a preacher will make up for dishonour shown to our own parents.

Almost the entire chapter on the Law of God in the Westminster Confession of Faith, deals with the uses of the law to true believers. In The Westminster Tradition, is the law not regarded as being almost only of use to the unjustified (as a schoolmaster)? If by the law you discover the sinful pollutions of your nature, heart and life, are you not then directed to believe you are unconverted? This is not what the Westminster Divines taught here.

Did you ever obey Elijah Chacko’s commands solely because they came from him and not because you believed they were in God’s Word? Did you tell yourself that obeying him was itself a matter of conscience? Then you destroyed true liberty of conscience and your reason also! Some of you have such an absolute and blind obedience that you have become slaves to man. A man who declared, “I do not trust any of you, but you must implicitly trust in me,” is not a man who believes in Christian liberty, and liberty of conscience.

Do you, upon pretence of Christian liberty and being in the ‘one true church’, curse your enemies, divorce your spouses, disown your parents, speak evil of your brethren or covet after that which is your neighbour’s?

Have you ever prayed that God would curse Lee Kuan Yew, or Narendra Modi, Queen Elizabeth II, President Biden, or any lawful civil power? Then you resist the ordinance of God. If presiding pastor upheld this portion of the Westminster Confession, he never would have encouraged us to imprecate violently against our monarchs, presidents or prime ministers.

The proof text (1 Tim 2:1) clearly states that ‘supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority.’ Why then are you praying down curses upon your kings and upon many that are in authority? The Westminster Divines wrote this in the days of Charles I, in the midst of the English Civil War (1642-1651) – they were not sympathetic to the king. But they knew they should supplicate, pray, intercede and even give thanks for him. How different the practice in The Westminster Tradition!

The importance of this cannot be overemphasised (see Mr Thomas Manton’s ‘Epistle To The Reader’). He says, ‘The devil… striketh… at family duties… with the more success, because the institution is not so solemn, and the practice not so seriously and conscientiously regarded as it should be, and the omission is not so liable to notice and publick censure.’ Do you have daily family worship? Your ‘presiding pastor’ was devilish in that he sought to prevent fathers conducting worship in their own households. He kept the missionaries, who should have set an example, away from their families for months at a time. Your ‘presiding pastor’ undermined the family structure, condemning those who sought to spend daily time with their households for being ‘family-centric’. His hypocrisy was made worse by the fact that he had once printed Thomas Manton’s Epistle as a tract for distribution.

Though it is not my desire to sling mud as we all fail to keep the sabbath in letter and spirit, I have observed that your ‘presiding pastor’ brazenly rewrote the rulebook for himself. He would often spend significant portions of the sabbath watching television, even shifting meeting times to accommodate live football matches. By profaning the sabbath himself, he led others in sin. Those young students from The Westminster Tradition studying in London were given green cards to treat Sunday like a normal work-day. The Sabbath is one day in seven. The other six are for work. I commiserate with many people (especially students) who felt compelled to work on the Sabbath because they were expected to spend so much time midweek attending meetings.

On 21^st Dec 2011, I vowed in the presence of all gathered in Cameron Highlands, Flat 18:4, to ‘obey when pastor charges or commands me to do anything’. This was an unlawful oath, yet it pleased Elijah, who ratified it. Eliezer Pandey was also forward to remind me of my oath at a later date. I’m very sure I’m not the first person who has vowed something which was above their ability and resolve to perform. I should add that though I doubted its validity, I was nevertheless given grace to keep it until I could travel to Teaneck in 2018 and procure release. But it brought me into great spiritual bondage and was not pleasing to God.

Wedding vows are lawful because the parties vow to do that which is already commanded them in Scripture. Your ‘presiding pastor’ was against wedding vows and actively encouraged married couples to violate them. A common excuse for divorce in The Westminster Tradition is that it would be spiritually detrimental to the individual to remain in wedlock. But The Westminster Confession is clear about oaths, that they are not to be violated, ‘although made to heretics, or infidels’. Do not many traditional wedding vows contain the promise, ‘for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health’? It is a Roman teaching that faith is not to be kept with heretics. In this point, your ‘presiding pastor’ has more in common with the church of Antichrist than the Assembly meeting in Westminster.

(See comments on point 22)

The entire financial setup in The Westminster Tradition in Singapore and Malaysia is designed to fraudulently evade payment of tax. For this reason, your ‘presiding pastor’ operated a cash economy and used private individuals’ bank accounts rather than a central Westminster Tradition account. He clearly didn’t believe in this article.

Are you married? Are you trying to have children? Marriage was ordained FOR the increase of mankind. Are you defrauding your spouse sexually (1 Cor 7:5)? Paul commanded that couples remain sexually intimate except it be with consent for a time – and then they were to come together again, lest Satan tempt them. How is this compatible with missionaries being sent away from their wives for months on end? How is this compatible with husbands and wives living in different countries? How is it compatible with the appalling lack of privacy and time that couples had together?

The Westminster Divines gave only two grounds for divorce: adultery, or irremediable desertion. Have you been encouraged to divorce for another reason? Then whoever advised you is amending this article. Have you divorced for any reason besides adultery or desertion? Then your divorce is invalid and you must return to your spouse. Corrupt men invent corrupt reasons for divorce.

But Elijah claimed to have a monopoly on the truth (yes, he did – I heard him with my own two ears: see also TJT 14 Nov 2010, TJT 17 Sep 2012 etc), and you all seem to believe that The Westminster Tradition is the purest Church under heaven. Are you perfect in doctrine and life? Humble yourselves and confess that even unbelievers are disgusted by some of the scandals amongst you! Wrong doctrine leads to wrong practice – so if your practice is corrupt, is it unfeasible that your doctrine is corrupt likewise?

In his leaflet, your ‘presiding pastor’ rightly criticised the 1903 amendments. The Reformers were right – the Papacy IS the Antichrist. Why then did your ‘presiding pastor’ himself alter the entire doctrine, inventing a theory that the Antichrist is a spirit? Why do you all spend far more time accusing your brethren of having the antichrist spirit than you do denouncing popery? In a lesser sense, anybody who exalts themselves in the Church against Christ, is an antichrist. What about a person who claims to have a monopoly on the truth; to have restored all things; to have a greater anointing than any other man living (or dead, since the Apostle Paul); to be the harbinger to Christ’s Second Coming etc etc? Who liked to be addressed as ‘thee’ and ‘thy’, as ‘the anointed servant’ etc? Who slapped his own missionaries and would never do a menial task (as opposed to Christ Who washed His disciples’ feet)? Who implied that anybody who departed from him could not be saved?

Have you in The Westminster Tradition sought to relieve your poor brethren; have you taken great care to ensure your hospitalised and imprisoned members are regularly visited? Do you overlook the feeble? Why did your ‘presiding pastor’ regulate the communion of saints so jealously such that nobody would dare to visit brethren locally or overseas (or even their own ageing parents) without his direct approval?

Why then did your ‘presiding pastor’ say to the Singapore brethren, “All your money belongs to me! I gave you the doctrines!” Why did he so many times instruct brethren to buy cars or houses, to open and shut down businesses etc? Why did he instruct wives to go out to work and jealously check that every individual was giving a full tithe? Obviously he believed he had a right to infringe upon the titles and properties of others.

Why were most baptismal candidates unhappy unless they were personally baptised by your ‘presiding pastor’? Another baptism was considered somehow second rate. Your ‘presiding pastor’ said many times that Christ sent him not to baptise… but then he was jealous and would not suffer others to do it instead. The Westminster Divines would have resisted this strenuously.

Baptism isn’t ‘into pastor’s ministry’, but into the visible Church. It is not only a sign, but also a seal of the individual’s ingrafting into Christ. Adults should be baptised on profession of faith (Acts 8:37). Why then do you in The Westminster Tradition baptise people who make no profession of saving faith?

The Westminster Divines were very plain that infants are to be baptized (in infancy). Why then is this ordinance neglected and some children were baptised well after infancy and others not at all? Baptism has replaced circumcision, which was carried out within the first few days of a child’s life. This is not an indifferent ‘take it or leave it’ article!

Why then do you neglect it and not baptise your children swiftly? Do you not believe the Westminster Confession of Faith?

So why did your ‘presiding pastor’ rebaptise people who joined his ministry from other churches? Remembering that ‘the efficacy does not depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it’, what was invalid about the first? Were they not baptised in the Names of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?

Why do those in The Westminster Tradition who actually profess to be unsaved (and therefore who according to their own profession cannot be true believers and in communion with Christ) take the Lord’s Supper? How was it that your ‘presiding pastor’ would rebuke the congregation for being unregenerate for the duration of a conference and then let those same people take the Lord’s Supper at the end? The Westminster Divines wouldn’t have suffered it.

Only those who are justified can receive all the benefits of His death. So again, why do most people attend the Lord’s Supper when in public they’re lamenting that they’re not yet justified?

What a way to finish a conference! By coming unworthily and being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord to your own damnation?

In all my years in The Westminster Tradition, I observed Elijah Chacko’s arbitrary rule, rather than a system of regulated church discipline involving the elected officers giving a public admonition, then publicly suspending a person from the Lord’s Supper and finally excommunicating them. People were shunned for reasons which other people could only guess, hearings were rigged and those being disciplined were often not even told who their accusers were. The system of Church discipline in the churches of the Westminster Divines would have been clearly codified. ‘The officers’ means elected officers – those appointed by the congregation. The Westminster Divines were for the most part Presbyterian and in that system congregations appoint their own elders and call pastors to minister to them.

They obviously weren’t expecting a harbinger who would announce His coming. Do we really believe that Elijah Thomas Chacko repudiated any form of amendment and subscribed to the ‘said creed’, the Westminster Confession of Faith?