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:

  1. A recommitment to the primacy and proclamation of the gospel.
  2. An understanding that the fundamentals of the gospel are the boundary of Christian fellowship.
  3. A focus on the importance of preaching as biblical exposition.
  4. An emphasis upon progressive sanctification understood as incremental spiritual growth.
  5. An elevation of the importance of ordinate Christian affections, expressed partly by sober worship that is concerned with the exaltation and magnification of God.
  6. An understanding of Christian leadership primarily as teaching and serving.
  7. A commitment to teaching and transmitting the whole system of faith and practice.
  8. 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.

Discussion

[SusanR] I see what Central is doing as a repudiation of these harmful practices, whether they have ever been guilty of them or not. And to that I say “Hallelujah!” Even as a KJVO (or KJVP or whatever tag you want to stick to my forehead) I can see the damage that is done when an application (that one has reached in good conscience before God) is elevated to doctrine and becomes a steam roller which with to squoosh people who haven’t reached that conclusion (in good conscience before God). I personally don’t appreciate comments that imply that because I believe in preservation, I am either ignorant, unGodly, or both. It’s just the exact same bullying tactic turned around because in certain company folks know they’ll get a big “Amen” if they bash a certain ‘crowd’. The problem isn’t holding to a conviction, but elevating that conviction to an undeserved status and then using it as a weapon against others who dare to disagree. You can do it with KJV preservation, or homeschooling, or movie watching, or choosing music, or clothing and hair, or having a Christmas tree. Just choose your poison.
To Bob T and some others… can we please be more precise in the use of the word heresy? It is not heresy to believe “I think I the KJV is best and so it’s all I’m going to use.” It’s not even heresy to believe “The TR is the purest text.” People start approaching heresy when they start tampering with inspiration to freight it with a connection to a single translation in some way that implies a second act of inspiration or ongoing inspiration or something along those lines.

But there is a second factor. Heresy, as I understand it has a doctrinal factor and then a posture factor. There’s your notions on one hand and then how you wield them on the other. So a mildly erroneous idea can be employed in a highly divisive way and become “heresy” in that sense. But if we use the term that way, we need to be careful not to lump in folks who hold to the same alleged error but are not factious about it.

(Bear in mind, please, that is coming from a guy who does not use the KJV except in study to prepare to explain things for the KJV users among my listeners.)

I think those who are more openly denouncing excesses “on the right” now might be well served to make some more careful distinctions on these points also.

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.

I alluded to the Allies of WW2. I can see it was not understood. My point was and is General De Gaulle was a fervent French patriot. As head of the Free French government, he viewed himself as the equal of Churchill and Roosevelt on the one hand. As commander of the Free French Armed Forces, he viewed himself as Eisenhower’s equal. In dealing with him, Eisenhower and Churchill sometimes weren’t sure which war he was fighting. Was le General fighting the current war against the Germans? Or was he re-fighting the Hundred Years War against the Anglophones?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Greg Linscott] Dark or milk is fine, as long as it’s Hershey’s. You have to watch out for perverted offerings based on the Nestle… ;-)
Switzerland is known for their great chocolate! :)

Becky,

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!

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

ROTFLOL!

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.

[Aaron Blumer] To Bob T and some others… can we please be more precise in the use of the word heresy? It is not heresy to believe “I think I the KJV is best and so it’s all I’m going to use.” It’s not even heresy to believe “The TR is the purest text.” People start approaching heresy when they start tampering with inspiration to freight it with a connection to a single translation in some way that implies a second act of inspiration or ongoing inspiration or something along those lines.

But there is a second factor. Heresy, as I understand it has a doctrinal factor and then a posture factor. There’s your notions on one hand and then how you wield them on the other. So a mildly erroneous idea can be employed in a highly divisive way and become “heresy” in that sense. But if we use the term that way, we need to be careful not to lump in folks who hold to the same alleged error but are not factious about it.
Since I was one of the people using the term in this thread, I guess I’m one of the “some others.” I don’t think I misused the term in the context of the conversation. WCBC acclaims the KJV as the only English version of God’s Word. This is doctrinal heresy. Furthermore, their schismatic and abrasive approach to believers who might disagree is postural heresy. If this falls outside of the distinctions you have tried to make Aaron, please help me see where. In the meantime, I fully agree with the Central ethos statement that these heretical (sadly in far more than just KJVO positions) extreme, right wing, self described fundamentalists are more dangerous to the church than the conservative evangelicals are.

P.S. - not clear what you mean by approaching heresy here. Where exactly would you draw the line if this is not doctrinal heresy?

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

[RPittman] I faulted Greg because he faulted one and not the other; I did not contest his choice.
In reference to this ( http://sharperiron.org/article/ethos-statement-fundamentalism-evangelic…] post 101 ), all I said was
This illustrates that it is not only Central drawing lines.
How is that faulting one and not another? Central draws lines, the individual quoted (and those who identify with him) draws lines. If I am “faulting” anyone, it’s equal opportunity (though I do think the language is a little more incendiary- a cheap shot, if you will- in the quote I provided).

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Aaron stated:
“I think I the KJV is best and so it’s all I’m going to use.” It’s not even heresy to believe “The TR is the purest text.” People start approaching heresy when they start tampering with inspiration to freight it with a connection to a single translation in some way that implies a second act of inspiration or ongoing inspiration or something along those lines.
So what is the problem? The WCBC statement of faith indicates they do believe the KJVO position that implies continued inspiration of critical text selection and translation. Their press has also published a book explaining this. As you know,those holding this doctrine claim statements from the scriptures regarding preservation gives them authority to expect a pure, perfect, and preserved word of God. They claim to have found such a perfect preserved word in the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts. Some then extend that to translation in the King James Version. Those who claim such are claiming post Apostolic inspiration. The Central Seminary Ethos statement labels such within a Fundamentalism as dangerous to Christianity. Both Kevin Bauder and Jeff Straub have at times called this position heresy. They have posted very strong statements on this thread. It is doctrinal heresy. RPittman who has been posting on here holds to such a KJVO position. You know this because of his interaction with you on your articles on preservation.

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? If her church still teaches the KJVO position then they are dangerous to the foundation of Christian truth according to the Central Ethos statement. Also, stronger statements regarding those in this movement were posted by both Bauder and Straub. You should name them before naming me. One should not seek to continue in doctrine many consider false and dangerous and then claim to be offended by some who point out the error and the nature of some leaders and others involved. I do believe both Bauder and Straub made stronger statements on this then I did.

Aaron, I and others have in the past differentiated the difference between the genuine KJV preferred opinion as opposed to the KJVO doctrinal position. The one is opinion and personal preference. The other is doctrine with demand upon all. I know you are fully aware of the issues and am surprised you raised that issue here as we have obviously been dealing with the KJVO doctrinal issue that does involve inspiration here. Stronger statements than mine have been made about the KJVO position by faculty of Central Seminary, Detroit seminary, and others in prominence. That includes statements on this thread.

In light of all that has been said on this thread, I don’t think I or some others have improperly used the word heresy. If anyone was offended I am truly sorry. But wouldn’t they also be more offended by the very Ethos statement of Central as it calls such a Fundamentalist position as dangerous to Christianity? Is it improper to call a belief that is dangerous to Christianity a heresy?
This is doctrinal heresy. Furthermore, their schismatic and abrasive approach to believers who might disagree is postural heresy. If this falls outside of the distinctions you have tried to make Aaron, please help me see where. In the meantime, I fully agree with the Central ethos statement that these heretical (sadly in far more than just KJVO positions) extreme, right wing, self described fundamentalists are more dangerous to the church than the conservative evangelicals are.

P.S. - not clear what you mean by approaching heresy here. Where exactly would you draw the line if this is not doctrinal heresy?
Need a thread on “what is heresy?” I think.

Good questions, though. I’m thinking you commit doctrinal heresy when your assertion contradicts established fundamental doctrine. For example you could teach that God created another woman to be Cain’s wife (and avoid the whole incest problem) and not be a heretic on the doctrinal level. But you could try to form a church or non-profit or something called the Created Wifers and be heretical because you’re pulling folks away from doctrinally sound churches into your doctrinally peculiar splinter group.

So with the idea that the KJV is the only true Bible in English or whatever it says, this certainly appears to be an inaccurate statement but what fundamental of the faith does it reject? And you have an institution that includes this idea along with all the others, it’s not necessarily schismatic to say, hey if you choose to attend here, this is a commitment we expect you to make and keep to. Not a strategy I’d recommend, but I don’t see that as schismatic.

I wouldn’t want to financially support a ministry personally that is taking that position, or visibly participate with them in something, but I wouldn’t call that kind of non-cooperation ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t be warranted as far as I can tell.

But the “what is heresy?” question is an interesting one that deserves another thread. Or maybe an article or two.

One of the reasons I’m averse to using the term is that it carries alot of emotional freight. It’s a bit of a scare word, due to overuse. Personally, I prefer to keep it tucked away like my 9 mil. Glock, for very special occasions (I don’t actually have a 9 mil Glock, but wish I did). That way, when bad guys see it, it really is scary.

Not so powerful if I’m waving it around constantly.

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.

[BobT] position that implies continued inspiration of critical text selection and translation. Their press has also published a book explaining this.
I missed where it implies that. Not saying it isn’t there, but maybe you can quote that part and help me see it.

Bob, you keep referring to “the KJVO position” as though everyone who uses the KJV exclusively had the same view on all particulars. This is not the case. Susan, for example, does not believe that any ongoing or additional inspiration is involved in the creation of the KJV.

None of the KJVOs I know personally believe that.
[Bob T] 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?
Only if you view all KJVO positions as being the same. It’s actually a case in point of what I’m talking about. Not all who believe in exclusive use of the KJV are in favor of denigrating those who do otherwise as sinning or disobedient or being in doctrinal error. They recognize the complexity of the subject and grant liberty, but have arrived at a conviction themselves that compels them to use KJV exclusively.

This is not the same as groups that latch on that idea, declare it to be The One True Christian Belief, obsess on it, and devote a great deal of energy to breeding fear and loathing toward all use something else.

But I think we’re into the KJV issue too far at this point. We should drop it an let folks interested in the main ideas of the article carry on. I suppose there is still some relevance because if we grasp the premise that “not all KJVOs are thinking the same way” it has some impact on how we talk about distancing/separating from problems on “the right” within fundamentalism.

I’m just calling for giving due attention to all important distinctions here.

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.

[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.

I’m not offended, so there’s no need to forgive, as far as I’m concerned.

Again, all I’m trying to do here is figure out what you’re trying to accomplish. You have spoken about “the bounds of Bible-believing Fundamentalism,” yet have also disparaged the notion of contending for labels. I have tried to establish that there is a divide, and that it is increasing. It seems to me that there will never be a way to definitively satisfy what you are calling for- someone is always going to contend with the conclusion. Central has stated what they are willing to do, who they are willing to support and work with. Others have expressed opposition to that. What’s left? I can’t imagine the one’s Central has identified surrendering their positions. I don’t see Central surrendering theirs. It seems to me an impasse is being approached.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

There are essentially three types (here we go again:) of approaches to this topic of fund-evang unity/non-unity.

1. First approach - Every belief is worth separating. All or nothing. Those that believe this will end up in an isolationist context. Hyper-Fundamentalism and even some of the more militant versions of the movement are here - and headed to all points “out there.” The problem is not so much having a strong view of “this” or “that” - the problem is treating 2nd and 3rd level doctrines, belief’s, etc….as if they were essential to faith and any level of fellowship. In my view - too much of fundamentalism past and present are here.

2. Second approach - No belief’s are worth separating - or maybe a few belief’s are worth separating. Those that belief this risk having true heresy and/or “real” worldliness invading assemblies and context’s that ought to be safe-gaurded by the gospel and clear, Biblical (as is from the text not placed on the text) teaching. In my view - too much of evangelicalism has been here.

3. Third approach - This attitude holds with equal commitment “”unity” as well as a willingness to “divide” themselves from that which distorts the gospel or Christ’ character. Those that hold to this approach will admit that at times there is an uncomfortable tension that is felt. It frankly is not always easy to know when to give grace and when to cut lines for sake of Christ. This group rejects the notion that when in doubt “always cut” or “always unite”. Those that respond rightly to separation do so with a humble and almost a hurting spirit that they have to limit their connection with a brother or groups of brothers. True faith according John results in an unmistakable love for those in the body. When groups separate with a “glee-like mentality” you know their spirit is not from Jesus of Nazareth.

In my view - you have an emergent middle or “Type B” fundamentalism that is growing because like-minded men from both evangelicalism and fundamentalism want something better. They’re finding it in the Scriptures and with the koinonia of like-minded brothers - who are cutting themselves loose of labels (at least to some degree). Funny enough….there is a new kind of group that is forming - but no one wants to call it a group - because the guys from evangelicalism don’t want it to look like modern day evangelicalism and those from the fundy side don’t want it to look like modern day fundamentalism. Interesting.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Opinionum varietas et opinantium veritas non sunt hasusta

“Variety of opinion and unity of opinion are not incompatible”

(Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs - 1600-1646)

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;

The three approaches Joel, are not necessarily equal to your earlier taxonomy approach grouping fundamentalists into Type A, B and C are they? I see the first approach as type A. But your second approach above is more like a type D or a non-fundamentalist. Type B + C are together under the third approach above. At least that’s how I’m viewing this.

I would say that Type B fundamentalists hold over a certain viewpoint of what separation is and looks like. Type C (which are CEs if I remember right), have a different viewpoint of what separation is and looks like. Speaking up and standing up for something, is a form of separation even if a cut-and-run doesn’t occur (especially in Baptist groups which already are expressly designed to promote local autonomy).

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.

Aaron, below is the WCBC doctrinal statement on the scriptures from their website.

The KJVO position is that the KJV is the perfect word of God and all other translations are not. This is the normal usage of the term. The KJVP (preferred) may include several opinions but does not indicate that there is special divine preservation for the KJV. This is the way KJVO has been consistently defined by most all. I do not understand the present confusion on this. All who advocate the KJVO position make it a doctrine and part of their doctrine of Bibliology. Those who are KJVP do not make the textual superiority of a text type as infallable and perfectly preserved by divine intervention and do not advocate for the KJV as a perfectly preserved translation. As you know there are advocates for better or superior text types and for better or superior translations but claim no perfect preservation for those. They do not elevate to doctrine and is not part of their doctrinal statement.

There are also some who claim to be KJVP but treat the subject as though they are KJVO, which in reality they really are. Pensacola College is an example. The eminent scholar James D. Price so 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 for the “New King James Bible.” His book is IMO the best on this subject. As handled by Price and others:

All KJVO = divine intervention gauranteeing perfect preservation which implies inspiration.

KJVP = most who have various views in which they preseve the KJV. Some who by implication are really KJVO though denying it.

Here is the WCBC statement of faith (doctrine) on the Bible.
The Bible

We believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, fully and verbally inspired of God. We believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God, as found within the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. We believe God not only inspired every word, but has preserved them through the ages. We believe the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people and is the only acceptable translation to be used in this college by faculty or students (Psalm 12:6-7; II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:23-25; II Peter 1:19-21).
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.