Phinehas David Yeoh’s Lies

“I mean, okay, I’ll give you an example. You say that you can’t, it’s difficult for you to convey pastor’s messages because it’s related to his calling and ministry. Alright. Given the situation, so if I were, I put myself, if I were in your shoe, what do I do? I would just convey, alright, and state it as a matter of fact. It does not mean that I pretend to believe, or something like that if I’m still not convicted. I can just state the matter, I mean presentation of what we have received from pastor to the dear brethren would mean that we should faithfully convey. It does not mean that, er, just because I convey, er, you know, I’m actually deceiving others that I believe it. It need not to be that way, you know? “Because, this is what I have received, this is what I am conveying. I just want to be faithful to the message. Alright, as to the matter concerning his special calling and ministry, you know I’m still waiting upon the Lord.”

“Okay, so I give you another example. When we went to some of these places in Caribbean and Central America, some of the pastors question us. He said, “You guys, you don’t even know whether…” I mean, they asked Zechariah, “So are you saved or not?” They asked me am I saved or not? And Zechariah [Tan] say, “I’m still seeking assurance.” Immediately the assistant pastor of these er – Alex Tejada and his daughter say, “You don’t even know you’re saved and you want to talk about salvation!” So in the end I have to tell Zechariah that we don’t tell people that we are not saved. Or, you know, we don’t tell people that we are not sure! We just tell them we are still waiting upon the Lord. And that is a bliblical answer. You say, “Ah?! You’re still not sure?” So you know, the assistant pastor of (this is another Alex): “You are still not sure?” “We didn’t say we are not sure, we are saying that we are waiting for God to give us the assurance. And assurance does not come like that, you know, as you all believe! Because that is the Arminian way! Assurance come from the Holy Spirit – it is up to the sovereignty of God!”

This article is a follow-on from the previous post entitled ‘Zephaniah Soh’s Jesuitry’. As a missionary and representative of The Westminster Tradition overseas and the main preacher in our home congregation (at least latterly), I had always struggled with the concept of ‘conveying pastor’s messages’. The preacher was supposed to be faithful. To the Scriptures, but above all, to Elijah Chacko. But what if the two do not appear to tally? Well, either the conveyor must have mistaken Elijah’s meaning, or else their own understanding of the Bible is questionable and they need to submit themselves to Elijah’s more perfect understanding. I could never accept this and so faced a second conundrum. Believing I could never accept all of Elijah’s teachings, was I then to (1) to convey his whole sermons anyway, or (2) to convey those portions I could endorse, or (3) to draw from other wells which Elijah approved of? The first I could not in good conscience do. The second was an impossible minefield in which I didn’t linger long. Some of Elijah’s teachings were so pervasive that removing them was demoralising, conspicuous and would inevitably arouse Elijah’s anger once he perceived that his ‘pure doctrines’ were being mutilated. So I chose option (3) and preached increasingly from John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Robert M. McCheyne and so on. Eventually, I went to the Word of God itself, of which the Westminster Confession says, ‘All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them’ (WCOF 1646: Ch1, Sec 7). I had never felt more edified. It was sweet to finally draw from the fountainhead of truth. But in doing this I had implicitly criticised Elijah, crossed a line and was therefore stripped of all responsibility. This was done just days before (20th Oct 2018) by Phinehas and Zephaniah in a private meeting. The attitude of Hananiah Chew, formerly the other elder in the church was more or less ubiquitous. I quote from an e-mail received from Hananiah on 5th Oct 2018:

‘Daniel, I find it hard to have combined [worship]… you return from six years of mission trips to allege that you have no messages to offer us… You then have to manufacture your own messages for some of the Sabbaths. I personally can feel the instant quenching of the blessed Holy Spirit when I depart even an iota from Mr Chacko’s message… My family is young, and whilst they are small, they cannot appreciate when you are conveying faithfully or when you mix Mr Chacko’s message, Gospel and wisdom with your own. There is much we could learn from pastor Asa, who tried to mongrelise Mr Chacko’s Gospel and wisdom with his own [referring to his slow and painful death from a spinal tumour which was regarded as a judgment from God for failing to align himself completely with Elijah Chacko]. As you have no message to convey of Mr Chacko and neither will you convey Mr Chacko’s messages exclusively, it is pointless for my family to return to Oaktree Cottage to have combined worship. Perhaps in a decade or two we may begin our combined worship again.‘

This then is the context of Phinehas’ advice to me. And this is how Phinehas justifies preaching things which his own conscience bears witness against. What person would preach a sermon and then say that he didn’t believe it? Who could trust and admire such a man? And who would ever listen to such a preacher again? To state as fact something that you believe to be false is the very definition of a lie. To justify such a lie believing that thereby you are doing God a service is Jesuitic. Phinehas engages in wanton deception and calls it ‘faithfulness’. This is the character of those of whom Paul prophecied – who depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. For they ‘speak lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron‘ (1 Tim 4:1-2).

A second example is then given. Sometimes people want to know whether Phinehas and Zechariah believe themselves to be justified. They don’t. So Zechariah is evasive and shifts the focus from justification to assurance. But Phinehas is still not happy because even Zechariah’s claim to be seeking assurance  has a hollow ring to it and is vulnerable to criticism. So he proposes an even better deception: ‘We are waiting for God to give us assurance.’ But if they are still dead in their sins, then what sort of assurance do they expect to receive of God? Therefore, to thoroughly confound their antagonist, Phinehas recommends a counter-attack: accuse them of having an Arminian understanding of assurance. No doubt Phinehas would consider that he is being wise as a serpent (Matt 10:16). But no. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish (Jam 3:15). If Phinehas speaks like a serpent, it is a very particular serpent that he resembles (and not a harmless one either), for Satan ‘is a liar, and the father of it‘ (John 8:44b).