"Pastor Sexton’s college has actually backed away from its strict KJO position as stated in its doctrinal statement."

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
SharperIron's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 6/29/09
Posts: 1729

Tags: 

K. Bauder on Clarence Sexton's participation in the 2014 FBFI conference. I'm OK With This

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1845
I wish it were so.

I wish it were so. Unfortunately, the very phrase the Dr. Bauder identifies as the "really problematic part of the statement", the part about only accepting the KJV, is still in Pastor Sexton's church's doctrinal statement here:

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice. (Bold Added)

I do not see any reason to consider this as anything other than an abberrant and errant doctrinal position being welcomed by the FBFI. Still one of the major problems I have with the FBFI. They give the appearance, as an organization, that they are more concerned with cultural conformity within their group than doctrinal conformity to scripture. While Dr. Bauder downplays the importance of pulpit association, the FBFI has made this a much bigger issue and should be held to their own standard in the same way apply it to others.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since
Thu, 3/10/11
Posts: 21
Kevin Bauder is correct to

Kevin Bauder is correct to point out that they have diluted the Crown College Statement. My suspicion is that it is based on pragmatism as it opens the door to hiring faculty from places like BJU and attracting students from non-KJVO churches.

Bauder is not fully transparent in his remarks. He has not acknowledged that the previous Crown College Statement was fully acceptable to platform speakers in FBFI down through the twentieth century. Indeed, many FBFI churches would have held to that position. That is why Bauder statement that "the King James Only error heaps contempt upon the Word of God, it is a serious error" is frankly disingenuous and an attempt to revise FBFI history. Bauder writes like one of the gay rights advocates trying to silence all Christian views with pejorative and inflammatory statements like, "It would be tragic and perhaps even devastating to what is left of fundamentalism if a prominent national organization like the FBFI gave its endorsement to the King James Only position or treated it as if it were less than a serious error." 

It is not only Crown College that has changed but also the FBFI. I don't view it either change for the better but I am sure my views will not be endorsed by many here.  

TylerR's picture
Offline
Since
Fri, 9/7/12
Posts: 1113
Meh . . .

I don't concern myself too much over what para-church organizations do. That doesn't mean I dislike the FBFI; I just don't spend any amount of time caring what they do. There will be a whole lot of spilled ink here on the nuances of separation, as there always is. What the FBFI does is meaningless to me; what do I care? Does it impact my church? Most of my people don't even know the FBFI exists and wouldn't care if they did know. 

I am very happy that all I have to worry about and be held accountable for is (1) my own stewardship of the church the Lord has placed me in and (2) my own life. I have to make my own choices about implementation of separatist principles with missionaries, speakers, and the like at my own level. Let the FBFI worry about itself. Let Sexton worry about himself. I have other things to worry about. I'm just not interested in politics and I doubt I ever will be. 

TylerR is the Pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Divernon, Il. He blogs here

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1845
Tyler wrote: I'm just not

Tyler wrote: I'm just not interested in politics and I doubt I ever will be. 

 

Tyler,

You are welcome to disengage, but let's not tar those who do not follow suit by equating disagreement over doctrine (in this case such an important one that biblology is included in most statements of the fundamentals as the first one) with mere politics.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

TylerR's picture
Offline
Since
Fri, 9/7/12
Posts: 1113
Chip

It's not that I want to "disengaage." I just don't see why I need to care about what the FBFI or what Sexton does. All I need to care about is my church. I certainly do think bibliology is important, and I have my own conclusions on the version issue. Therefore, I don't need to spend time analyzing the pros and cons of the FBFI's decision to invite Sexton. I don't belong to the FBFI. I don't care what the FBFI does. It's purely abstract and irrelevant to me. Why? Because nobody will agree about what issues are worth separating over. Nobody. And you know what - that's fine with me! It really is. I've reached my own conclusions. I'm not worried about what other people think. That's why Baptist churches ought to be autonomous - that means I don't necessarily have to parse the nuances of separation within a larger ecclesiastical hierarchy. I am responsible before God for (1) the church He has given me and (2) my own life. I'm worried about that bubble, not the FBFI/Sexton bubble.  

As far as politics go, surely you acknowledge that politics are inevitable when one goes beyond the local church and into the para-church organizational level? (They're even inevitable at the local church level, but you get what I'm saying!) You need to worry about what other Pastors might think. You need to ponder what different "wings" of your constituency will accept or tolerate. Meh - someone else can have that quagmire. Again, it's not that I don't care about the doctrine of separation - I just don't see the real, practical benefit to discussing the separatist practices of a para-church organization! 

  1. Reach your own prayerful conclusions about what issues are (1) explicit and implicit teachings, (2) implied teachings, (3) general principles and (4) optional practices and implement in your bubble accordingly. 
  2. Be ready to stand before God for your decisions
  3. Nobody will ever see eye to eye with you
  4. Live with it and soldier on
  5. Re-examine and refine your own views along the way
  6. Meanwhile, expect the conversation on separation to be a bit like this while we wait for the Lord to return . . .

TylerR is the Pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Divernon, Il. He blogs here

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 399
Ok

I am just the son of an Idahoan chemist, but hey . . . I am ok with this, too. 

James K's picture
Offline
Since
Sun, 8/29/10
Posts: 959
This is not a fundamentalism

This is not a fundamentalism worth saving.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3619
Meh

I'm glad that Sexton seems to be swinging away from the KJV Only position, but I also felt like Bauder was doing a bit of a disservice in this Nick.  Whether he likes it or not, sharing a platform at a conference has always been seen as an endorsement and a big deal in fundamental baptist circles.  That was actually, I think, one of the many things people have complained about with NIU recently and was certainly a big deal when Calvary had Dever there a couple years back.

Maybe Dr. Bauder has never taken this as a big deal, but that's not quite the case for the rest of the FBFI-ilk.

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3619
And this...

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International is giving thoughtful fundamentalists an occasion to reflect upon our principles. It is also giving an occasion for thoughtless critics to say, “Gotcha.” What is the occasion? The FBFI has invited Clarence Sexton to return to its platform.

Some leaders of the FBFI have been friends with Sexton for years. In fact, he has even preached for the fellowship before. If memory serves, he and I shared the platform when the FBFI met in Indianapolis some years ago.

For me, it's not an opportunity to say 'gotcha' as much as even more proof that the FBFI isn't as consistent as they want their supporters to be.  But that's not news...I've known that for years.

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

James K's picture
Offline
Since
Sun, 8/29/10
Posts: 959
Very well put by Kevin.  To

Very well put by Kevin.  To be a critic is to be thoughtless if you recognize the doublespeak.  Sigh.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 848
No problems here.

I'm glad to see the FBFI welcoming Sexton back to their group. I'm sure there's plenty of room.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Offline
Since
Mon, 12/13/10
Posts: 94
...

James K wrote:

This is not a fundamentalism worth saving.

 

I agree, the unbiblical arguments for adherence to one specific English translation is not something which is good for F'ism. It is good to see some more clear thinking on the Text by the leadership at CC...God bless them...

SamH

Offline
Since
Thu, 10/1/09
Posts: 370
James K wrote:

James K wrote:

Very well put by Kevin.  To be a critic is to be thoughtless if you recognize the doublespeak.  Sigh.

Agreed. I can't believe I am agreeing with people I usually never agree with on this like Kent Brandenburg, James K, etc. First, the idea that you have a problem with this makes you thoughtless according to Bauder. That is arrogance. Secondly, Brandenburg actually makes some good points on this. The KJVO issue is far from the only thing from Sexton that "thoughtful" fundamentalists are supposed to have problems with. Bauder's piece smells like bad politics. Maybe I am wrong but that is the way it comes across.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3619
Kent's post

Kent's blog post on this is worth a read, and this section, I thought, raised an especially interesting question:

Perhaps here is a thoughtful question.  What has Sexton done to merit an FBFI national conference speaker status?  What does anyone do to get that slot in a national conference?  Is it because he has been faithful to the Word of God?  Is it because his church is a model of biblical obedience?   is he a model of biblical preaching?  Bauder concludes by saying that a good reason to allow Sexton on your platform is to encourage him for having his feet pointed in the right direction on KJO.

I don't know that Bauder simplified this down to 'having his feet pointed in the right direction', but still...it would be interesting to get the raison d'être​ for this choice.  I doubt that reason will ever see the light of day, though.

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

Offline
Since
Sat, 1/11/14
Posts: 160
Sexton's church must not have gotten the memo yet:

 

Here's what Dr. Bauder writes about Sexton's Crown College:

"Another consideration also comes to bear, namely, that Pastor Sexton’s college has actually backed away from its strict KJO position as stated in its doctrinal statement. It used to say that, “The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use.” Now it states that, “The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we use; the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the English version we use in the English-speaking world.” The elimination of the word “accept” means that this doctrinal statement no longer rejects other versions as the Word of God." [Emphasis mine]

Pulling up the college's online doctrinal statement confirms this:

http://thecrowncollege.com/whatwebelieve/

-------

Looking at the online doctrinal statement of Sexton's church, Temple Baptist Church, Knoxville, TN, however, the word "accept" is still there:

"The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice."

http://templebaptistchurch.com/pages/statement-of-faith.php  (accessed on 05/12/2014 @ 1:44 CST)

--------

So which is it?

 

 

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1845
Larry,

Larry,

I noted the exact same thing at the very beginning of this thread, but, apparently, no one wants to deal with that.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since
Sat, 1/11/14
Posts: 160
Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Larry,

I noted the exact same thing at the very beginning of this thread, but, apparently, no one wants to deal with that.

Sorry Chip: I picked up the thread late, and I somehow overlooked your previous mention of it.

It seems like a glaring inconsistency to me!  Pastor Sexton can apparently believe one thing as Pastor of his church, and another thing as President of the college...and the FBFI apparently gets to make amends with Sexton based on the version of him they like.

Ugh!

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6775
Kent Brandenburg's response

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2014/05/thoughtful-fundamentalists.html

Comment: Arrived in my inbox as a filing suggestion. Posting here to keep in one thread. 

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 778
No inconsistancy at all . . .

Larry Nelson wrote:
So which is it?

I don't read the two Sexton positions as being mutually exclusive.

But the points Brandenburg/Mitchell bring up are of far greater concern, imo.

Offline
Since
Sat, 1/11/14
Posts: 160
DavidO wrote:

DavidO wrote:

I don't read the two Sexton positions as being mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct.

They are different statements in the way that Dr. Bauder views them as being different.  The nuance involved may be somewhat subtle; reread Bauder's article again for the distinction.

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 778
The distinction is only that

The distinction is only that one says less than the other.  100 percent of those who hold to only accepting and using the TR can affirm the new CC statement as true, even if it does not express all that they believe on the matter.  And many who hold to the CC statement could also affirm the church statement.  Not mutually exclusive therefore not necessarily inconsistent.

Ergo one need not believe one thing as pastor and an entirely different thing as the prez of CC.

Offline
Since
Sat, 1/11/14
Posts: 160
Too much parsing & semantics

 

Here's how the difference plays out in practice:

Under the college's doctrinal statement, one could presumably use the ESV without being considered a heretic or an apostate (if the statement there merely expresses a choice/preference).  The ESV may not be the version of choice there, and the user would be asked to use the KJV instead for purposes of uniformity and compliance, but the ESV would still presumably be recognized as being God's word.

Under the church's doctrinal statement, if the TR/KJV is truly the only version of God's word they accept (not just prefer or choose to use), then the ESV would presumably not be recognized as God's word. (Gail Riplinger calling...)

 

I know of a church which only accepts and uses the KJV in my area which reportedly burned a NIV sometime back in demonstration of that belief!

 

And wasn't it just a few years ago that the FBFI thought the (nonexistant) distinction mattered?:

http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Only-Examining-Exclusive/dp/0825420482

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-God-Man-Laymans-Guide/dp/1889893382/ref=sr_1_...

Seems like a lot of wasted effort if there's really no practical difference involved.

Offline
Since
Thu, 10/1/09
Posts: 139
which TR?

Whenever I read something like...

"The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use"

...I always want to ask which textus receptus? The differences abound between the various editions. Then if I receive a response, I would want to ask, why? What made that particular edition the right one and the others rejects? Of course the reality is the textus receptus was itself a product of textual critical choices made by editors over many years.

 

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 778
too much parsing?

Yet it is insufficient parsing that allows one to make fallacious statments like

Pastor Sexton can apparently believe one thing as Pastor of his church, and another thing as President of the college

 

As for Darrell's question of which TR, at least one group holds that the true TR is the Greek that underlies the KJV.  Which they say is Scrivener's reverse engineered 1881 (84?) version.  

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 778
more importantly

Let's say there were a fellowship of individual pastors and deacons and interested members of various churches.  Let's say the premiere qualification for inclusion in that fellowship were the embracing of a true gospel, and that denying the true gospel would earn one denunciation as an apostate and expulsion from that fellowship.  Furthermore, any members found among that fellowship arguing that said deniers of the true gospel were less than apostates should also subject to the same treatment.  Let's now say that teaching easy believe-ism and denying of the necessity of repentance for salvation amounted (by fellowship consensus) to a denial of that true gospel.  Let's say then that one among that fellowship were honored by its leaders despite the fact that he taught easy believe-ism and denied the necessity of repentance for salvation.  And none of the members acted as if this were a problem.

What would be the proper adjective for such a fellowship?  

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 848
Could it be?

Could it be that the FBFI needs to have Sexton and his school? Does anyone know whether the FBFI is growing, shrinking or staying the same?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Offline
Since
Fri, 6/12/09
Posts: 3
F.B.F.I

FBFI – Fundamentalist Being Found Inconsistent

FBFI – Fundy Buddies Fawning Indefensibly

David Harris is the Pastor of Faith Baptist Church of Palmhurst, TX (www.faithbaptistministries.org)

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 57
A hearty welcome to Clarence Sexton.

As an FBFI member, I heartily welcome my brother Clarence Sexton!  His position on Bible versions mirrors that of the last head of the FBFI (Rod Bell), and I would even say that it represents the view of most older members (not board members) of the FBFI.  KJO Pastor Jody Jenkins spoke at our regional meeting.  We need desperately to work together as brothers in Christ!

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1845
C. D.,

C. D.,

Calling to work together sounds great, until some of the men you describe are asked to work with someone who uses an NIV or ESV or even NKJV. Then their refusal to "accept" any version but the KJ makes it impossible.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since
Sat, 1/11/14
Posts: 160
Is there no conflict here?:

 

When Temple Baptist declares in its doctrinal statement [ http://templebaptistchurch.com/pages/statement-of-faith.php ] that "the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and useare they not running afoul of the following FBFI resolution?:

-------------

95.16 REGARDING TRANSLATIONS

"The FBF, while recognizing that God has used the King James version of the Bible in a special way in the English speaking world, reaffirms its belief that the original manuscripts of Scripture are the documents which are inspired by God and that Bible translations may be considered trustworthy only if they accurately reflect the original manuscripts (II Timothy 3:16). In light of the considerable discussion among Fundamentalists about the issue of manuscripts and textual theories, no particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core Fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of inspiration with equal strength without embracing the same belief about textual criticism. Additionally, proper evaluation of the doctrinal integrity of any particular English translation can only be done by examining its faithfulness to the original languages, not by comparing it to another English translation. While the process of comparing it with other translations may be profitable for matters of clarity and readability, this process cannot pass as the test of doctrinal accuracy since it is illegitimate to check one copy by another, one must compare the copy to the original. In a day when translations abound, Fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both the selection and rejection of translations. Some professing Fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of Fundamentalism. Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of Fundamentalism must be rejected."

http://fundamentalbaptistfellowshipinternational.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Complete-Resolutions-2010.pdf

 

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3619
Not buying that, C.D.

C. D. Cauthorne Jr. wrote:

As an FBFI member, I heartily welcome my brother Clarence Sexton!  His position on Bible versions mirrors that of the last head of the FBFI (Rod Bell), and I would even say that it represents the view of most older members (not board members) of the FBFI.  KJO Pastor Jody Jenkins spoke at our regional meeting.  We need desperately to work together as brothers in Christ!

C.D. - 

This is exactly the problem that I have with the FBFI, and it's why this is 'newsworthy'.  This is also a VERY longstanding gripe that I have with the FBFI.

Someone just pointed out that Sexton's position runs afoul of the FBFI's own resolution.  It also runs contrary to sound doctrine (hello!?).  Yet Sexton is being presented as someone who is 'good enough' (for lack of a better term) to present for the FBFI's members at their National Meeting (?1?) and as a good fellow soldier for the Lord. Just look the other way while we brush over the whole "the KJV is the only acceptable translation" error.

So the FBFI either:

  1. Wasn't aware of the massive conflict OR
  2. Didn't do their due diligence enough to ensure that Sexton's position had actually changed OR
  3. Has taken such this kind of position in spite of their own resolutions.

It smacks of either general cluelessness or a lack of sober-mindedness for the FBFI leadership to run the organization this irresponsibly.  ESPECIALLY when the FBFI takes threats to Fundamentalism so seriously that they will pass resolutions against or warning believers about other orthodox Christians like John MacArthur.

If the FBFI wants to be taken seriously, then why are they continually supporting and giving the platform to preachers who endorse false doctrine and maliciously slander other believers?  I'll take Mark Dever / Tim Keller / John MacArthur's seriousness and sobriety any day of the week over Clarence Sexton's heresy.

Personally, I think Clarence Sexton was invited because he's friends with the higher-ups at the FBFI, but still...it's gross incompetence or doctrinal negligence to write this off as not a big deal.  It's even worse to say that he is headed in the right direction if he's clearly not.

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

James K's picture
Offline
Since
Sun, 8/29/10
Posts: 959
Jay, those are great options

Jay, those are great options to choose from: intentionally brushing aside significant doctrinal matters or incompetence.  I don't think this is about the FBFI for Kevin.  Central Seminary must be hard up for students for Kevin to have made such a thoughtless endorsement.

One would think that Kevin would know better: http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Only-Examining-Exclusive/dp/0825420482/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1400093627&sr=8-9&keywords=kevin+bauder

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3619
Open to suggestions

Jay, those are great options to choose from: intentionally brushing aside significant doctrinal matters or incompetence. 

I also did say that I think that this is primarily an issue where personal friendships are clouding the organization's vision (last paragraph).​..I'm open to any other suggestions.  Those were the reasons that I could think of, and this isn't the first time this kind of thing has occurred under the FBFI auspices.  The worrying thing to me - not that I spend a ton of time worrying about the FBFI - is that this situation keeps recurring.

 

 

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/14/11
Posts: 387
Hey Dr. Bauder.....

...You guys hard up for students? 

Since it has been declared here that that is the only reason you'd make such an endorsement I thought I'd go to the source and ask.  Just trying to clear the air here.

Lee

Offline
Since
Sat, 1/11/14
Posts: 160
What has changed?

 

Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder were the general editors of the book One Bible Only?, which came out in 2001.  I know that many here have seen it, and even likely have a copy.

I pulled mine out last night, and started paging through it.  Here's one sample quotation, written by Larry D. Pettegrew, taken from pages 186-187:

"In spite of the fundamentalists' rightful respect for the King James Version, they must not allow bad doctrine into their churches. The King James-Only position is based on a heterodox view of the inspiration and preservation of the Bible and is, consequently, nonfundamentalist and nonevangelical. The Bible clearly teaches that one of the serious responsibilities of pastors is to protect the sheep from wrong doctrine (Acts 20:28-31)."

IF Sexton has turned away from KJVOism (which Bauder thinks may be the case because Crown College appears to have modified its doctrinal statement), then the question remains as to why Temple Baptist's doctrinal statement reflects no such change.  If Sexton has not turned away from KJVOism, then the FBFI needs to explain why they are holding hands with someone who holds to a "bad doctrine" and "heterodox view" from which they should be "protect(ing) the sheep" (see above).

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1845
I am trying to figure out why

I am trying to figure out why this is so different from T. D. Jakes and the Elephant Room. Bad doctrine excused on the basis of friendship. Seems like the same standard should apply. If Sexton has accepted other English translations of the Bible in the same light as the KJ, then let him say so clearly and put the matter to rest. I personally am not on a witch hunt, but I refuse to accept the double standard that has existed in the past in the FBFI of denouncing some doctrinal error while glossing over others. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6775
WCOF and preservation

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Chapter 1 - section 8

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

In defense of the KJV guys ... they take preservation seriously

James K's picture
Offline
Since
Sun, 8/29/10
Posts: 959
Lee wrote:

Lee wrote:

...You guys hard up for students? 

Since it has been declared here that that is the only reason you'd make such an endorsement I thought I'd go to the source and ask.  Just trying to clear the air here.

Who said it was the "only" reason?

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1845
Jim wrote:

Jim wrote:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Chapter 1 - section 8

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

In defense of the KJV guys ... they take preservation seriously

Jim,

Who do you mean by "the KJV guys"? If you are talking about the KJVO crowd that has been the focus of this thread, I would argue otherwise. Pyromaniacs recently ran a post about the common link between leprechauns, mermaids and loving homosexual relationships. The common thread - they don't exist. That's because true love does what is best, what is good for the other person, and anything that violates scripture does not qualify (greatly paraphrased). The same is true here. You can't claim to love, or in your words take seriously, a truth of scripture when you are violating it. The KJVO guys take their aberrant theology seriously, not God's Word or His teaching on preservation.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 57
Rod Bell?

The last President of the FBFI was Rod Bell.  He held/holds to a similar view of the KJV as Clarence Sexton.  No one has addressed that point.  Clarence Sexton is not out of place at the FBFI National Meeting.  He represents a definite constituency within that group (a majority of the members?).

Only using the KJV in public worship is not bad doctrine.  It is probably the practice of the majority of the FBFI's churches.  The view that the KJV is the superior translation of our day is not bad doctrine either.  It is based, for those of us within the FBFI who hold to that view, upon a high valuation of the source materials that the KJV comes from and upon a respect for the KJV's beautiful/majestic style.

I think there was a blow up in the 1980's within the FBFI where those who could not tolerate the use of modern versions left the fellowship.  I fellowship with those who use modern versions, but I do not choose to use them in the ministry God has called me to.  That does not make me, or Clarence Sexton, a heretic.

Again, as an FBFI member, I heartily welcome Clarence Sexton to our national meeting!

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1845
C. D.,

C. D.,

This statement, " I fellowship with those who use modern versions, but I do not choose to use them in the ministry God has called me to." sets you apart from Clarence Sexton. Choosing not to use another translation is not the same as refusing to accept it as God's Word. Sexton has essentially placed the NIV, ESV, NASB and all others in the same category as the New World Translation produced by the JW's - not God's Word because of corruption/mistranslation. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3619
I Disagree

Rod Bell is not the President of the FBFI any more, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

Temple Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement:

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God...” (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God's preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed. 

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice.

I won't disagree with you that the majority of the FBFI's members use only the KJV in their churches.  I know that.  My question to you is this - do those churches also say that the KJV is the only version they "accept"?  If I show up at an FBFI church with my ESV, that translation would be rejected by the pastor and congregation?  On what basis?  Since when did the FBFI decide to make that change, and why?  I think an explanation is merited given their past positions on the King James Issue, this this one:

84. 10 REGARDING THE SCRIPTURES
The FBF affirms that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments (66 canonical books), is the verbally and plenarily inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God in the autographs.

We reject the books known as the Apocrypha as the inspired Word of God.

We condemn paraphrases such as The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man and the products of unbelieving and liberal scholarship such as the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible.

We deplore the rash of new versions which add to or delete from the Word of God, such as the New International Version, with special reference to those so-called "revisions" which by footnote additions undermine the text.

We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version, providentially preserved by God in the English-speaking world.

We reject as heretical the concept that any translation of the Bible is given by inspiration, which has in our generation fostered a cult. We believe firmly that inspiration ceased upon the closure of the canon of Scripture in the original auto graphs. We likewise reject the practice of exalting any version or translation to the position held uniquely by the original writings.

I'm sorry, but decreeing that there can be only one acceptable English translation of the bible is heresy; there is no Scriptural basis for this position.  No matter how you slice it.  Even the FBFI knows this.

Now if the FBFI is largely an "Only the King James" movement, then sure, invite Sexton...he should fit right in.  But that's not a group I want to be a part of, and don't present him as a solid and orthodox preacher.

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

Offline
Since
Sat, 1/11/14
Posts: 160
C. D.

There is a huge chasm between being "King James Preferred" and "King James Only."  Based on your "Rod Bell?" post, and your church's doctrinal statement, you appear to be in the "Preferred" category.  Choosing to use only the KJV is not bad doctrine.  Believing it is a superior translation is not bad doctrine.  We are at liberty to make such choices.  It becomes bad doctrine, however, when one believes that the KJV is the only English translation that is God's word; and that, conversely, all other English translations are not God's word.

I don't know enough about Rod Bell to know if he is in the "Preferred" or "Only" category, but since he was the president of the FBFI from 1977 to 2003, I'd find it hard to believe that as an "Onlyist" he would oversee the 1995 resolution I quote in full a few posts up.

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/14/11
Posts: 387
Has anybody bothered...............?

Has anybody bothered talking to Sexton about this?  I find it incredible that he is being labeled as fomenting heresy without an eyeball to eyeball meeting with witnessing elders when it is quite clear to anyone without an agenda that he loves and cherishes the Gospel and the Christ of that Gospel.

Furthermore, I would find it quite incredible that he actually did foment heresy in the Scripture issue since we share a significant mentor--Dr. Frank Sells (now with the Lord)--who was anything but KJVO as presented here. 

Lee

James K's picture
Offline
Since
Sun, 8/29/10
Posts: 959
Lee, so this thoughtful

Lee, so this thoughtful leader was so inept as to agree to a heretical statement of faith?  That is one way to build a case...

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/14/11
Posts: 387
Obviously...

...you did not know Frank Sells

Lee

Offline
Since
Fri, 5/16/14
Posts: 1
School / Church doctrinal mismatch

I noticed a few here (such as Chip and Larry) who point out the doctrinal statement mismatch between Sexton's church and school.

Now I don't have any inside info on either, but this much I do know as a typical Baptist—changing a school's doctrinal statement takes a lot less than changing a church's. Getting some board members of a school to come to agreement versus getting a large congregation to all be on board for a doctrinal statement change without fomenting a possible church split are two very different things. So the fact that the church statement is "behind" the times versus the school's statement should not be too much cause for alarm if the momentum seems to be showing a shift away from the earlier position.

I'm ignorant of when the school changed the statement, but if it was within the last year (or maybe even two), then I would not expect the church to have yet followed in those steps (assuming, of course, such a change is even being pursued by Temple Baptist Church).

I say this only to note that the mismatch should not be an issue. This does not mean that Sexton's welcome or not into the FBFI should or should not be considered on the basis of the narrow statement of the church. That is for the interested parties to determine. I only point out that the mismatch should not be considered a negative in the discussion. If anything, it should point to momentum in a change of thought/attitude from the old to the new.

Scott S.

The goal now, the destiny to come—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16