Now, About Those Differences, Part Twenty Three

Pastor Monte,

It sounds very much like you are King Jame Preferred—is this the case or are you King James Only? I think there may just be a huge misunderstanding on this thread… Do you agree with Pastor Harding’s comments?

Matthew Richards

Indianapolis, IN

Matthew: I don’t like using lables that involve the English translation name. I believe the issue is the text. God inspired the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The traditional texts are the texts the church has historically accepted as the words of God. I concur. If I were to give myself a lable, it would be “TR only,” meaning that I accept the Textus Receptus to be the inspired words of God. Now, before any of the other bloggers ask me, “Which one?” (as in which edition), I will tell you: I believe that the Textus Receptus that sits on my desk is the inspired word of God. I believe this by faith.

Those who accept the Critical Text are left with the daunting task of searching for God’s words from among thousands of varient readings—all of which tends to foster doubts and questions as to the precise wording in almost any given passage.

Some folks use OKJV in place of KJVO, but these lables are too easily confused with the HERESY of PETER RUCKMAN. In order to distance myself from RUCKMAN’S HERESY, I will simply call myself TR only. If anyone else wants to join my newly tagged movement, you are welcome. :)

[JG] Is there any Biblical basis for saying a doctrinal statement is worse than a policy statement?

No, I think it’s more of a historical basis, which is more the way Kevin argues it as well… and a logical basis also. The history is that groups have been selective about what they put in creeds/statements of faith, etc., either because they are reacting to something weighty that is a current issue or because the doctrine itself has far reaching impact/implications. So they are saying it’s a Big Deal.

The logical reality is that we are selective about what we put in these statements, and there must be some conscious or unconscious test of selectivity. Policy statements are selective also but the test is different: it’s about execution, practical matters, etc.

So I think the difference matters.

[JG] What matters on this is what he teaches and his actions towards others. If he is teaching that the 1611 translators were inspired, that is an error from which I would separate. If his actions towards others…

Well, I agree there except for the implied either-or: either it’s what he teaches & his actions that matter or what he says in in doctrinal statements that matters… I’d just say they both do, but I’m splitting hairs I think.

[JG] As to “unintended despising” of the Word of God, we are all guilty of intentional or unintentional despite of the Word virtually every day…

Perhaps. I think I might get through a day or two once in a while. :) But, more seriously, the fact that various kinds of “despisings” happen doesn’t mean they are all equally weighty or even in the same league. When you’re stated doctrine of Scripture officially refuses to pursue the most accurate Bible available in the future, that’s a far more direct assault on orthodox bibliology than a garden variety lapse in obedience.

(What I mean by “in the future” is that a doctrinal statement that commits to the KJV, period, vs. one that commits to accuracy (and KJV “for now”) is rejecting ahead of time more accurate work that may come along in the future)

[JG] 1. Motivation tests make me nervous. In general, we are to be charitable in what we believe of brothers (I Cor. 13:7), whether KJVOers, evangelicals, or fundies. We need to separate where someone’s actions force us to, but I’m not sure I see Scripture telling us to deduce motives and separate accordingly. Sometimes a person’s motives are clearly stated (in which case the statement of wrong motives becomes an action we must evaluate). Usually, actions are driven by a mix of motives, and jumping into the “motives game” is a pretty doubtful exercise.

In general, I’d agree, but it is easier to eliminate a motive than to establish one. That is, if I say I buy pizza because I love the cheese, but then I pick the cheese off every time, the evidence is pretty strong that love of cheese is not my motivation… leaving the question open what my motivation actually is.

So when a group says we are KJVO only because we believe the KJV is the most accurate, they can easily demonstrate that this is not their actual motive if they are not continually looking for something even more accurate. That is, there must be more to it. It’s not logically self-consistent to say “this is about accuracy and nothing more” then, as new translations come out, show no interest in examining them for accuracy. In reality, there must be some underlying convictions regarding the very possibility of something else being more accurate. So when I speak of “motivation” in this case, I’m really talking about thought process, which can be pretty transparent sometimes.

There are reasons to limit our associations with Dr. Sexton to those places where we are in general agreement. There are reasons to limit our cooperation with conservative evangelicals as well. If separation were “all or nothing”, perhaps we would cut off all contact with both. I Corinthians 5 and II Thessalonians 3 provide for almost “all or nothing” separation. But I see nothing that requires me to consider either Clarence Sexton or Al Mohler (for instance) in that category, and Dr. Bauder has not made the case.

I actually don’t know anything about the Sexton case in particular.

As for separating from KJVOs in general… I do remain somewhat skeptical of the idea that the kind of KJVO Bauder is talking about here is equal and opposite of the neo evangelicalism of the 2nd half of the 20th century. So I’m not seeing applying separation princples to it as quite matching either (it’s a little hard to explain why, because I haven’t arrived at clarity in my own thinking on it yet… but one factor has to do with what the “nearest neighbors” are doctrinally and “movementally”… these are very different for KJVO and neo-evangelicalism, though both errors put those who hold to them in a precarious relationship with a near neighbor that is far worse)

But I am sold on the premise that our calls for separatism ring hollow if we are not willing to separate (or at least intentionally limit fellowship somewhat punitively) with serious error on the right as well as on the left.

[RPittman]

[Matthew Richards] Great article, Dr. Bauder. I sat under William Grady in “College” and am a recovering KJVOnlyite. I have now been out of that group for roughly 13 years or so. There is a vast difference between someone who prefers the KJV and someone who is KJVO. I get it because I have attended both types of churches. Thanks for articulating what so many of us already believe regarding the grave errors of the KJVO movement. Looking forward to the next installment…

Matthew Richards

Indianapolis, IN

I am greatly amused by your self-appellation of “a recovering KJVOnlyite.” In this politically correct world, one fad, which I think has passed its zenith now, is to be a recovering ____________. It’s so typical for Christians to follow all the fads a day late. So being, it prompts me to observe that we’re not so really different from the world, just behind the times.

RP… I’m trying to follow your argument here. So, because lots of people style themselves “recovering whatever,” that means nobody has actually ever really recovered from anything? (In particular, it proves Matt has not recovered from KJVO?)

[RP] Matthew, you are so adamant and forceful in your assertions. Did you leave the movement on good terms or do you have some lingering resentment toward KJVO folks?

Again, if there is an argument here, is it that if he left with lingering resentment this would mean he is incorrect? Just looking for the relevance.

[RP] As for recovering from whatever, I question if there’s such a big change. It seems to me that one icon simply has been changed for another, William Grady for Kevin Bauder. What we really need are independent thinkers who can think for themselves. I cannot see much difference between your expressed attitudes, except for the content, and the stereo-typical Hyles-Anderson spirit.

This one has me groping even more for an argument. First, when one “icon” is replaced with another, this is automatically not much of a change? What if the first “icon” is, say, Joseph Stalin and the second is, say, Bernard of Clairveaux? (I realize there’s a chronology problem there. Sorry, long day.)

But the reasoning fails on multiple levels. Are you suggesting that agreeing with someone’s position means you have made an icon out of them? I think I agree with about 4 billion people that breakfast is generally a good idea (give or take a billion).

RPittman,

With no intent of chasing this all the way around the barn, I am curious as to how you would answer your questions posed to Kevin Bauder. Of particular interest to me is the last question you ask in the final paragraph, “how does one know the original language reading because there are variants here?”

The reason that last question interests me most is the condition of all the textual families/traditions (i.e., there are no variant free ones). Perhaps I am misreading your comments, but are you suggesting that there is a Greek or Hebrew tradition available to us that is without variant readings? And if you acknowledge the reality of variant readings, how are these to be resolved apart from scholarly analysis?

The ball is back in your court…

Thank you RPittman for a very straightforward and clear post.

You said:

Apparently, Dr. Bauder has followed the usual path of rational reasoning in denying KJV only claims. In a very simplified manner, it goes something like this. Variants in manuscripts exist. These variants represent errors. Due to the variability found in all manuscripts, there is no perfect text. Therefore, there is not one text or translation that can claim superiority or ascendancy over all the others. Thus, all texts/translations are God’s Word in as much they are faithful to the original autographs (whatever they may be).

In my opinion your problem on a logical level with the “rational reasoning” is in the line “Therefore, there is not one text or translation that can claim superiority or ascendancy over all the others.” If I am wrong that you do not find that to be one of THE major problems with the rational reasoning then forgive me and disregard the rest of this post.

But to be fair all texts are not created equal. Certain texts are earlier and more reliable than others. (Note “earlier” and “more reliable” are not necessarily the synonymous, tho they often are.) Scholars do not pick their readings by dubious means or for theological reasons. They are picked according to the established rules of textual criticism.

In answer to your hypothetical test:

1. If the KJV is the Word of God, are other modern translations also the Word of God in English?

2. If the KJV is Holy Scripture, are other modern translations also Holy Scripture?

3. If the KJV is authoritative, are other modern translations also authoritative?

4. If one is obligated to obey the KJV, is one also obligated to obey other modern translations?

5. Do all translations, both KJV and modern, say the same thing?

6. If a modern translation varies from the KJV, which translation is one obligated to obey?

Let’s take this a step further. Supposing that all translations do not say the same thing, how can one know which is the correct one? The first answer is probably the one faithful to the original language. Well, how does one know the original language reading because there are variants here? The final answer is that scholars, who presumably know, must tell us. The point that the thing, which “came not in old time by the will of man,” is now determined by a human system of scholarship. In other words, man and his scholarship has become the determiner of what constitutes the Word of God.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Mostly, but I am assuming you are expecting a straight yes or no, so no (although I am dying to caveat that, but for sake of argument I won’t.)

6. Whichever is faithful to original autographs

Then the rub, how do you know which one is faithful?

I say it is the text that are the earliest and come from the most reliable manuscripts. Sure, its a man-made system that is used to find the earliest and best texts (in my opinion).

You say its the text which was composed by a man-made system in the 1500’s to be the best text. You accept this on faith. You believe God preserved his text, and he did so perfectly in the TR.(If I am wrong in thinking you believe its the TR I apologize; it’s sometimes hard to remember who believes what in this thread.)

I accept my position on faith as well. I believe God preserved his text. I believe that he preserved it in such a marvelous way that a text composed of readings from from manuscripts that were composed a thousand years before those of the TR are nearly identical. I believe that my criteria for selecting the text is better than yours.

That’s what it comes down to.

Your serve … .

[RPittman]

[Matthew Richards] Great article, Dr. Bauder. I sat under William Grady in “College” and am a recovering KJVOnlyite. I have now been out of that group for roughly 13 years or so. There is a vast difference between someone who prefers the KJV and someone who is KJVO. I get it because I have attended both types of churches. Thanks for articulating what so many of us already believe regarding the grave errors of the KJVO movement. Looking forward to the next installment…

Matthew Richards

Indianapolis, IN

I am greatly amused by your self-appellation of “a recovering KJVOnlyite.” In this politically correct world, one fad, which I think has passed its zenith now, is to be a recovering ____________. It’s so typical for Christians to follow all the fads a day late. So being, it prompts me to observe that we’re not so really different from the world, just behind the times.

Matthew, you are so adamant and forceful in your assertions. Did you leave the movement on good terms or do you have some lingering resentment toward KJVO folks?

As for recovering from whatever, I question if there’s such a big change. It seems to me that one icon simply has been changed for another, William Grady for Kevin Bauder. What we really need are independent thinkers who can think for themselves. I cannot see much difference between your expressed attitudes, except for the content, and the stereo-typical Hyles-Anderson spirit.

Let me put it this way. Just because you were part of Hyles-Anderson does not necessarily qualify you as an expert or competent to articulate “the grave errors of the KJVO movement.” You are puffing your limited experience with one fringe element, although high profile, into esoteric, expert knowledge. I don’t buy it because I know that it is NOT representative of the whole position.

Matthew, I do NOT question your person, character, sincerity, motivation, spirituality or love for Christ but I do challenge your knowledge and conclusions.

RPittman,

Your assumptions are quite comical. I am also a recovering man-worshipper. I actually never held William Grady in the same awe that I held Jack (I spent the better part of 22 years as a member of FBCHammond)—but I did sit under Bill’s teaching in classes on the KJVO position at HAC. I have long ago repented of my man-worship and do not hold anyone up in that way anymore—Praise the LORD! I will answer your other post directed at me here as well when I say that labels tell us something and KJVP is a far cry from KJVO. If someone prefers the KJV more power to them—most of us have memorized countless passages in this version and continue to use it to this day. It is entirely possible to be in the KJVP category (gasp!) and hold to the orthodox position on the Holy Scriptures. If you find yourself in the KJVO sect you cannot hold the orthodox position, IMHO. I have no love lost for Hyles or HAC although I still have better than 30 relatives caught in her clutches. My position is that we can all prefer whichever text or version we would like and still be Fundies. When someone crosses that line and makes their favorite text a doctrine worth separating over that is when my radar goes off. Thanks for not calling my person, character, sincerity, motivation, spirituality or love for Christ into question!

Matthew

Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper said, “Faith is the ultimate certainty.”

The missing element in this discussion is FAITH. I believe the words of my TR are the words of God BY FAITH. Ultimately, it comes down to FAITH, and that’s OK; because “without faith it is impossible to please God.” There are, generally speaking, two approaches to epistomology: faith and rationalism. Prior to the Enlightenment, the faith approach reigned supreme. Every Christian believed the received texts to be the Word of God by faith. The rise of rationalism and the enthronment of rationalistic principles of literary criticism (the “cannons”) as applied to the Biblical text muted faith.

I, for one, believe faith is far superior to rationalism. Faith, after all is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In the textual debate, there are a lot of “things not seen.” By faith, I simply believe that the Textus Receptus that rests on my desk is the Word of God. I never question it or second guess it. I take it at face value by faith. My faith, therefore, excuses me from having to rummage around the variants of the critical text apparatus. I’m not looking for God’s words; I have them.

This flies in the face of contemporary scholarship, but I think I’m better off just believing in the words God’s church has always believed. My approach has not harmed me spiritually, and when I look upon the sacred words of the TR, my heart is filled with gratitude for the God who gave and preserved His word.

Of course, my position—if universally accepted—would put some folks out of a job.

I thank Dr. Bauder for this article. When it comes to the KJV article, here are some personal observations.

1. 1. We use the KJV in our church but the KJV crowd is still not happy with us. Many times they are not happy with each other.
2. 2. Someone recently told me that they will always stick with the KJV because it came from the textus receptus. When I told them that there are a number of times where the KJV chose the Vulgate over the textus receptus, they did not know what to say.
3. 3. There are a number of ministries that were not KJV only, that now are. It is easy to get the impression that is a bandwagon type of thing in certain circles.
4. 4. Many of the people I meet who graduated from colleges that are KJV only do not hold that position when they get outside of those educational bubbles. My guess is that this is why West Coast has to have their graduates make that pledge.
5. 5. Most of the people of this world are never going to see, let alone read a KJV and more English speaking people than ever before do not understand 1769 English. You would think that the experts on the textus receptus would be more concerned about getting and updated English translation out there if they believe there is not one, than writing books about how bad all of the other updated English translations are. What is really ridiculous to me is for them to tell people who do not understand 1769 English that they should understand it, knowing that the KJV updated the English a number of times between 1611 and 1769.
6. 6. There are a number of people who say they are KJV only based on the textus receptus who say that it is not a test of fellowship with the brethren but it does create a lot of testy felllowship.
7. 7. Oh, someone told me they use the KJV because it comes from the textus receptus and it does not use that dynamic equivalency. What planet teaches that there is no dynamic equivalency in the KJV? How do you translate without implementing dynamic equivalency?
   

[RP] one concludes that Bauder follows the accepted Modernist epistemology of rationalism although he would probably qualify a few presuppositions

Roland, you trot this one out whenever someone makes a cogent argument for a position you disagree with. As an attempt to dismiss the cogent argument, it’s not a very effective maneuver.

There is no tension between the work of the Spirit and the use of the mind rationally any more than there is tension between the work of the Spirit and use of the mind intuitively (or non-rationally, or whatever term you prefer). The mind is tainted by sin in all parts. One “part” or function is not more reliable than another.

So, to answer your question…

[RP] how do we factor the Holy Spirit into the rational process of scholarship?

We listen to what He says in Scripture. We seek His aid in thinking clearly. We yield to the unmoveables Scripture clearly hands us. Then we reason to conclusions based on what Scripture asserts, what we observe around us, and the work thinkers of the past have generated over the centuries. There is really no problem here. (Not that it’s easy to execute, but the way is not hard to identify)

Where we run into trouble with enlightenment “epistemology” or “paradigms” etc., is when we start to buy notions like a) all the truth that matters can be arrived at via observation and reasoning, b) the human ability to reason is only limited by capacity and intelligence (i.e., there is no moral factor, no sin factor, no spiritual factor), c) whatever is inconsistent with what we ourselves observe and reason is not true/real.

Throw in the modern notion of materialism… d) the material is either all that is, all that matters, or all that can be known with any certainty.

These ideas are what make “modern epistemology” a problem. Without these and other unbiblical ideas, no epistemology/paradigm is “modernistic” in any way that matters.

The KJVO argument that says “all other views are de facto modernistic/rationalistic and therefore false” is probably the least compelling argument in the whole bag.

[RP] If you’re interested, we’ll talk about some specifics.

Ball returned … . .

Roland, you still have the ball because you didn’t answer the question. It was a simple question. Is there a MSS tradition that is without variants or not? It requires nothing more than a “yes” or a “no.” Your unwillingness to answer it directly speaks volumes. The “it depends on what you want” and “we can’t begin there” stuff is an extremely thin smokescreen because it in no way impacts the answer to the question.

[Aaron Blumer]

[JG] Is there any Biblical basis for saying a doctrinal statement is worse than a policy statement?

No, I think it’s more of a historical basis, which is more the way Kevin argues it as well… and a logical basis also. The history is that groups have been selective about what they put in creeds/statements of faith, etc., either because they are reacting to something weighty that is a current issue or because the doctrine itself has far reaching impact/implications. So they are saying it’s a Big Deal.

The logical reality is that we are selective about what we put in these statements, and there must be some conscious or unconscious test of selectivity. Policy statements are selective also but the test is different: it’s about execution, practical matters, etc.

So I think the difference matters.

I agree. But this makes a very doubtul basis for a blanket call for separation. Inclusion in a doctrinal statement might make me more cautious about cooperation, but to tell me I must separate I want something more Biblically based.

[Aaron Blumer] When you’re stated doctrine of Scripture officially refuses to pursue the most accurate Bible available in the future, that’s a far more direct assault on orthodox bibliology than a garden variety lapse in obedience.

(What I mean by “in the future” is that a doctrinal statement that commits to the KJV, period, vs. one that commits to accuracy (and KJV “for now”) is rejecting ahead of time more accurate work that may come along in the future)

If the doctrinal statement is unchangeable, sure. Otherwise, you are applying a level of logical analysis to the statement which may not have been applied in its drafting.

[Aaron Blumer] So when a group says we are KJVO only because we believe the KJV is the most accurate, they can easily demonstrate that this is not their actual motive if they are not continually looking for something even more accurate. That is, there must be more to it. It’s not logically self-consistent to say “this is about accuracy and nothing more” then, as new translations come out, show no interest in examining them for accuracy. In reality, there must be some underlying convictions regarding the very possibility of something else being more accurate. So when I speak of “motivation” in this case, I’m really talking about thought process, which can be pretty transparent sometimes.

I’d guess KJVOers spent far more time scrutinizing the NKJV for accuracy than anyone else in the world. :)

But seriously, doesn’t this boil down to, “We’re not sure that these people are any different from Peter Ruckman and the second act of inspiration people, and they ought to do better at distinguishing themselves”? We can say his willingness to fellowship with BJU and others distinguishes himself in some ways, but a KJVO doctrinal statement that doesn’t refute re-inspiration can make us wonder where he stands.

That “wondering” is entirely legitimate. But to leap from “I have questions, I wonder, and he hasn’t made it clear in his doctrinal statement” to “I’m separating and you must too, if you believe in separation,” is highly dubious.

[Aaron Blumer] As for separating from KJVOs in general… I do remain somewhat skeptical of the idea that the kind of KJVO Bauder is talking about here is equal and opposite of the neo evangelicalism of the 2nd half of the 20th century. So I’m not seeing applying separation princples to it as quite matching either (it’s a little hard to explain why, because I haven’t arrived at clarity in my own thinking on it yet… but one factor has to do with what the “nearest neighbors” are doctrinally and “movementally”… these are very different for KJVO and neo-evangelicalism, though both errors put those who hold to them in a precarious relationship with a near neighbor that is far worse)

To me, this isn’t that difficult, because ecclesiastical “separation” isn’t all or nothing. I withdraw/disfellowship/don’t join (primarily the latter) based on the area of disobedience/difference. So while I might pulpit share with a Free Presbyterian, I won’t invite them to preach on prophecy.

Where is my great disagreement/difference with the mid-20th century neo-evangelicals? They specifically (and militantly, often) rejected the Biblical principles of ecclesiastical “separation”. To have ecclesiastical relationships with them would be to join them in the specific area in which I believe they are disobedient. It would be to say that their approach to ecclesiastical association is one I can accept/endorse.

The neos forced on consistent fundamentalists a virtual “all or nothing” ecclesiastical separation by their very rejection of separation. To not separate from them was to endorse anti-separatism.

I see a significant difference between the neoevangelicals and anyone who accepts the principles of separation. Obviously, among separatists, we still fully separate from those who are guilty of I Corinthians 5/II Thess. 3/Titus 3:10/Romans 16:17 situations. For others, we simply decide on a case by case basis whether an ecclesiastical association at some level makes sense based on the areas of differences and how important those are.

For Dr. Bauder, having a KJVO position may be enough to mean that he will fully separate. That is his right, but he hasn’t made much of a case in asserting that the Scriptures call us to follow his lead.

The conservative evangelicals are an interesting case. Do they accept the principle of separation? And do they practice it at all? For many, the answers seem to be “no” and in many cases “yes”. They’ll reject the principle, but in practice they aren’t going to join in with just anyone, either. That makes it harder to know how to respond to them. If they accept the principle and seek to practice it consistently, then to my mind they are fundamentalists whether they admit it or not (no, I’m NOT Joel Tetreau :)). They might be “sloppy” ones, they might draw the line in places so differently from me that I’m very limited in how much I can fellowship with them, but I’m not prepared to label them “neos”, etc. But that’s rather off-topic to our discussion. It is on-topic to this series of articles, of course. And I believe the right answer to “conservative evangelicals” is “it depends”. But it doesn’t only depend on the Gospel as Dr. Bauder is claiming. It also depends on their view and practice on ecumenical/ecclesiastical associations. If they say “anything goes”, I can’t go there with them.

[Aaron Blumer] But I am sold on the premise that our calls for separatism ring hollow if we are not willing to separate (or at least intentionally limit fellowship somewhat punitively) with serious error on the right as well as on the left.

In this we agree entirely. In the past, I’ve been as vocal on this forum as anyone could wish about Hammond, for instance. As far as I am aware, Pensacola has been extremely divisive on this issue, and I believe Titus 3 applies to them. Proud divisiveness is a significant problem in much of the KJVO movement.

Thanks for the discussion, Aaron. I’ll check back over the next few days for any further comments you may have, but I probably won’t find the time to comment again.

[Pastor Marc Monte]

4. If, as Bauder asserts, the so-called “hyper fundamentalist” is as bad as the New Evangelical, then it becomes the responsibility of the fundamentalist remnant to name and denounce these men and institutions as heretical. Before anyone picks up torches and pitchforks, remember that you will be going after godly men such as Dr. Ron Comfort, Dr. Clinton Branine, and Dr. Sam Davison—just to name three. I wouldn’t want to stand at the judgment seat having condemned their ministries!

My use of the King James Bible is based upon my faith in the traditional texts of Scripture—the ones in which the church always believed. And, just in case you’re wondering, God seems to bless preaching from that book. We had over 700 in church on Sunday morning, 15-20 adult professions of faith, and numerous decisions at the altar. I say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

Mark,

I’m thrilled for the professions of faith - that is a blessing.

Let me remind you that many of the revivals over the centuries around the globe, took place without the King James Version. Also, your agruement for the traditional texts of Scripture points to a use of a variety of text types - not just one. When the church used one - it was most often not because of discernment - it was because for the most part, there were no other options. In some cases all you had with a a few verses was a Latin witness. Mark, many of us do separate from Hyper-Fundamentalists as quickly as New Evangelicals. And we name them. The newevangelicals would be able to use the same logic on you - you are naming and separating from So-in-so, and these are Godly men….! Mark, even if you have men who have preached the gospel and who love the Lord….if they become “disobedient” and “off” by taking separation to isolation, by taking God’s standards and confusing those with men’s standards, they are at some level twisted and need to be confronted just as Barnabas and Peter were wrong and needed to be confronted by Paul. I’m not sure that I am required to name the names of hyper-fundies on the other side of the country or the world that don’t impact our church family. However, for those ministries around us that might negatively impact our ministry or the families in our ministry - we do indeed “name them.” Some of them have as large a church as yours…..that means nothing. The Vatican, Scores of Hybles, Hyles and all sorts of other “churches” have larger numbers than you do…..many of them have as many “decisions” as you do. Unfortunatly too often their fruit does not remain…..which might say something about the kind of seed that was used.

I pray that your fruit will remain my brother!

Straight Ahead!

Joel: As I put in the thread, I only included the number count (which, by the way, was accurate) to get folks fired up. It worked! (This blog needs a little life once in a while.)

Now, you did accuse me of “naming and separating from so-and-so.” Who might that be? I have not had to actively separate from anyone in a LONG time. Separation has become a sort of natural thing—unless, of course, you’re headed to the left and want to broaden fellowship across established barriers. (No one would argue that the barriers between fundamentalists and the newly minted conservative evangelical have not existed. Recall, if you will, Dr. Bob Jones Jr. and Bob Jones III’s ongoing rant about John MacArthur “denying the blood.”)

Do I read books authored by some conservative evangelicals? Yes! My reading list is beyond extensive. (By the way, if you like to read, purchase the new Kindle—the one with 3g and wi-fi. You will be delighted!) Just because I won’t preach with a brother doesn’t mean I won’t read what he has to say.

Here’s the problem with the new category “hyper-fundamentalist:” No one except Kevin Bauder has defined it. In his opening quotations, he tied “hyper-fundamentalism” with anyone who holds to the traditional text position. That is very problematic. Let me give you an example:

Kevin Bauder is a member of the FBF. There are a number of men in the FBF who hold to the traditional texts. In fact, the 2011 meeting of the FBF is scheduled to be at a church where the preacher holds to the traditional texts of Scripture. That’s not the drum beat of this ministry, but he quietly holds that textual position. He told me so himself. He is a good, balanced man. He is a soulwinner. He is a man I hold in highest esteem. He is a personal friend. Now, according to Bauder, I should limit my fellowship with him. Should I not attent the FBF annual meeting? Should I withdraw from the fellowship? Shouldn’t Kevin also withdraw from the fellowship?

You see, Bauder has called for nothing short of a split in the fundamental movement. His article is very divisive. He has impugned good men. I can understand consternation over Ruckmanism, but there is absolutely no reason to condemn good men whose only crime is believing what the Lord’s church always believed prior to the late 1800’s. You may not like that last statement, but it’s a fact.

Before jumping on Bauder’s bandwagon, everyone should consider the consequences and implications—from both a contemporary and historic perspective.

RPittman,

I was genuinely interested in receiving an answer to the questions you put to Dr. Bauder and the ones I put to you. I was treating yours as sincere questions to him and mine was sincere to you. For the sake of time for both of us, I’ll withdraw mine. I think we both have some idea of where the other one is coming from and neither of us think very highly of the other’s view on it. I’m content to leave it to the Lord.

For the sake of others reading, though, I’d simply like to point out that all sides have to acknowledge (as you did) the “variant problem” and that means folks should be very careful about hearing the “hiss of the serpent” in textual criticism (to quote Dell Johnson from his infamous video of years ago). Even very staunch KJV defenders like Tom Strouse and Edward Hills acknowledge that Erasmus engaged in textual criticism.

I believe that your admission regarding variants and Marc Monte’s use of the word “essentially” (in distinction from “exactly”) are the Achille’s heel of the whole KJVO movement. I don’t know you or your ministry, and I don’t know Marc Monte or his ministry, so my next statement is not intended to say this is true of you. My deepest concern for the KJVO movement, and those who tolerate it, is that it makes loud claims publicly which it does not really believe and are not true, and the inevitable outcome of that will be to shipwreck the faith of some.

IOW, if you beat the drum of “things which are different, are not the same” loudly and long enough, God’s people will be harmed when they find out that those who claimed that also admit that there are variants even within their preferred textual family/tradition (or even that they talk about a family of texts rather than a single text/edition). By establishing a false object of faith (the existence of Greek or Hebrew testaments that are without textual variants), they set God’s people up for a real crisis of faith and also destroy their credibility as teachers of God’s Word.

I will yield the court back to you and hang up my racket. This is not a game that I desire to play.

First of all, just as a general statement to all: I think RPittman does not understand modernistic rationalism because he actually employs it in his argumentation. Simply put (if trying to figure out all the degrees of rationalism is simple!), believing a priori truths as self-evident and then by deductive process developing more truths is rationalism. Ironically, the KJVO position is a form of rationalism.

Marc Monte,

I appreciate the obvious effort you are making to be respectful and kind in this debate. I also have to say that I highly sympathize and admire and embrace your call for faith. But I have a problem with your call for faith and its application to the TR. It is obviously true that faith “is the evidence of things not seen,” but “things not seen” does not signify “things without evidence.” I could then say that I have faith that the world will end in May, 2012 and dismiss any criticism against it because I believe in “things not seen.”

But, biblical faith is not a leap in the dark. The “things not seen” are the promises of God in the Word of God, the Person of Jesus that we love even though we have not seen him, and the realities of the cosmos (“principalities and powers”) that are documented in the Scripture. The “evidence” is my adjusting my whole life and attitude (i.e. obedience) to those unseen things. To suggest that we are men of a weaker faith because we do not embrace your view of the TR on the basis that we must believe without evidence is, in my humble opinion, a misapplication of the concept of biblical faith.

The fact of the matter is that the TR does not say anything about the TR and though you have a rational (and I use the term positively) reason for preferring the KJV, the only evidence that KJVO people give is extra-biblical. And, when pressed about the weakness of that evidence they say that we need to accept it by faith.

Would it be more appropriate to employ, say, a Romans 14 approach to this KJV issue and vehemently defend the rationale for your preference without impugning the faith of those who are less convinced with your rationale?

The FBFI doctrinal statement reads as follows:

Section 1. The Scripture: We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone as verbally, plenarily inspired of God, without error in the original writings and the sole authority of faith and practice, providentially preserved as God’s eternal Word (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; 1 Pet. 1:23 (b)-25). We believe in a dispensational understanding of the Bible based on the progressive unfolding of the divine mysteries from God, which result in distinguishable stewardships of God’s truth (Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:10; 1 Cor. 10:31). [emphasis mine]

When people assert as a matter of Scriptural doctrine that mss. copies and translations partake of the miraculous qualities that can only be said of the original text, that is a doctrinal problem as well as an ethical problem of intellectual honesty.

In a recent resolution the FBFI declares:

“2008 Resolutions

Loyalty to God and His Word: Resolution Affirming the Biblical View of Inspiration, Texts, and Translation

Whereas,

•The Bible claims that it is plenarily and verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit in its original writings;

•The Bible claims that it will be preserved by God throughout the ages;

•The Bible claims that its Spirit-indwelt readers will be illumined by the Holy Spirit as they read;

•The practice of translating the Scriptures into common languages was affirmed by the practice of Jesus Christ and the practice of the New Testament Church;

•The Bible makes no claim to the specific manner by which it would be preserved, or to further inspiration or perfection through any translators in any language;

The FBFI affirms the orthodox, historic, and, most importantly, Biblical doctrine of inspiration, affirming everything the Bible claims for itself, and rejecting, as a violation of Revelation 22:18-19, any so-called doctrine, teaching, or position concerning inspiration, preservation, or translation that goes beyond the specific claims of Scripture.”

Pastor Kevin Schaal wrote the accompanying FBFI position paper for the resolution which says:

“The Bible testifies to the fact of its own preservation but makes no particular statement about the method of its preservation. The Bible claims that its contents will not be lost but makes no claim concerning the transcription of Scripture itself. It gives no guidelines for transcription. There are no Scriptural promises concerning any future method of approval that would eliminate all questions concerning variations between copies. Opinions will vary on how God chooses to preserve His Word. In our zeal to defend or promote a particular text or translation, we must remember that we do not have a right to raise our opinion to the level of Bible doctrine. (emphasis mine)

The practice of translation is clearly intended in Scripture. The idea that the Word of God should be in the generally spoken language of the people is affirmed by Christ’s quoting from a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The inspiration and inscription of the New Testament in koine (common) Greek rather than classical Greek, Hebrew, or another language clearly indicates God’s intent to put the Scriptures within the reach and understanding of the most possible people. We believe and commend the practice of the translation of Scripture into as many world languages as possible as a noble and Biblical part of the Great Commission.

However, the Bible itself makes no claim and gives no specific instructions concerning the method of translation or the nature of future translations. The Bible makes no claim concerning the transfer of the gift of inspiration to future translators. If it had done so, we should believe it. But it did not make such a claim. For us to claim inspiration for translators would be error and could be categorized as a violation of Revelation 22:18, 19, changing the words of the Book as given under divine inspiration and bringing with it the accompanying Scriptural condemnations.”

FBFI 01.5 Regarding Schismatic “Brethren”

“In light of the public attacks and false accusations upon the FBFI, its leaders, and other like-minded Fundamentalist institutions regarding their respective positions on the text of Scripture and translations, we reaffirm that within the historic orthodox doctrine of Bibliology these are matters of soul-liberty and should not be a test of fellowship for Fundamentalists. Since not all professors or pastors have expertise in the field of textual studies, disagreements regarding text or translation should be resolved by honest discussion as opposed to libelous contention. Those who repeatedly attempt to unnecessarily divide Fundamentalists over this issue and refuse to repent should be regarded as schismatics who must be rejected as the Word of God instructs (Romans 16:17-18; Titus 3:9-11; I Corinthians 3:10-17).”

98.18 CONCERNING VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS:

The FBF deplores the attempts being made unnecessarily to divide fundamentalists over the matter of versions and translations. We reaffirm our previous resolutions on this matter and the historic fundamental position that infallibility, inspiration, and inerrancy are posited only in the autographa and are not to be ascribed to any manuscript or version of the Holy Scriptures. We deplore translation attempts by those not committed to the integrity of Scripture. At the same time, we condemn those who, in an attempt to defend a particular translation, resort to perverting and misusing statements of those whom they consider their opponents in this debate. We recommit ourselves to living truths of Scripture as well as defending them.

[Pastor Marc Monte] Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper said, “Faith is the ultimate certainty.”

The missing element in this discussion is FAITH. I believe the words of my TR are the words of God BY FAITH. Ultimately, it comes down to FAITH, and that’s OK; because “without faith it is impossible to please God.” There are, generally speaking, two approaches to epistomology: faith and rationalism. Prior to the Enlightenment, the faith approach reigned supreme. Every Christian believed the received texts to be the Word of God by faith. The rise of rationalism and the enthronment of rationalistic principles of literary criticism (the “cannons”) as applied to the Biblical text muted faith.

This is a very problematic post for me for a few reasons. I’ll try to run through them in a coherent way.

1. Epistemological foundations:

If you think faith and rationalism are the only two approaches, then you’ve missed the development of postmodernism which is an extremely effective rebuttal against the rationalism of modernism. However, the rationalism of modernism was an effective rebuttal against the oppression of gullible faith (superstition is probably a better term but I’ll use faith).

I reject all three systems, but recognize that all three bring good things to the table. Postmodernism recognizes that people and cultures are different. Cultural norms and taboos differ and no society has ascendancy or superiority over another. (I recognize this to mean that all societies are depraved; they would recognize it to mean that no society is objectively moral or immoral.) Modernism recognizes that the world works in logical ways. There are observable phenomena that can be classified, used, and systematized. Faith recognizes that there things that are arational. Faith looks to God to explain things.

Modernism destroyed faith by claiming that there are rational things, things that can be explained materially. Postmodernism destroyed modernism by denying truth claims. It reached under modernism and took away its foundation.

2. Either Or Epistemology

I take all three systems of thought. Its not an either or. I believe that there are arational things that are only found in God. At the heart of the matter, I cannot prove these things; I believe them. Faith is my foundation.

But I also believe that there are rational things. I use reason. I train my mind to think logically, rationally. I think through the Bible. The Bible is my starting point. It is from the Bible that I draw my premises.

And I use postmodernism. I recognize differences between cultures and applications of the Bible. I recognize that there is no authority for outsiders. I also recognize that my rationalism may be flawed. But I rest firmly on my foundation — Faith.

3. You don’t really want to go back to pre-Enlightenment thinking. (I don’t think.)

Prior to the Enlightenment (and for a long time afterwards) everything was “faith”-based. There was no concept of germs. You got a cold because someone put a curse on you. For a woman it was believed that wearing a red ribbon on her head was an effective means of birth control. Trial by ordeal was the common method because what is proof? Etc. Etc.

4. Everyone believed the received texts?

I’m assuming you don’t mean the TR since this didn’t exist until the 16th century. But even today all Christians hold to the received texts. For them its whatever Bible translation they prefer, just like in pre-Enlightenment times. Except for them it was whatever text was available. Nevertheless both receive the text by faith. Scholars/Pastors look over their textual apparatus, but so did the scribes in pre-Enlightenment times. In many manuscripts it is possible to find emendations and/or impositions of a reading the scribe thought was missing.

Just some thoughts…

[RPittman] You’re asking me to answer a question with a foregone conclusion. You’ve already decided that the existence of variants refutes the KJV position. It’s not a “yes” or “no” answer without being a trap. I refuse to walk into it. You don’t like my saying that your position is based on Modernist methodology, yet you set out to define the ramifications of my position. Is this fair? I am saying that you can’t force the logic of your system upon my thinking.

You’re pretty much trapped already when you can’t answer a straightforward question (“Is there a MSS tradition that has no variants?”).

None of the other stuff (what anyone has already decided, what anyone doesn’t like, what anyone is setting out to define, etc.) has anything to do with it.

Is it fair to ask a person who holds a position to account for its relationship to basic facts? Yes, that’s quite fair.

[JG] I’d guess KJVOers spent far more time scrutinizing the NKJV for accuracy than anyone else in the world.

Well, I’m pretty sure quite a few of them were much more interested in finding inaccuracy. :)

[FBF as cited by Mike Harding] 98.18 CONCERNING VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS:

The FBF deplores the attempts being made unnecessarily to divide fundamentalists over the matter of versions and translations.

One wonders if the FBF deplores it when Dr. Bauder writes an article calling for separation from those who say they believe they should only use the KJV. Or does the FBF only deplore divisiveness “over the matter of versions and translations” when it originates in the KJVO camp?

[Aaron Blumer]

[JG] I’d guess KJVOers spent far more time scrutinizing the NKJV for accuracy than anyone else in the world.

Well, I’m pretty sure quite a few of them were much more interested in finding inaccuracy. :)

There you go with “motives” again. ;)

[JG]

[FBF as cited by Mike Harding] 98.18 CONCERNING VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS:

The FBF deplores the attempts being made unnecessarily to divide fundamentalists over the matter of versions and translations.

One wonders if the FBF deplores it when Dr. Bauder writes an article calling for separation from those who say they believe they should only use the KJV. Or does the FBF only deplore divisiveness “over the matter of versions and translations” when it originates in the KJVO camp?

If I’m reading the cite correctly, the resolution dates from 1998. In the last twelve or so years, positions have hardened even further. So, I’ll hazard is the FBFI were to write the resolution today they be more in line with Dr. B.

Rob,

Notice that the FBFI resolution authored by Kevin Schaal is fairly recent (2008). Also, we ratify the doctrinal statement every year.

JG,

I hope I am not putting my words in Kevin’s mouth, but if I understand the tenor of his article correctly, Kevin has no problem with those who use the KJV and the RT exclusively. He minds those who create novel Bible doctrine in the field of bibliology to justify it. I think it would be a mistake, however, to assume that all the organizations listed in the article have created a novel bibliology to justify their use of the KJV and RT.

[Mike Harding] I hope I am not putting my words in Kevin’s mouth, but if I understand the tenor of his article correctly, Kevin has no problem with those who use the KJV and the RT exclusively. He minds those who create novel Bible doctrine in the field of bibliology to justify it. I think it would be a mistake, however, to assume that all the organizations listed in the article have created a novel bibliology to justify their use of the KJV and RT.

The reason I said “those who say they believe they should only use the KJV” is because the article implies that treating the choice to use the KJV and RT as one of a set of “beliefs” is equivalent to “novel Bible doctrine”.

Though I am not KJVO in the least, I agree with your last sentence — not everyone who uses the KJV exclusively (or even everyone who says so in their doctrinal statement) uses novel Bible doctrine to support their view. That is what I find so troubling about Dr. Bauder’s article. If his intent in this article was as you suggest, then I agree with that intent, but the article goes further than that. I hope your assessment of his meaning is correct. The article as written is divisive, in my opinion.

(just another commercial break)

When I think of wicked, sinful division, it was how Joseph Smith started using the KJV in the 1800s.

The biggest atrocity in the use of the King James Version of the Bible in America is along the whole stretch of our country’s I-15 Corridor.

I know I am off topic. But these kinds of discussions appear to me like intense squabbles within the factions of the Jewish Knesset while terrorists are out and about … .

blowing up the whole countryside.

et

[Pastor Marc Monte] If I were to give myself a lable, it would be “TR only,” meaning that I accept the Textus Receptus to be the inspired words of God. Now, before any of the other bloggers ask me, “Which one?” (as in which edition), I will tell you: I believe that the Textus Receptus that sits on my desk is the inspired word of God. I believe this by faith.

Pastor Monte,

So do you believe the Textus Receptus that sits on your desk is inerrant? I believe that only the originals are inspired and therefore inerrant. I believe that God has preserved his Word for us today in the totality of manuscripts and translations still in existence—I also believe this by faith. Copies and translations are inerrant insofar as they are true to the original inerrant autographs. Wasn’t this the historic stance of the original fundies on the Holy Scriptures? Quick question for you, do you believe that the ESV, NASB, NIV, and NKJV are God’s Word?

Matthew Richards

Monte has made a very good point about faith though. His faith is contra the evidence. His faith leads him to believe the current edition of the TR is the preserved Word of God. Just think about that for a minute. So really Monte has a positive feeling about the current TR. His comments demonstrate well the difference between faith and positive thinking.

I was a student at Central Baptist Seminary of Minneapolis from 1972 to 1975, graduating in 1975.

The following is from a workshop conduced by Doc Clearwaters in 1974.

Doc Clearwaters on Bible Versions in 1974

This is from a 6 (six) page handout paper that Dr. Clearwaters used on April 23, 1974 in a Workshop at a Central Seminary Founders Conference. At the conclusion of that workshop paper, Dr. Clearwaters wrote:

“At the present time, only two translations are recommendable: the “King James Version” and the “New American Standard Bible.” The “King James Version” is unsurpassed in the beauty of its language, even if it may sound somewhat archaic to modern ears. It continues to be the translation that is most often quoted and memorized by conservative Christians in the English–speaking world. The “New American Standard Bible” is unsurpassed in its accuracy and its fidelity to the Greek text. Its language is also very readable.”

This should supplement the quote from Dr. Bauder which was a Doc Clearwaters statement prior to the NASB being released and concerning Fundamentalists of the first generation. Doc preached from the KJV but was not a KJV only or preferred advocate. He referred to the NASB in study. During my time at Central I carried an NASB.

The rise of the KJVO Issue.

During my time at Central the KJV was not an issue. David Otis Fuller’s books had come out in 1970 and was just beginning to be discussed. I remember it being brought up in one of Dr. Vanhetloo’s classes and him making a brief comment but then dismissing it as not being factual and not making much sense. At that time no one thought it would ever have a wide acceptance or be a real issue.

Why the wide acceptance? Perhaps because so many who were becoming XFB Pastors were doing so with sub par education and an unbalanced view of ministry. The emphasis back then was beginning to focus on “Church growth” among the Evangelicals. One Evangelical called the 60s the decade of para church ministries and the 70s the new church emphasis decade. There was also the emphasis on growth by the Charismatic churches. The Fundamentalists were being widely recognized for their bus ministries and growing numbers. All Fundamentalists knew of Hyles, Falwell, and other growing ministries. Elmer Towns placed an emphasis on the fastest growing Sunday Schools. This pragmatic mentality often minimized theology and was susceptible to that which could give an easy certainty to the Bible and the gospel. The KJVO position gave the easy faith emphasis to knowing we have absolute innerancy in God’s word. No need for the study of Apologetics, textual criticism or even Biblical languages. Just win souls and believe the KJV. They ignored all KJV imperfection. They just concentrate on anything that will characterize all other translations as threatening true doctrine. Soon churches and newly founded Bible colleges were making their statement of faith include the preservation and use of the KJV as part of their doctrinal certainty. You had certainty on the Trinity and Christ in one section and certainty on the KJV in another. It was the only acceptable version as all other translations were now perversions and their use indicated a disloyalty to God.

Some established Fundamental Schools, Churches, and leaders spoke out but were somewhat mellow in their initial response because they felt many of the advocates were good men and had good ministries. Some failed to see the real issues or the extent of the threat in a timely manner. These threats were of new doctrine of post Apostolic endorsement of what was God’s word. In some cases a later history Post Apostolic inspiration was advocated. Other KJVO advocates denied new inspiration but advocated that which demanded that preservation must still have the same outcome of certainty as the original inscripturated documents. This particular preservation demanded a specific time miracle to be conferred upon either an appearing text group or an appearing translation. Both views had much in common with the non Biblical cults also claiming Post Apostolic additional certainty and truth. Some did and do claim that they are merely KJVP (preferred). However, in some cases the preferred comes with a severe denunciation of all other translations so as to give an artificial perfection to the KJV and a non factual criticism of other translations.

The threat of the KJVO position cannot be minimized. Hundreds of young people are continually led astray and given a fraudulent view of history and Christian certainty of truth. We do have certainty of truth but it must be seen honestly and as within the bounds God’s sovereignty as seen in historiography and textual discovery. Our certainty emerges from human history and common reality just as Christ came in the flesh in human history and common reality.

The arguments for the KJVO, and some KJVP, positions have now been thoroughly exposed and refuted many times. Yet the Pastors and leaders in the KJVO movement continue to side step common reality and seek to offer the same old mis information and factually wrong history. Some may be doing so sincerely. But the time has come to suspect and question the genuine sincerity of many advocating the KJVO position. It may now have become just a convenient position to gain a false loyalty and gather a following under a peculiar doctrine. My encounters with many in our area often leave me with the doubts of some leaders sincerity. Is the KJVO movement becoming a movement of the Deceivers and the Deceived? The result may be a cultic mindset that is interested in maintaining that which holds them together rather than a proper Biblical perspective. It often appears as that which is for a church or institutions glory rather than for God’s glory.

[JG]

[Aaron Blumer]

[JG] I’d guess KJVOers spent far more time scrutinizing the NKJV for accuracy than anyone else in the world.

Well, I’m pretty sure quite a few of them were much more interested in finding inaccuracy. :)

There you go with “motives” again. ;)

Yeah… just a hunch.

[Marc Monte] Those who accept the Critical Text are left with the daunting task of searching for God’s words from among thousands of varient readings—all of which tends to foster doubts and questions as to the precise wording in almost any given passage.

But you haven’t really avoided the reality of the situation, have you? You haven’t answered the questions. You have simply declared by fiat that the “Word of God” is the set of words in whichever edition of the TR you have … which was different than the editions of the TR before it, and which set of words did not appear anywhere on earth prior to Erasmus … er, Scrivener. You have, by default, ruled out much of what God has providentially preserved. Furthermore, you haven’t given us any biblical reason why anyone should believe that. Even if you compare editions of the TR for the “right reading” you still have to choose which is God’s word. Even if you don’t compare, you have by default chosen one text out of many options. Calling it “faith” doesn’t make it sound.

Faith is not the issue. One can have faith in any number of things, and have firm and solid faith. But we have ask if they object of faith is worthy. Muslims have great faith in their religion. They make your argument, not about the TR, but about their own religion. They accept it by faith. And you would, I assume, tell them their faith is misplaced because it does not account for reality. I am not sure how your textual position is any different. I am not equating you with a Muslim. I am simply pointing out that your basis is the same as theirs.

If I say that the critical text is the Word of God and the editors were supernaturally guided (not inspired) to pick the right reading, I am at the same place you are. But it denies the reality. There is no biblical basis for choosing the readings of the TR over any of the other readings. All bases for choosing the readings of the TR are extra-biblical. They may be good. They may not be. But believing in the TR (or any other option) is not the same as believing in the inspiration of the Scripture.

Of course Roland Pittman calls this modernistic rationalism. I think usually we just call it common sense. It is easy to say that there are a lot of things not seen; but there are a lot of things seen, and the existence of variant readings is easily seen, as is the necessity to choose between them. Choosing the TR is a form of textual criticism. The only question is whether or not it is a sound one. Most evidence points away from the soundness of it.

But I am still interested in your answer to the questions I asked to understand where you are coming from.

I think it’s clear that the essay does not lump all who use the KJV exclusively in the “parallel with neoevangelicalism”/”need to be separated from” category. Doesn’t exactly say that everybody who puts exclusive use of KJV in their doctrinal statement is in this category either, though it’s clear he sees this as a serious problem.

But I do think there is a problem here…

[Kevin B] The second is, does the use of the King James fall under the category of personal preference or under the category of doctrine?

I suggest there is a missing category here and this is why, in part, some are taking Kevin to have a larger “target” than he really intends in this essay.

To include the missing category, the question might better read…

“does use of the King James fall under the category of personal preference or the category of doctrine or the category of application of principle?” The third option there is not quite doctrine but is more than personal preference.

If we look at the “exclusive use of KJV” landscape and try to make everyone fit in the first two categories, we end up not being fair to some of them. Because there are a good number who are not claiming the Bible teaches KJVO but who believe application of what the Bible teaches requires KJVO. The difference matters because we call do this in deciding matters of conscience (more than matters of preference). We consider the conclusion binding on ourselves and those we are responsible for, but recognize other’s liberty in arriving at their own conclusion.

But those who emphatically class all users of non-KJV as apostate or the like are clearly not in the “application of princple” category. They have made it fundamental doctrine.

That’s divisive… and Kevin is not being divisive to call for some form of separation from these.

(I agree w/JG though that separation isn’t “all or nothing” in many cases, so not in this one)

I appreciate the stand and perspective of Dr. Bauder. But may I offer a different perspective on the parallel but opposite group to the KJVO.

I see the Charismatic movement as parallel but opposite to the KJVO and TRO movement. First many in the TRO movement are not advocating the TRO because of their own knowledge of the textual issues. There are a few well educated but not too many. The more well educated are TR preferred but find no exclusive perfection. Most of those are often Byzantine text type preferred not TR preferred. Most of the TRO advocates do so based on some book they read or the influence of others and do so without valid textual arguments but faith based on preservation texts as applied to the TRO.

The KJVO and TRO are therefore close together in application of Biblical preservation texts and their premise of reasoning or non reasoning. Both twist the preservation Biblical texts meaning and then chose where to apply that meaning. One applies it to the TR. Another applies it to the KJV. Both have many Pastors and leaders with sub par training and education.

The parallels to the Charismatic movement are: Both are orthodox in the doctrines essential to salvation and have saved people (for the most part). Both have some who are zealous for soul winning. Both have growing churches. Both place an inordinate emphasis on pragmatic results in ministry. Both emphasize a peculiar doctrine that is non historical and evolves from a twisting of scripture meaning and mis application. Both also have a wrong view of sanctification but in different ways. Both are non cessationist but in different ways. One allows for Post Apostolic miracle gifts and revelation. The other allows for Post Apostolic inspiration of a text type or version, or asserts a doctrine that requires some sort of miracle preservation which scripture only gives to the inspired authors and which is allowed only to the Jews (Rom.3:1-2). The KJVO and TRO therefore allow for a type of non cessationism as applied to the text and preservation of scripture. Both movements have a wide variety within the them. There are wild extremists in both. There are dictatorial style leaders in both. There are very sincere and spiritual in both. Both have those who are used of God. God appears to show he uses all who proclaim His true gospel.

The KJVO and TRO are to the right of the Historic Fundamentalism movement. The Charismatic movement is to the left of both Historic Fundamentalism and main stream Evangelicalism. Some more conservative Calvinist Evangelicals separate from Charismatics and KJVO and TRO (MacArthur). Some conservative Evangelicals embrace none cessationism (Piper). Some such as Mahany are Charismatic. New Evangelicals today have evolved where there is a wide acceptance of Charismatics and a wide acceptance of scripture as being errant to various degrees.

My main point is there are two widely different yet parallel Christian movements that have and are growing. They win souls. They appear blessed by God in many ways. Yet they both embrace peculiar doctrines that cannot be supported by the common sense handling of scripture regarding their peculiar doctrines.

We cannot judge the rightness or wrongness of their peculiar doctrines by the pragmatic standards of apparent blessing and growth. Only scripture must be the standard for judgment. However, we should learn how God uses the willing and may not use the theologically correct who are often unwilling.

Many may disagree with my thesis here. Thats OK.

[Matthew Richards] I have no love lost for Hyles or HAC although I still have better than 30 relatives caught in her clutches. My position is that we can all prefer whichever text or version we would like and still be Fundies.

So do you separate from your relatives still with HAC? Or have they separated from you? (Isn’t Bauder saying that we are to separate from people of this persuasion?—nod to original theme of the thread—)

And how exclusive is this separation if it happens? Is it one step from calling them “anathema” and not having them in your home? Would you go to something at HAC. i.e. a graduation from college experience of a nephew/niece?

What does this actually mean to the average person—separation from a person who is “hyperfundy”? I think we’ve been labeled that by people but of course, I don’t consider myself that at all. We’re definitely not KJVonly. I’m not sure how any missionary who works in another language could be.

One time a person “told me some things that I believed” that I just sat back in shock over—They weren’t true but this person had never discussed these issues with me. They were making some rather broad assumptions. It’s easy to try to label people and be wrong. The best way of finding out what someone believes is by asking them directly.

However, I have a sis and her husband who is a pastor who have started to believe more like WCBC and Ambassador (leaving their more “liberal BJU” background). According to Bauder, should we not stay in their prophet’s chamber/missionary house when we go back on furlough?

Becky Peterson wrote:

So do you separate from your relatives still with HAC? Or have they separated from you? (Isn’t Bauder saying that we are to separate from people of this persuasion?—nod to original theme of the thread—)

A

nd how exclusive is this separation if it happens? Is it one step from calling them “anathema” and not having them in your home? Would you go to something at HAC. i.e. a graduation from college experience of a nephew/niece?

I think Bauder sees this as mainly ministry or Ecclesiastical separation. The personal separation aspect would need to take in the relationship and circumstances. These are not Apostates. Separation is based on the Acts 20 principle and the Rom. 16:17-19 principle. You need not separate from relatives or friends unless their KJVO position becomes a contentious disruption on their part. You can have them in your house unless they try to convert others to the KJVO view. We can have personal relationships but should not join KJVO churches or be aligned in ministry. I know Charismatic Pastors that I can have some spiritual fellowship with and would have them over for dinner. But I would not allow them to spread their doctrine and would not be involved in any ministry relationship. The same for the KJVO or TRO persons.

We can hold positions of separation with Christian love and common sense application.

[Aaron Blumer] Doesn’t exactly say that everybody who puts exclusive use of KJV in their doctrinal statement is in this category either, though it’s clear he sees this as a serious problem.

Maybe not exactly, but strongly implied….

[Aaron Blumer] I suggest there is a missing category here and this is why, in part, some are taking Kevin to have a larger “target” than he really intends in this essay.

To include the missing category, the question might better read…

“does use of the King James fall under the category or personal preference the category of doctrine or the category of application of principle?” The third option there is not quite doctrine but is more than personal preference.

If we look at the “exclusive use of KJV” landscape and try to make everyone fit in the first two categories, we end up not being fair to some of them. Because there are a good number who are not claiming the Bible teaches KJVO but who believe application of what the Bible teaches requires KJVO. The difference matters because we call do this in deciding matters of conscience (more than matters of preference). We consider the conclusion binding on ourselves and those we are responsible for, but recognize other’s liberty in arriving at their own conclusion.

This is precisely what I was trying to express when I talked about “application of doctrine” earlier in the discussion. You have completely nailed it, in my opinion. This is the real problem with the article — there is a third category. A person may or may not agree with the application of those in this third category, but they aren’t demanding that you agree, anyway. Is Clarence Sexton in this third category? I don’t know. Based on Marc Monte’s comments on this thread, I would say your third category describes him.

[Aaron Blumer] But those who emphatically class all users of non-KJV as apostate or the like are clearly not in the “application of princple” category. They have made it fundamental doctrine.

That’s divisive… and Kevin is not being divisive to call for some form of separation from these.

Again, I agree.

Thanks, Aaron, for clearly expressing what I’ve been fumbling around to express. My other objection to the article was attributing to Clarence Sexton a divisiveness which is contrary to the little bit of evidence I have. But I’ve stated that earlier — so now I really will drop out.

[Becky Petersen] We’re definitely not KJVonly. I’m not sure how any missionary who works in another language could be.

You would think so, but, sad to say, it happens…

A couple of years ago I was on a trip to Eastern Europe where I was involved in a particular ministry project related to my work. On the way back I changed trains in another city and stopped the night over. A contact had arranged for me to stay with their American missionary pastor and I met them at a mid-week Bible Study.

I was really enjoying and appreciating and feeling blessed by the sermon. It was about dealing with persecution and standing firm and labouring on regardless. For thirty minutes I was really on the edge of my seat. …and then the penny dropped. I was dumbfounded, I was shocked and I was pretty numb for the rest of the time in that city. I regret that I did not walk out, even if it meant having to find another place to sleep and alternate transportation back to the train station.

Mid-way through the sermon, it was finally revealed to me that the “persecution” being faced by this pastor was from other missionaries and pastors in the area who adamantly disagreed with him and urged him to turn from his controversial and unnecessary course of action (and presumably had separated from him, and rightly so)… Namely, he was in the process of, and determined to complete, the translation of another version of the Bible for the local language.

The Bible already in the local language, as used by national indigenous churches for, I don’t know, generations, and as used by other missionaries, simply was not good enough. Did he have a team of trained linguists familiar with the local language, as well as Greek and Hebrew scholars? I don’t think so. It seemed to be just him and his personal translator… taking the English KJV and translating it into the local language! (Why would he attempt to translate from original languages — the Lord already blessed the KJV translators). Either way, I was absolutely speechless. My whole conversation with my hosts that night consisted of monosyllables only.

I have heard of this happening in another place in Eastern Europe / CIS.

Aaron Blumer wrote:

If we look at the “exclusive use of KJV” landscape and try to make everyone fit in the first two categories, we end up not being fair to some of them. Because there are a good number who are not claiming the Bible teaches KJVO but who believe application of what the Bible teaches requires KJVO.

Since it appears that the last step in the KJVO or TR thesis is application, why is this a category apart? None claim to see the KJV or TR text actually named in scripture. It is that their interpretation and application of the scriptures regarding preservation demand a perfect text or translation exist and the KJV or the TR are that to which they apply the principle.

Also, to have a doctrinal statement regarding the text type such as the TR, or a translation such as the KJV, makes that statement one of your ministry doctrinal certainties upon which you stand. Any deviation is not acceptable. Those statements have sections concerning God, the Trinity, Christ, and all the necessary beliefs that are ones essential certainties. A statement on a text type or translation is elevated to the same essential status in importance.

The importance of the James Price book I mention on a prior post on this thread is that all these issues are handled well by him. The book is almost 700 pages and covers it all. In our ministry here we have definite statements against the Charismatic movement and the KJVO, and TRO movements.

The only Fundamental Baptist churches in this area are four KJVO except for a GARBC church which has been influenced by the Ministry of John MacArthur and Masters. A graduate of the old LA Baptist Seminary was there 26 years. He was a good expositor. It grew to about 500. Some members demanded an elder rule and more emphasis on the LS Gospel and the so called “doctrines of Grace.” The Pastor was sort of forced out. Two Master Seminary graduates followed him. Each did not last two years. Their present attendance is now down to 50. By contrast the Hyper Fundamentalist KJVO Lancaster Baptist is at about four thousand and now has plans for expanding their Auditorium from 2600 to 4000. Now they are really very attractive to many. They have beautiful music with traditional hymns only and a full orchestra and large choir. They are attracting many both old and young who are fleeing from the noise called CCM in all other churches. Their Bible College is over 800 and growing. This is a very attractive ministry with several odd quirks of doctrine and practice such as the Divine blood and not accepting the Baptism of other Baptist churches unless the churches were Fundamentalist and KJVO. My wife and I would have to re Baptized to join. They do not put their KJVO belief up front but it is taught and enforced once in the door. They will use the term KJV preferred. However they teach KJVO and sell the O’Grady book which I bought in their book store. Their ministry is very attractive but moves toward a cultic in mindset. This is why I have a real interest in this issue.

In spite of the attractive and effective nature of some KJVO ministries, the issue cannot be ignored. The long term consequences for the foundation of truth for the Christian religion cannot be ignored. Their often poor doctrine and militant disciplinary practices cannot be easily over looked.

Dr. Kevin Bauder is right on. A further explanation of his position is in the book “One Bible Only?” Published by Central Baptist Seminary.

[BobT] Since it appears that the last step in the KJVO or TR thesis is application, why is this a category apart?

It’s a category that exists independently of the KJV issue. There are matters of top-level (or maybe bottom-level as in foundational) doctrine, then there are matters of direct ethical/moral teaching in Sccripture, but so many of the choices we make are arrived at only by identifying the relevant principles, studying conditions on the ground and making a connection.

So all I’m really saying is that there are some who are firmly in the “exclusive use of KJV” category who arrive at that position not because they believe it is Bible doctrine (certainly not foundation-level doctrine) or direct moral/ethical teaching but because they believe principles+conditions on the ground warrant that position as application/a matter of conscience.

I’m not agreeing with them—because I don’t believe they’ve correctly understood what I’m calling “conditions on the ground.” (For example, many seem to have no grasp at all of how significantly English has changed since the 1600’s… you can look up difficult KJV words but the definitions you find in many cases are no longer the same def’s they used in 1611. Then you have the whole text issue which I think many are quite confused about also.)

At any rate here are the three categories as I see them:

1. We believe exclusive use of the KJV is a matter of fundamental doctrine (even this does involve some application, it’s true… so there’s a built in problem here in putting any application at a doctrinal level)
2. We believe exclusive use of the KJV is a matter of personal preference (a variety of reasons might exist here: It’s more familiar to me, I’m more comfortable with it, I find it easier to memorize, I like the grandeur of the language, etc.)
3. We believe principles (such as respect for what God revealed, the need for accuracy, the need to avoid the word of deviant groups, etc) warrant exclusive use of the KJV because of the nature of the other options out there at present.
   Of course, option c can be problematic in many ways… what princples are we talking about? What’s the truth about the other text/translation options? But my point is not to say the category 3 folks are right (I don’t think any of the categories are “right”), but to say that the ones in category 3 are not in separation territory, but can easily be confused for folks in category 1 (which are in separation territory)
   
   But if folks in category 3 haven’t really thought through their rational and, as a result, put their position in doctrinaire language and put it in their doctrinal statements up there with the substitutionary atonement… well, I can’t feel all that sorry for them if folks put them in category 1 and think they need to distance themselves. They need to work through the issue carefully and articulate their stand carefully. It’s not OK to be sloppy with bibliology just because we’re being sloppy in a “conservative direction” (ie, toward the right).

Aaron, why wouldn’t category three people be in separation territory? Does it have any practical difference in every day life from the people in category 1?

[rrobinson]

(Why would he attempt to translate from original languages — the Lord already blessed the KJV translators). Either way, I was absolutely speechless. My whole conversation with my hosts that night consisted of monosyllables only.

I have heard of this happening in another place in Eastern Europe / CIS.

Sorry for your bad experience. I do know KJV only missionaries even here in Poland but I don’t understand how they can be honest with their believers about the Bible. A lot of it is sheer ignorance, I guess. This is what they’ve been taught. Sometimes they are just simple people with very little Bible training but with a lot of enthusiasm/zeal.

Sigh.

I know there is a whole discussion about the Spanish Bible as well, but I’m kind of out of that whole realm. I still don’t see how a missionary who is dealing constantly with a language other than English can be honestly, KJVonly-at least not as in category 1 as Aaron describes it. They have to stand up to their people and tell them,”Sorry…but we don’t have the Bible for you all.”

Bob T,

Thank you for your excellent summary of the issue in your post numbered 92! Hard to say it much better than that.

Mike Harding

Bob, I was referring to your KJV summary in comment number 88 not 92. Editing time had run out.

[James K] Monte has made a very good point about faith though. His faith is contra the evidence. His faith leads him to believe the current edition of the TR is the preserved Word of God. Just think about that for a minute. So really Monte has a positive feeling about the current TR. His comments demonstrate well the difference between faith and positive thinking.

Our faith in a six day creation event is also contra what appears to be very strong evidence. I don’t think contra the evidence has much to do with it. Brother Monte’s real problem is his faith extends beyond the statements of scripture, with a Wile E. Coyote-running-past-the-land-beneath-him result.

My point is the same point Larry made. Monte’s faith lacks an object. It is just positive thinking. That is sad.

[Mike Harding] The current exaltation by many KJVO advocates of the KJV is nothing short of “bibliolatry” — the worship of a particular translation and a complete denial of the Baptist doctrine of soul liberty.

[JNoël] Perhaps 1611Os are in violation of the first commandment (Comment #51 on http://www.sharperiron.org/article/let-minutiae-speak).

Thank you, Pastor Harding.

V/r,

J Noël

[RPittman] David…Would you explain how your faith in the Bible as the Word of God, other than it’s own internal statements, is superior to Bro. Monte’s faith that the KJV is the Word of God. Your faith in the statements of Scripture presupposes a faith in the veracity of those statements.

My faith in the statements of scripture presupposes nothing. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Those words, by being spirit and used by the Spirit, work faith in the hearer.

[RPittman] it is a comparison of your faith that the Bible is the Word of God versus Bro. Monte’s faith that the KJV is the Word of God. What’s the difference?

I agree the KJV is the Word of God (in addition the the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc). Bro. Monte says only (faithful) translations of certain Greek, Hebrew, and Latin manuscript/families are the Word of God. I argue that the statements of scripture, whence cometh our faith, affirm my position not the other. Bro. Monte states his faith, derived, apparently, from his imagination and his perception of church tradition, affirms his position and not the other.

There is a difference there.

[RPittman]

Bob, have you read Thomas Kuhn’s The Nature of Scientific Revolutions? Although it is now an older work, it will give you a perspective on the thing closest to fulfilling the rationalistic model (although it fails)—science. Ironically, Bob, your intellectualism and scholarship (based on Modernist rationalism) falters at its strongest point.

Bob, your misunderstanding of Modernist rationalism is much like the over-simplification others use to argue that the compilers of manuscripts, comprising what is popularly know as the Textus Receptus, were textual critics. This is a red herring. When textual criticism is discussed in the modern debate, we are speaking of specific theories, beginning with Westcott and Hort, and challenging the basis of these theories and textual rules.

Um, I’m pretty sure my definition of rationalism is dead on. How you define the ‘modernistic’ may be where I’m missing your point. You clarified:

“Modernist rationalism is based on the idea that reason systematically applied through the correct methodology, akin to the scientific method, will arrive at truth.”

But I still say that per your definition of modernistic rationalism that is exactly how KJVO advocates argue.

Yes, I’ve read Kuhn and was fascinated by it.

Hi RPittman, thanks for asking.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because it declares that it is.

Monte believes the current edition of the TR is the preserves Word of God because he believes it is.

My faith is in scripture, his faith is in his faith. Thanks for the opportunity to explain the difference.

Cheers.

Sorry RPittman, I thought I was clear enough for you to understand. I will try again.

The Bible declares itself to be the Word of God. By faith I believe that.

The Bible never declares the TR in any edition to be the preserved Word of God.

I hope that helps clear up your confusion.

[RPittman] KJVO advocates base their faith on Scriptural statements

Can’t shift the territory of the discussion in the middle of it. You asked me about Bro. Monte’s faith (the basis of which he has expressed here), not “KJVO advocates” in general, some of whose faith is based on scriptural statements, while that of others isn’t.