Trinitarian Bible Society                                                                                 December 7, 2004
Attn: Pastor W. Roy Mohon
Tyndale House
Dorset Road
London, SW19 3NN

Dear Pastor Mohon,

Greetings to you from the USA. I recently had the opportunity to read the latest Quarterly Record and found the message “Unshakeable Confidence” which you gave following the 173rd Annual General Meeting on the 19th of June this year. I read the article intently, carefully and seriously. As I read, I was encouraged greatly and only wished I had as much eloquence in communication as you and the other ministers at TBS. I read, previous to your article, where TBS desires to have some young men assist in the preaching load, and my heart was burdened to be one of those young men, as I am 33 years of age and have received a BA and an MA degree from a prominent and distinguished American university.

“Unshakeable Confidence” is a sound description of faith in the Word of God, and I would like to avow and acknowledge such assurance I have. Sola Scriptura is the foundation of every other sola. I agree when you adamantly maintain, “that Scripture must settle every controversy.” I have the same repulsion for “the dragon of relativism” which must be slain -- whose mouth must be stopped -- because the abandonment of absolute standards results in death. The serpent’s subtle “Yea hath God said?” must be affirmed with the heel.

I was glad when you confessed the “process is a mystery…. But the product is not a mystery.” You defended the written Word as not requiring abstract recollection but authoritative reading of “the open Bible before us. We can have it read to us. It is here in permanent form.” You continued, “We have an unshakeable confidence in the Scripture because its author is God, its authority is absolute and the access to it is permanent. God has preserved His Word and He will preserve His Word.”

Now the purpose of this letter is to find out from you whether the Scripture passages you quoted in your article are the very same Scripture about which you are boasting, or if you are not using the very same dragon of relativism (you wrote against) to imply that the Bible about which you brag is not in fact the one you are using as a source in your article?

I noted that you consistently quoted from the Authorized Version in your excellent defense of Scripture, then you brazenly distanced yourself from it and deliberately removed yourself from too close an association with it. After your wonderful defense of the (mystical?) Bible, you shockingly gave the disclaimer, “We are not making claims for the Authorized Version that it is perfect, because every translation of the Word of God must choose words of men to translate the original languages. We are not claiming the translation’s perfection, but why are we standing for the Authorized Version? It is for this reason: ‘Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy.’”

Brother, if it’s not perfect, then it’s not accurate. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…that the man of God may be PERFECT.” If the Authorized Version is not perfect, then it certainly cannot make any man of God perfect; so it cannot be Scripture.
Have you not eroded your credibility, shaken your confidence and destroyed the very purpose of your article? Have you not become guilty of the very sin you seek to expose? This is relativism, pure and simple. If you are going to distinguish the Authorized Version as a mere (inferior) version, compared with the forever settled Word of God, then why did you quote from the Authorized Version throughout your article as if IT was the Bible you were bragging about, when you now are revealing that a version must be looked upon as separate, distinct and inferior to the (mysterious?) preserved Word of God? You have separated the Authorized Version as distinct from the Bible of which you boast; Have you not? You have said the Bible is all-authoritative, but the Authorized Version is not.

Did you use as a source for your article on the Perfect, Preserved Word of God an imperfect translation? Why didn’t you quote from the one of which you boasted which has no mistakes but has “absolute reliability”? You have shot yourself in the foot, and now all the arguments you have given --about people’s false “interpretations” and the work of Satan undermining the authority of the Bible, and the “destructive effect” of unscriptural and contrary teachings – now all apply to yourself.

To ask you the same question you began with, “Who is your Jesus?” All it takes is one sin to disqualify the living Word. If He was not Perfect, then He is not sufficient.
Which Bible are you boasting of? Which one can I hold in my hands as “reliable”? Which one is not broken? Are you not guilty of using the same dragon of relativism? And, is it not producing the same affect in your hearers?

For example: You made a very good point to show how every word of God is significant, and how the Bible is authoritative and unbreakable “down to a single word.” However, if I am to take your word for it -- that my Authorized Version is not perfect – is not the entire book held in question? If it’s not perfect, does that not destroy the credibility of EVERY word? How do I know where the imperfections are, or how serious they are? Must I take your word for it, and have faith in you above faith in the Scripture, which the Authorized Version is? Have you not strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel? Forget grasping at ONE word’s significance if my entire Bible must be held in question as to perfection.

Let me ask you Pastor, what are you standing for? Can you give an answer --as you professed in your article -- Does the Scripture really settle every controversy for you? I ask you this because your reason for disqualifying my Bible did not come from the Bible, Greek or Hebrew. You said, “because every translation …must choose words of men to translate the original languages.” Do you see what you have just done? By that one statement, you have created a doctrine, a rule, a law, a precept whereby to determine Scripture, and your rule is extra-Biblical. The Bible never makes the same appeal, but modern “scholars” do. You just jumped outside of the Law to determine the Law. You just jumped outside of the Gospel to determine the good news, and it’s not good news at all if what we have in front of us, and what you have been quoting from is not perfect.

Would you really build a house with instruments that were imperfect? An imperfect square with 89 degrees, or a level that was off just a little? God has given us perfect laws – 360 degrees in a circle – but our Bible is imperfect?

Your new rule is first hinted at previously in the article where you state, “We understand from this that the Scriptures in the original languages have been transmitted in such a degree of purity as to make appeal to a single word possible. These documents in the original languages in our hands have verbal authenticity…” Objection! You have just stated your creed, your law, your canon, your measuring rod, your doctrine apart from Scripture! Where does the Bible make such a vast and sweeping claim? Nowhere in the Bible are original languages given any preeminence at all above other (later) languages. You have created a new rule whereby you are redefining the entire Bible! If what you stated were true, then we would read that rule in the New Testament applied to the Old Testament Scriptures – namely, that the NT Greeks needed to get back to the Hebrew OT originals – but we never find your new doctrine taught within the space of 4000 years and several different languages! Your rule is extra-Biblical and therefore heretical and is helping produce doubts in the hearts of millions today as to the reliability of the entire Bible. You are part of the problem you are seeking to expose. Can you not see this?

You stated so well yourself, that the Scripture which could not be broken, to which Jesus referred, and in which His disciples could trust was not “the manuscript in David’s handwriting” but what was accessible to them in that day. Obviously the disciples spoke a different language from David, so they were trusting in a TRANSLATION. There is a great amount of translation in the Bible itself from beginning to end, but never your assumed rule of inferiority.

Your heresy is clearly shown by the fact there is not one place in the New Testament or the whole Bible where Jesus or any other person writing by inspiration maintained that versions were inferior to originals – that is a modern lie of the devil, and you are espousing it, contrary to the revealed, written Word of God. You have created a doctrine of worship of original languages, but the Bible itself nowhere teaches this doctrine. Won’t you be true to your good profession and let the Scripture settle this controversy rather than making two extra-Biblical statements and using them to determine and in effect to undermine all of Scripture?

Towards the close of your article, you mentioned about the royalty of the soldiers of the Queen at the gates of Buckingham Palace: “Their dress was immaculate…as they played in honour of the Queen.” You said that a tear rolled down your cheek as you beheld the wonder and considered the spiritual symbolism. Would to God more tears would come down your cheeks as you consider how you have stripped the Son of God of His glory by vain and profane philosophies of sinful men who will not have a perfect Word of God to reign over them.

I pray that my attitude has been respectful and faithful, and that if I have regarded you as you have regarded my precious Bible, you will consider me good enough to quote all throughout your next eloquent discourse.

Faithful are the wounds of a friend,


Timothy Dwight Fellows Jr.

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (James 3:1)



NOTE: For a copy of the original letter from Pastor Mohon, please contact the Trinitarian Bible Society.