Church History

Republished with permission from Theologically Driven. (See also: previous installments in this series.)

The King James-only view argues that only the 1611 KJV is the Word of God in English. All other versions or translations are so corrupt that they are not to be used, nor be appealed to as the Word of God. Most KJV-only advocates contend that the printed Greek text from which the KJV was translated, commonly called the Textus Receptus (TR), is inspired and inerrant, and the KJV is the only translation that accurately translates the TR. But this is not true. The New King James Version (NKJV) is also translated from the TR. Being TR based, the NKJV cannot so easily be discounted by KJV-only proponents. Therefore, they seek to find other ways to disqualify the NKJV.

A common complaint against the NKJV by KJV-only advocates is the use of notes provided by the translators. For example, D. A. Waite says:

The diabolical nature of the New King James Version shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the Greek text in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them. By so doing, they confuse the readers. The editors have made no decision as to what God’s Words really are (Defending the King James Bible, p. 125).

William P. Grady sounds a similar warning:read more

In a previous post I noted that the Preface to the 1611 King James Version is an embarrassment to KJV-only advocates because in it the translators of the KJV make a series of statements that argue against the KJV-only position. Since KJV-only proponents insist that only the KJV is the Word of God in English, they are radically opposed to any English translation produced in the last 400 years.

Prior to the KJV, there had been many English translations of Bible: Wycliffe (1382), Tyndale (NT, 1526), Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the Douai-Rheims (1609–10). Since these and other translations were already available in 1611, the translators of the KJV believed there would be hostility to their new translation, and so they were quick to address the issue in the Preface:

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any­thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, de­serveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold enter­tainment [reception] in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil [trivial objection] to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story [history], or have any experience. For was there ever any thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying or opposition?

This, and more to this purpose, his Majesty that now reigneth…knew full well, according to the singular wisdom given unto him by God, and the rare learning and experience that he hath attained unto; namely, that whosoever attempteth any thing for the publick, (specially if it pertain to religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same set­teth himself upon a stage to be glouted [frowned] upon by every evil eye; yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes [spears], to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that meddleth with men’s religion in any part med­dleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold [an estate or office held for life]; and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.

Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity, of the employment. Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?…Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded [thrust upon] to the people?read more

The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities is a compendium of essays written in response to David Bebbington’s Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989). A key tenet of Bebbington’s work is that the evangelical movement was a product of the Enlightenment, beginning in the 1730s with the revivals of John Wesley and George Whitefield. Because of its roots in Enlightenment thought, the movement is rather to be understood as distinct from the Reformers and Puritans than as a continuation of long-held tradition. The contributors to The Advent of Evangelicalism argue that Bebbington trivializes the truly evangelical character of many Puritans and Reformers, thus seeing more discontinuity in the evangelicals of the 1730s than those evangelicals would have acknowledged.

Bebbington’s work has dominated the historiography of the evangelical movement since its publication in 1989, and is perhaps best known for introducing the “Bebbington quadrilateral”—four marks (conversionism, activism, Biblicism, and crucicentrism) which characterize the evangelical spirit throughout history. The genius of these four characteristics is that they describe the remarkably diverse evangelicals who appear since the 1730s—individuals such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, J. C. Ryle, Howel Harris, John Newton, Charles Finney, Fanny Crosby, J. N. Darby, Iain Murray, J. I. Packer, and Luis Palau. Bebbington’s four marks have been so universally accepted by historians of evangelicalism that editor Stewart writes in his chapter that “Bebbington’s definition is now receiving the ultimate compliment of being cited without acknowledgment, as if it is not one scholar’s opinion but simply the truth we all know” (p. 29).read more

Previously, we have reviewed volumes 1 and 2 of the Ancient Christian Doctrine series from IVP. This series of five volumes is a commentary on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The commentary in each volume is drawn from writings from the patristic period of church history: AD 95-750. Among the purposes of the Ancient Christian Doctrine series is “showing how the new ecumenism is today being nourished and renewed by the ancient ecumenical consensus” (p. vii). For those who bristle at the mention of “ecumenism” (a word sprinkled liberally throughout the book’s editorial matter), Oden takes care to contrast “the true meaning of ecumenism” as found in the Fathers versus “a century of often dubious modern ecumenical experimentation” (p. xiv). Oden, at the forefront of the paleo-orthodoxy movement, unsurprisingly states that the “ancient faith is the rightful patrimony of all global Christians today, whether Protestants, Orthodox, Catholic or charismatic,” adding that “there is a dawning awareness among Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox laity that vital ecumenical orthodox teaching stands in urgent need of deep grounding in its most consensual classic Christian sources” (p. xv). While not agreeing fully with Oden’s statement, I believe there is an uneasy awareness among Christians that biblical illiteracy is on the rise and that fewer Christians understand and are able to articulate foundational doctrines.read more