Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism
Republished with permission (and unedited) from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (The document posted at Central’s website within the last couple of weeks.)
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
To be an evangelical is to be centered upon the gospel. To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines. We are both evangelicals and Fundamentalists according to these definitions. We all believe that, as ecclesial movements, both evangelicalism and Fundamentalism have drifted badly from their core commitments. In the case of evangelicalism, the drift began when self-identified neo-evangelicals began to extend Christian fellowship to those who clearly rejected fundamental doctrines. This extension of fellowship represented a dethroning of the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. It was a grievous error, and it has led to the rapid erosion of evangelical theology within the evangelical movement. At the present moment, some versions of professing evangelicalism actually harbor denials of the gospel such as Open Theism or the New Perspective on Paul. We deny that the advocates of such positions can rightly be called evangelical.
On the other hand, we also believe that some Fundamentalists have attempted to add requirements to the canons of Christian fellowship. Sometimes these requirements have involved institutional or personal loyalties, resulting in abusive patterns of leadership. Other times they have involved organizational agendas. They have sometimes involved the elevation of relatively minor doctrines to a position of major importance. In some instances, they have involved the creation of doctrines nowhere taught in Scripture, such as the doctrine that salvation could not be secured until Jesus presented His material blood in the heavenly tabernacle. During recent years, the most notorious manifestation of this aberrant version of Fundamentalism is embodied in a movement that insists that only the King James version of the Bible (or, in some cases, its underlying Greek or Hebrew texts) ought be recognized as the perfectly preserved Word of God.
We regard both of these extremes as equally dangerous. The evangelicalism of the far Left removes the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The Fundamentalism of the far Right adds to the gospel as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neither extreme is acceptable to us, but because we encounter the far Right more frequently, and because it claims the name of Fundamentalism, we regard it as a more immediate and insidious threat.
Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.
We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.
We oppose anti-separatist evangelicalism, hyper-fundamentalism, revivalism, and new-image Fundamentalism. We wish to reclaim authentic Fundamentalism, to rebuild it, and to strengthen it. For us that reclamation involves not only working against the philosophy of broad evangelicalism (which assaults us from outside), but also working against those versions of Fundamentalism that subvert the Christian faith.
On the other hand, these positions do not exhaust the evangelical options. Conservative evangelicals have reacted against the current erosion of evangelicalism by refocusing attention upon the gospel, including its importance as a boundary for Christian fellowship. These conservative evangelicals have become important spokespersons against current denials of the gospel, and they have also spoken out against trends that remove the gospel from its place of power in transforming lives (e.g., the church growth and church marketing movements).
Certain differences do still exist between historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Fundamentalists, in contrast to Conservative evangelicals, tend to align more with dispensationalism and cessationism. Fundamentalists tend to react against contemporary popular culture, while many conservative evangelicals embrace it. Perhaps most importantly, Fundamentalists make a clean break with the leadership of anti-separatist evangelicals, while conservative evangelicals continue to accommodate (or at least refuse to challenge) their leadership.
Because of these differences, we do not believe that complete cooperation with conservative evangelicalism is desirable. Nevertheless, we find that we have much more in common with conservative evangelicals (who are slightly to our Left) than we do with hyper-Fundamentalists (who are considerably to our Right), or even with revivalistic Fundamentalists (who are often in our back yard). In conservative evangelicals we find allies who are willing to challenge not only the compromise of the gospel on the Left, but also the pragmatic approach to Christianity that typifies so many evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.
We wish to be used to restate, refine, and strengthen biblical Fundamentalism. The process of restatement includes not only defining what a thing is, but also saying what it is not. We find that we must point to many versions of professing Fundamentalism and say, “That is not biblical Christianity.” We do not believe that the process of refinement and definition can occur without such denials. The only way to strengthen Fundamentalism is to speak out against some self-identified Fundamentalists.
We also see a need to speak out against the abandonment of the gospel by the evangelical Left, the reducing of the gospel’s importance by the heirs of the New Evangelicalism, and the huckstering of the gospel by pragmatists, whether evangelicals or Fundamentalists. On the other hand, while we may express disagreement with aspects of conservative evangelicalism (just as we may express disagreement with one another), we wish to affirm and to strengthen the activity of conservative evangelicals in restoring the gospel to its rightful place.
The marks of a strong Fundamentalism will include the following:
- A recommitment to the primacy and proclamation of the gospel.
- An understanding that the fundamentals of the gospel are the boundary of Christian fellowship.
- A focus on the importance of preaching as biblical exposition.
- An emphasis upon progressive sanctification understood as incremental spiritual growth.
- An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.
- An understanding of Christian leadership primarily as teaching and serving.
- A commitment to teaching and transmitting the whole system of faith and practice.
- An exaltation of the centrality of the local congregation in God’s work.
These are features of an authentic Fundamentalism that we all feel is worth saving. These features describe the kind of Fundamentalism that we wish to build. Their absence in either Fundamentalism or other branches of evangelicalism constitutes a debasing of Christianity that we intend to oppose.
- 51 views
[Greg Linscott] Becky,There go you crazy fundamentalists again - Why can’t we all just get along ;)?
No two brand of Swiss chocolate compare perfectly in texture, flavor, or quality. Besides, Hershey’s has been, without question, the preeminent chocolate brand since it was introduced. Furthermore, we shouldn’t have to go to Switzerland to get chocolate for s’mores- Hershey’s is available and accessible to the common man. You can have you elitist Euro-chocolate. As for me, if it was good enough for Milton, it’s good enough for me!
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Susan R]Susan, the KJVO position has to do with what the scriptures teach concerning themselves and how we today receive the truth of God and prove its reliability. It has to do with how we know the Gospel is true historically as based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have regularly preached and taught that the resurrection of Christ is the most well evidenced fact of historical antiquity based upon historiography which includes the reliability of the the thousands of manuscripts and textual analysis. All this relies on the treating of scripture as a received book with historical characteristics and the normal processes of history research. The KJVO doctrine and assertions take the scriptures away from historical analysis and attempt to establish them on a non provable event or events of divine intervention of inspiration. In so doing they remove the facts of Christianity from the arena of human history and seek to denigrate the historical evidence of textual criticism and therefore the historical foundations of Christianity. In other words the very basis of Christianity is undermined by the KJVO position. This is not a choice like clothing, media, music or blogging on a website. This involves the very doctrine of Bibliology. It involves what the Bible is, how we have received it, how and why it can be trusted, and how we know about God, Christ, and salvation through special revelation.[Bob T.] Also, in your post you are giving a quote from Susan R, your site administrator. She appears to be offended by the word heresy in this regard and some other statements. According to her statement on another thread a few months ago, she holds to the KJVO position and attends a KJVO church (not KJV preferred). However, she then claims that the use by others of other than the KJV does not bother her and that her church allows it. That’s nice but is it not very inconsistent.It is not inconsistent, because one can hold to a conviction without placing the same demand on others or making it a separation issue. I also have come to other conclusions in my faith and practice about clothing, media, music, holidays, family life, etc… that are matters of conviction and preference. IOW, they are a conviction for us as a family or me in particular, but they are not used as a matter of fellowship with others or a measure of spirituality. I understand that others make different choices in good conscience before God, or I wouldn’t be participating at Sharper Iron, much less be part of the team.
BTW, our family attends a different church now, but church leadership can have convictions without making it a doctrinal issue for the congregation. For instance, the pastor can homeschool or his wife and daughters wear dresses, but he doesn’t necessarily have to make that a criteria for membership or fellowship, and he may in a message, on a website or blog, or in some other way define or explain to the congregation how and why he reached those conclusions for himself and his family. But that information doesn’t in and of itself comprise a demand for others to make the same choices.
I’m not offended by the word ‘heresy’ when it is applied to those who make these kinds of issues a test of salvation or spirituality. But the broad brush soaking in the invective bucket needs to be left alone. It doesn’t do anything to further the conversation or promote understanding to call a diverse group of individuals ignorant and unGodly for sharing a similar belief on whether or not God preserved His Word, and basically it’s the same trick with a different dog.
It is the position of most all Fundamentalist and Evangelical scholars that the KJVO position is wrong and absolutely contrary to all evidence regarding history, textual criticism, and translation. To them, it is so obviously wrong, and the arguments for the KJVO position so convoluted, and contrary to reality, that they see more than just sincere differences in some of those who hold the position. Those advocating the position often have limited education, and have not been heavily involved in textual criticism and translation. Most all are simply not scholars.
The word heresy is used regarding any main teaching that is contrary to scripture and to the history of orthodoxy of a doctrine. Bibliology is a main foundational doctrine. It is possible for a person to be heretical on a doctrine but not apostate. In other words they still believe the Gospel and are saved. As the Central Seminary Ethos statements indicates, The Fundamentalism that advocates such doctrine as the KJVO position is dangerous to Christianity.
I hope your family has found a good Christian fellowship that is not advocating the KJVO position. Please read my post to Aaron where I differentiate between the KJVO and KJVP positions.
You are right on the mark with these three classifications not being the same as my earlier attempt with ABC. I would agree with your linking the earlier tax with this present analysis. Thanks for helping me with my thinking! Shalom!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
A CORRECTION: on post above. It should read KJVP = most who have various views in which they prefer the KJV. Some who by implication are really KJVO though denying it.
Also you stated:
None of the KJVOs I know personally believe that.Speaking of KJVO and post apostolic inspiration.
You have had extensive debate regarding preservation with RPittman on SI. He is KJVO and holds to a perfect KJV. There can be no theory of a perfect canon of scripture that is KJV or any other translation without a post apostolic divine protection that by definition is the same as that inspiration and protection from error given the original authors for the original manuscripts. Every KJVO I know, by definition, holds to a perfect and pure Bible as found in the KJV. That is the very essence of the movement and KJVO is the term used to describe those who hold to such a position. I do not know where you are suddenly coming up with this revised definition of KJVO but that term is used as I have used it by every faculty member at Central and by every book that speaks to this debate. Please note the title of the best book on this subject. It is: KING JAMES ONLYISM - A NEW SECT. by James D. Price. He handles all this in his book “King James Onlyism - A New Sect.” He is an eminent scholar and was Executive Editor and chairman of the review committee of the “New King James Version.”
Again, this term is contrasted to the term KJVP which is King James Version preferred. Kevin Bauder uses these terms and contrasts these positions here on SI. There is the KJVO Ruckman position that expressly speaks of divine inspiration of translation and correcting the Greek and Hebrew by the KJV. The other KJVO positions do not all expressly speak of inspiration but their position makes it implicit. You cannot have perfect and pure preservation or translation without having divine inspiration protecting from error. Thats the essence of the KJVO position and problem.
I am confused as to your statements on this matter. As I recall the definitions of KJVO and KJVP used on all other SI threads have been as I have used them here. Some have questioned that the term KJVP can include some who are actually KJVO. Other than that there has been no question on SI of what the doctrinal position of a KJVO person was. I am also taken back by Susan Rs approach to this matter. This thread was having a coherent discussion regarding several matters to do withe the Central Ethos statement. The KJVO position came up and both Jeff Straub and Kevin Bauder spoke to it, and those who espouse it, in very direct and strong terms. I agree with their statements. I and some others got involved in the discussion. Then Susan, a site administrator, gets involved and makes the discussion a personal application of offense. Then you get involved and ignore Straub and Bauder and name me for using the word heresy. Well, it involves the doctrine of Bibliology and a position that is spoken of as dangerous. It does not require a thread discussion or writing of a dissertation on the word to know it is properly used here. Several books on the subject use the term. Others who had been on the KJVO side of the issue raised objections and issues but did not make it a personal offense issue. The language and terms used here were acceptable to all in the discussion. Then Susan seeks to post and give me an answer and likens the issue to her choice of clothing, music, and other small life choices which are which she sees as other personal preferences not worth separating over. She then uses language denigrating the use of the term heresy She obviously does not understand the issues here. Pastors, teachers, and Theologians were involved in discussing this subject. It is an important subject. I am thankful for the strong and open statements made by Bauder and Straub on this fundamentalist movement. I am thankful for the strong statement and position of the Central Ethos statement. It reflects a strong backbone and willingness to speak the truth. It is hoped some will listen, learn, and turn from the error of their ways. A false doctrine of Bibliology that is a danger to Christianity is worth separating over.
1. God inspired every word. 2. God preserved every word. 3. The KJV is the preserved word of God for the English speaking people. This requires divine preservation that involves divine superintendance that protects from error, which is inspiration. Every book I have read on the controversy so defines the KJVO position.If you see an attack on inspiration here you are reading into it. Though there are those who link inspiration and preservation, I am not aware of many who link them by saying “KJV is preserved because it has been re-inspired during the translation process” or some variation of that.
Just to help you see the possibilities. Here’s one way you can hold to an orthodox view of inspiration and still believe in word perfect preservation in the KJV (which I do not believe in, by the way).
- God inspired each book of Scripture (perfectly of course) once and only once
- He miraculously or providentially preserved each of these books word for word (all kinds of ideas on how that happened, as far a I can tell. Some believe the text is routinely corrupted but re-purified through the efforts of chosen institutions, today being His churches).
- The KJV was made from a word perfect text preserved in this way
- God miraculously or providentially guided the KJV translators to produce a perfect transation
In this reconstruction of events, the position is that the KJV is “inspired” because it’s a word perfect match, not that it is a word perfect match because it has been re-inspired or continually inspired.
Now as I write this, I can see all kinds of problems in the sequence of events proposed above, and some logical problems (how can any document be said to exist word perfectly in a different language? When that happens, all the words are different!). But this does not make it heresy or, specifically, an attack on inspiration. People have been referring to the KJV as “the inspired word of God” for centuries. They are speaking somewhat loosely, and given recent (as in last 50 yrs or so) developments in this area, I believe it’s better now to be more precise, but the statement itself does not necessarily imply an unorthodox view of inspiration.
It does suppose several miracles (or at least extraordinary providence) subsequent to inspiration.
To relate back to the topic of the article, all of this is to show that not everybody who holds to exclusive use of KJV is guilty of anything even close to heresy or even anything that requires fundamentalists to repudiate their position, much less “separate” from their ministries.
But of course, almost any position can become heretical if it’s incorrect and is also employed in a schismatic way. I’ve described that in earlier posts. But quite a few who hold to a perfect KJV do not obsess on the idea, sneak into every sermon (or even every third sermon), an constantly declare all other views to be a betrayal of the Christian faith (or worse). Those that do, have turned their view into a heresy, in my view. Those who don’t just have what is—from my POV a doctrinal quirk.
Terminology/labels problem
A big part of the problem in relating to folks with diff. views regarding the KJV is with labels. KJVO or KJVP? Well, the position I’ve just described with the non-schismatic posture I’ve just described, is not all that unusual. Because it’s quiet, it doesn’t tend to dominate the headlines. But the problem is that these folks sometimes don’t feel that “preferred” puts their position strongly enough. So they claim “only.” But then others, who do not distinguish between variations of kjvO lump them in with the Ruckmanites and their close cousins.
So this is why I believe it’s helpful to recognize that not everyone who claims “KJVO” is the same as everyone else who claims or is labeled “KJVO.”
This is really not that hard to grasp if one tries.
Just caught something I missed previously….divine preservation that involves divine superintendance that protects from error, which is inspiration
This is not inspiration. If you read Thou Shalt Keep Them for example, which is unquestionably a KJVO position, they specifically deny that any inspiration has occurred since the originals were penned. They are on pretty solid ground making that distinction since orthodox views of inspiration include the idea that God moved particular men as they wrote.
We all believe God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform. There’s plenty of room for non-inspiration “superintendence” if folks want to suppose that. (My beef isn’t that their belief in that is somehow heretical but that Scripture doesn’t seem to warrant it and the external evidence is consistently against it.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
A definition of inspiration: That process whereby God so superintended the authors of scripture so as to insure that their words chosen and written were without error and the very words He desired to be used. This gave the attribute of perfection to the original manuscripts.
In order to have a preserved word of God for the English speaking people there must be the miracle as you say. Logically, that miracle must meet the definition of inspiration. A KJVO has a finished product that makes such implicit whether they explicitly deny this or not. If you do not like to use the term “inspiration” and avoid calling it heresy, fine. That is your preference but not the preference of many Pastors and scholars who oppose the KJVO view. James D. Price actually indicates he places Hills, Ray, Wait, Fuller, Cloud, and their pretensions to claim for a preserved underlying Textus Receptus as a “pseudo-scholarly screen for a hidden King James Only agenda.” He states on the same page: “I see no practical difference with this view and that of Peter Ruckman.”
Their necessary process includes a miracle or miracles (as you appear to concede). These miracles must logically involve a process that falls within the definition of inspiration as normally defined in Bibliology. Further, the process takes authority for canon and inspiration of God’s words beyond the apostolic authority to a post apostolic authority of determining the given word of God.It is similar to that claimed by Joseph Smith, Ellen White and other Cult founders. The KJVO advocates are masters at convoluted arguments that make no sense. To them the earth is flat and gravity make all things fly upward. To them the hight of their arguments are rants against all other translations claiming they compromise the basic doctrines of Christianity. It is a mild and normal assertion to see them as dangerous and to use the term heresy regarding their position.
SI needs to allow for normal and reasonable discussion or it will continue to lose people who desire to post here. Perhaps there needs to be more real conviction to allow normal expression and stop trying to over superintend all discussions. This thread involved most all Pastors, theologians, and teaching professionals. Do they really need to have the term heresy defined for them just because some moderator or administrator doesn’t like it? Lets get some old fashioned back bone that allows discussions to proceed with expressing convictions with back bone. Again, the statements of Central faculty on this thread were much stronger than mine. This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.
[Bob T.] SI needs to allow for normal and reasonable discussion or it will continue to lose people who desire to post here. Perhaps there needs to be more real conviction to allow normal expression and stop trying to over superintend all discussions. This thread involved most all Pastors, theologians, and teaching professionals. Do they really need to have the term heresy defined for them just because some moderator or administrator doesn’t like it? Lets get some old fashioned back bone that allows discussions to proceed with expressing convictions with back bone. Again, the statements of Central faculty on this thread were much stronger than mine. This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.I’m going to stick my head in here to try and provide a clearer understanding of who/what the mods and staff are and also explain what SI does and doesn’t allow. I’m hoping to assuage some concerns that might be prompted by this thread or other discussion.
- SI does NOT permit people who hold to an inspired King James position to remain on this site (if we’re talking about the position that only the KJV is without error).
- None of the admins / staff hold to a re-inspired KJV position.
- SI HAS, in the past, asked people to leave who did hold to an inspired translation position.
- SI does try to provide a place for serious and scholarly discussion of the KJV issue http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forums/english-bible-text-debate] in this forum .
- Anyone who would http://sharperiron.org/writing-for-sharperiron] like to write an article for either side is welcome to do so, although I can’t guarantee it will get published - I’m in the wrong department. :) People who interact on this site, especially on this issue, should expect to be challenged.
- SI is not trying to redefine Fundamentalism or doctrine. We are a place for orthodox Christians - both Fundamentalist and Evangelical - http://sharperiron.org/about-si] to discuss doctrine and other matters . We are not the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary] Oxford English Dictionary of Fundamentalism, and really don’t want to be. We try to be a ’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic] republic ’ in terms of this site, not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship] dictatorship that establishes all the ‘rules’ of Fundyism.
- SI isn’t perfect. We promise that we can’t always be as consistent as we might like to be, and we can’t always please everyone - including all the mods/staff.
- We reserve the right to modify our policies, and people who have suggestions for our policies are welcome to contact Jim or Aaron to provide their input.
- There’s no law keeping anyone here or keeping anyone from leaving. There’s also no law keeping anyone from starting their own SI or moving to http://www.baptistboard.com/ BaptistBoards.com or the http://www.fundamentalforums.com/ FFF .
- Mods and Admins are allowed to express opinions and interact. Otherwise, they wouldn’t enjoy their jobs as much and probably wouldn’t want to do them.
- edit - added after posting - If anyone feels unfairly moderated - and this post is NOT an official mod. action - they have the right to complain to Aaron, Jim, or any other mod who is not directly involved.
Personally, I’ve argued that we shouldn’t host the English Text Forum on this site, because I think it provides a platform for spreading error, and that should be easy enough to verify. However, we work as a team, and the other members of the team do not feel that way, so it stays. If it becomes a serious issue (as it was in the ‘06-‘07 years, IIRC), then we’ll revisit that.
So, I hope that’s helpful. If not, please contact myself, Jim, or Aaron. I now return you to the regularly scheduled debate between Bob and Aaron. :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
SI does NOT permit people who hold to an inspired King James position to remain on this site (if we’re talking about the position that only the KJV is without error).It depends on what you mean by “inspired” here. I’ve been trying to make an important distinction here. There are at least two ways to say “the KJV is inspired.”
a. Hold that God inspired the translators
b. Hold that any translation of Scripture partakes in the quality of inspiration to the degree it is faithful to the originals, then assert that KJV is 100% faithful to the originals.
“b” is not the same as “a,” though it’s easy to confuse the two because even “b” requires special supernatural activity on God’s part to make it happen. However, “b” can be declared without any necessary risk to the orthodox doctrine of inspiration.
Yes, life would be simpler if everybody would abandon position “b” as well, but that’s not going to happen, and all the folks in that camp that know personally love the Lord, love the gospel and are serving Him to the best of their ability (as far as I can tell). It would be a waste to reject them when can we fellowship to some extent.
But I agree entirely with the rest of Jay’s post.
[Bob T] This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.Bob, we’re just participating in the discussion. The day I can’t to that anymore, we’ll sell the site or shut it down. :) (None of that was moderating activity. Didn’t blow whistles or cite rule violations.)
[Bob T] A definition of inspiration: That process whereby God so superintended the authors of scripture so as to insure that their words chosen and written were without error and the very words He desired to be used. This gave the attribute of perfection to the original manuscripts.Your definition of inspiration is solid. Note the phrase “the authors of Scripture.” This is why your next sentence does not follow. Logically, that miracle does not have to be inspiration and would very hard to attach that name to. The authors are all dead and the process of writing something is a far different thing from the process of translating it.
In order to have a preserved word of God for the English speaking people there must be the miracle as you say. Logically, that miracle must meet the definition of inspiration.
But the larger point that is getting lost here is that there are KJVO folks who do not believe any additional inspiration of any kind has occurred since the autographa were written.
See Thou Shalt Keep Them p.240 (they are also very particular there that “inspiration” does not apply to the men, but only to what they wrote. I’m not sure that holds water—men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit—but as far as I can tell, it’s not a big deal.)
And they are not alone by a long shot.
So, of course to those who are convinced that the texts and translations are all human efforts and all imperfect, every flavor of KJVO position is either ignorant or deceitful. And to KJVOs, every version of non-KJVO is either ignorant or deceitful. But believing in exclusive use of the KJV (which is a bit more than “preferred” implies) can have many rationales and they should not all be targeted as a heresy that fundamentalism ought to ostracize.
I have too many KJVO friends who do not fit the lump and dump to go that route.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Is this not true (and because of my limitations in scholarship I may be incorrect)?
- By and large, the KJV was the Bible of old line Fundamentalists
- Back in the day of my conversion (1969) it was the Bible. Conservatives had rejected the RSV. The ASV was used by some academics. But in the pew, it was the KJV
Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’s
That tension (the resistance to change) is part of the allure of the KJV. It’s old, it’s tried, it was the version of our believing parents and grandparents.
And I may be all wet …. so feel free to help me out!
[Jim Peet] And I am not trying to make a statement about the KJV.Actually, I think you’re right and that’s a large portion of the people who are KJVP or people who don’t understand the issue.
Is this not true (and because of my limitations in scholarship I may be incorrect)?For early fundamentalists, there was no real “choice”. No NIV, No NKJV, No NASB (shortly after I was saved I had a hardbound NT of the NASB … OT not completed yet)
- By and large, the KJV was the Bible of old line Fundamentalists
- Back in the day of my conversion (1969) it was the Bible. Conservatives had rejected the RSV. The ASV was used by some academics. But in the pew, it was the KJV
Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’s
That tension (the resistance to change) is part of the allure of the KJV. It’s old, it’s tried, it was the version of our believing parents and grandparents.
And I may be all wet …. so feel free to help me out!
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Chip Van Emmerik] Aaron, there are many KJVOers who deny double inspiration for a number of reasons. But their denials ring hollow when they go on to declare the KJV as the only English version of God’s Word. Therein lies the dividing line. Regardless of the denials, you cannot claim one perfect translation without some form of double inspiration in the translation work. Anyone willing to concede other translations are equally God’s word, KJVP, are people I can minister with. It seems to me that those declaring the KJV as the only uncorrupted, perfectly preserved English version of the Bible fall squarely in the heretical camp.Chip, you are of course, right. But it should not surprise us that an irrational denial (“No, my KJVO position does not imply a belief in double-inspiration”) would arise in defense of an irrational position.
[Bob T.] Susan, the KJVO position has to do with what the scriptures teach concerning themselves and how we today receive the truth of God and prove its reliability. It has to do with how we know the Gospel is true historically as based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have regularly preached and taught that the resurrection of Christ is the most well evidenced fact of historical antiquity based upon historiography which includes the reliability of the the thousands of manuscripts and textual analysis. All this relies on the treating of scripture as a received book with historical characteristics and the normal processes of history research. The KJVO doctrine and assertions take the scriptures away from historical analysis and attempt to establish them on a non provable event or events of divine intervention of inspiration. In so doing they remove the facts of Christianity from the arena of human history and seek to denigrate the historical evidence of textual criticism and therefore the historical foundations of Christianity. In other words the very basis of Christianity is undermined by the KJVO position. This is not a choice like clothing, media, music or blogging on a website. This involves the very doctrine of Bibliology. It involves what the Bible is, how we have received it, how and why it can be trusted, and how we know about God, Christ, and salvation through special revelation.Brilliant, Bob! Brilliant! Peter stands up and says “Jesus rose from the dead, and you all know it’s true” to a large group of Jerusalem folk. Luke there speaks of many convincing evidences. Removing the Biblical text discussion away from historical roots has implications for epistemology that are seldom considered.
[Jeff Straub] I know a little Greek, he’s my barber. As for a little Hebrew, he runs a deli near the school.I like that!
http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/images/09_08/deadhorsebeat_2…]
Jim Peet said:
Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’sI like that. This may seem simplistic, but I believe it accurately accounts for a lot of things that are not part of clear Bible teaching with many fundamentalists, IMO.
Aaron’s point is also well taken:
I don’t see why a school can’t require anything it pleases as long as it’s up front about it and so students know what they’re getting into.The bottom line, however, is that there are a lot of fundamentalists out there, perhaps closer to my views, who do not care if they are CALLED fundamentalists. We just don’t want to be called “late for dinner.” Yet, on the other hand, we want to know where people stand and we will take unpopular stands or be militant about protecting the fundamental doctrines. But the term fundamental — it means so many things, kind of like the word “worship.” You got to agree on the definitions. And that is not going to happen in a broad way. But it does here at SI, and I appreciate that!
"The Midrash Detective"
[Chip] Regardless of the denials, you cannot claim one perfect translation without some form of double inspiration in the translation workYes you can. I’ve already explained how. You do have to posit something miraculous or extraordinarily providential, but that “something” does not have to be inspiration.
In fact, it can’t be inspiration without reinventing what inspiration means. By definition, inspiration is what happened when the autographa were written. It’s revelatory. It produces words where there were none before. So if someone does claim double insp., he is directly attacking the orthodox doctrine of inspiration. It doesn’t even make sense to call a miracle translation an act of inspiration. There are already words, there are no authors, nothing is revealed. Such a miracle, if it had happened, would clearly be something other than inspiration. And those who believe such a miracle did happen and use a different term for it (such as “preservation”) are wise to do so.
(Calling it “preservation” is a bad idea, too, IMO, but not a heretical one unless additional conditions are met.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jim Peet] For early fundamentalists, there was no real “choice”. No NIV, No NKJV, No NASB (shortly after I was saved I had a hardbound NT of the NASB … OT not completed yet)And fundamentalists like to make any traditional view sanctified with the full authority of Scripture behind it. At least that’s the tendency of some. So the KJVO position found how to connect itself to Bible preservation in a way to make the view doctrinally based.
Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’s
That tension (the resistance to change) is part of the allure of the KJV. It’s old, it’s tried, it was the version of our believing parents and grandparents.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Discussion