Now, About Those Differences, Part Twenty Three
The entire “Now About Those Differences” series is available here.
Sinister et Dexter
The best and most accurate body of manuscripts underlying the New Testament is the Textus Receptus. This then supports the King James Version for which I unashamedly stand and from which I exclusively study and preach.
—Evangelist Dwight Smith
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use.
—Temple Baptist Church and Crown College, Knoxville, Tennessee
At first glance, the present essay will appear to be a digression from the conversation about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals—and a lengthy digression at that. It is not. It is rather an attempt at recognizing that, when the principles of Christian fellowship and separation are applied consistently, they affect our relationship with professing fundamentalists as well as our relationship with other evangelicals. To illustrate this point, let me begin with a personal anecdote.
Not long ago, a reader of this publication sent the following question, signing himself as Richard V. Clearwaters: “I preached my entire ministry from the KJV. Was that wrong, outmoded, or ineffective? You seem to loathe anyone who does preach from this Bible and won’t preach from another? [sic]” Naturally, the author of these words was not R. V. Clearwaters, but the question was meant seriously.
This kind of query always leaves me nonplussed—not because of the pseudepigraphy, but because of the assumption behind the question. It assumes that a critique of King James Onlyism constitutes a critique of the King James Version. To question the legitimacy of King James Only convictions or tactics is somehow to attack the King James Bible and all who use it. On occasion, correspondents have informed me that my critique of their position identifies me as a member of the “Alexandrian cult,” which is supposed to be a secret society going back to Patristic times. One even said that he had my number, “and it’s 666.”
Objecting to the misuse of a thing, however, is not the same as objecting to the thing itself. I dislike the idea of hearing Bach’s Goldberg Variations played by kazoo, not because I dislike Bach, but because I do not wish to see Bach debased. By the same token, my objection is not to the King James Version, but to those who make false claims about it. This distinction seems so obvious that I have trouble taking critics seriously when they cannot seem to grasp it.
In the interest of full disclosure, perhaps I should state that I am one of those misfits who still prefers to use a King James. Given a choice, it is what I will preach from (and since I am almost always given a choice, it is almost always what I use). It is the English text that I employ in my seminary teaching. It is the Bible that I have committed to memory and the Bible that I quote. Never in my life have I raised any objection to reading or using the King James Version.
Let me go further. I confess the King James Version to be the Word of God. It is Holy Scripture. I hold it to be authoritative. When I read it (as I do each day), God holds me responsible to obey what I read.
Some might believe that my attitude displays too much deference or reverence toward what is, after all, a translation of Scriptures that were originally written in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Can a translation carry that kind of authority? On this point, I agree with the King James translators themselves.
[W]e do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
Since I highly esteem the King James Version of the Bible, then what is my disagreement with the King James Only movement? Between us lie two bones of contention, two questions that must be answered. The first is, how do we regard other versions of the Bible? The second is, does the use of the King James fall under the category of personal preference or under the category of doctrine?
To illustrate the differences, I have included two quotations at the beginning of this essay. The first is from the doctrinal statement of a well-respected itinerant preacher. The second is from the doctrinal statement of a prominent, church-based, independent Baptist college.
Both statements come out in the same place. Both are willing to recognize and employ only the King James Version as the Word of God in the English language. The preacher prides himself that the King James Version is the only Bible that he will use, not only to preach, but to study. If someone places a New International Version in his hand, he will not study it. If a church asks that he respect their decision to use the New American Standard in their services, he will not do it. He does not want to study God’s Word if it is not the King James Version.
The second statement is even more emphatic. The King James Version is the only English version that the college is willing to accept and use. They do not accept the American Standard Version of 1901. They do not accept the New American Standard. They do not accept the New International Version. They will not accept the English Standard Version. As far as this school is concerned, only the King James Version is the Word of God in English.
Given the stated attitude of these sources toward modern translations, two observations are in order. The first is that their position does not represent historic, mainstream fundamentalism. Speaking of mainstream fundamentalists, the real Richard V. Clearwaters wrote the following in The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise.
Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits….We know of no Fundamentalists…that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the main stream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation.
My second observation is that the attitude displayed by the aforementioned preacher and college is genuinely contemptuous of the Word of God. If I were to declare that the King James Version was not the Word of God, then King James Only advocates would quickly and rightly excoriate me for my contempt of Scripture—regardless of my attitude toward other versions. Yet they themselves refuse to acknowledge the American Standard Version (et al.) as the Word of God.
Read again what the King James translators wrote to their readers. Translations may differ in grace or fitness of expression, but even a “mean” translation must be regarded as God’s Word. A person who despises the King James has shown contempt for God’s Word. By the same token, a person who despises the NASV or the NIV has shown contempt for God’s Word.
What is more, this contemptuous attitude toward the Word of God is not held merely as a personal preference. Rather, it is affirmed as a matter of doctrine—indeed, of vital doctrine. These King James Only advocates do not simply agree to disagree.
Look again at the quotations at the beginning of this essay. These citations are not drawn from position papers or editorials. They are taken from doctrinal statements.
The point of a doctrinal statement is not to articulate the entire system of faith. No one tries to include every belief in a doctrinal statement. When we write doctrinal statements, we aim to include only our most characteristic and important beliefs.
As a matter of doctrine, the itinerant preacher refuses to study any translation of the Bible except the King James. As a matter of doctrine, the college accepts and uses only the King James Bible. For these individuals, rejecting other versions of the Word of God is so important that they feel compelled to include their rejection in their creedal affirmations.
Such attitudes are hardly rare. In a series of videos released during the late 1990s and early 2000s, Pensacola Christian College (PCC) accused several fundamentalist institutions of sinful hypocrisy for not following a King James Only position. PCC has never repented of these public attacks. At West Coast Baptist College, graduating seniors do not receive their diplomas until they publicly stand to affirm that “God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people,” and agree that if they ever abandon this belief, they “should return [their] diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”
Extreme as these pronouncements are, evangelists such as Smith and colleges such as Crown, Pensacola, and West Coast actually represent the very moderate side of the King James Only movement. I have seen others cast the New American Standard Version to the ground. I have heard them denounce the New International Version as a “perversion.” More vitriolic King James Only advocates are even willing to attack the more moderate expressions of their own movement. For example, author William P. Grady has blasted Crown College and its president, Clarence Sexton, charging that school with apostasy (incidentally, Grady’s books—especially Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible—are indispensable reading for those who wish to understand the mindset and sensibilities of the King James Only movement).
Sadly, these people are attempting to create a new fundamentalism on the basis of a new fundamental. They have set themselves up as judges over the Word of God, determining for hundreds and thousands of Christians what will and what will not be recognized as Scripture. Alongside the gospel, they have introduced loyalty to the King James Version as a test of Christian fellowship.
How are these observations relevant to the relationship between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals? To answer this question, we must remember a bit of history.
American evangelicalism broke with fundamentalism when people like Harold John Ockenga, Edward John Carnell, and Billy Graham created a new evangelicalism. The error of neoevangelicalism was serious. New evangelicals rejected the fundamentalist insistence that the fundamentals of the gospel constitute the boundary of Christian fellowship. Fundamentalists tried to separate from apostates, but neoevangelicals tolerated apostates in their organizations, sought to cooperate with apostates in the Lord’s work, and tried to infiltrate enterprises that were controlled by apostates.
The error of the King James Only movement is opposite but equal to the error of the new evangelicalism. The new evangelicals wanted to remove the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The King James Only movement wishes to add to the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neoevangelicalism could be called “sub-fundamentalist,” while the King James Only movement is hyper-fundamentalist.
Of course, the King James Only movement is only one species of hyper-fundamentalism. Hyper-fundamentalism may revolve around personal and institutional loyalties, idiosyncratic agendas, absurd ethical standards, or the elevation of incidental doctrines and practices. The thing that characterizes all versions of hyper-fundamentalism is the insistence upon draconian reactions for relatively pedestrian—or even imaginary—offenses.
Hyper-fundamentalism and the new evangelicalism are mirror images of each other. The old neoevangelicalsim damaged the gospel, not by denying it, but by attacking its role as a demarcator between Christianity and apostasy. The hyper-fundamentalist does the same kind of damage by adding something else alongside the gospel. If anything, King James Onlyism is worse, for it shows contempt for the Word of God. It attacks the heart of Christianity by sitting in judgment over its source of authority.
Neoevangelicalism and hyper-fundamentalism are equal errors. Whatever we should have done in response to the new evangelicals is the same thing that we should do now in response to hyper-fundamentalists. Historic, mainstream, biblical fundamentalism has no more in common with Pensacola, Crown, and West Coast than it had with Ockenga, Carnell, and Graham.
Incidentally, no one should infer from this discussion that I think every King James Only advocate is hypocritical or defiant toward God. Nor should anyone assume that God cannot use King James Only churches, preachers, and schools. In His grace, He can and does. And of course, these same caveats should be applied to neoevangelicals: they were not necessarily insincere or defiant toward God, and God did work through them.
Furthermore, not all fundamentalists are hyper-fundamentalists, any more than all evangelicals are (or were) neoevangelicals. Several mediating positions exist. Historic, mainstream fundamentalism has been one of those mediating positions. Conservative evangelicalism is another.
In my opinion, fundamentalists are biblically obligated to separate from brethren who practice the neoevangelical philosophy. In the same way, and for much the same reasons, we are also obligated to separate from hyper-fundamentalists. We should not separate from either group as if they are apostates or enemies. Nevertheless, our ability to work with them is limited by their errors.
Conservative evangelicals do not want to be recognized as fundamentalists, and they do not belong in that category. At the same time, they are not guilty of the more serious errors that plagued the new evangelicalism. Unless separation is an all-or-nothing matter (and in the case of separation from Christians it is not), then we should recognize a greater degree of commonality and fellowship with conservative evangelicals than we could with neoevangelicals—or with hyper-fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists of the main stream do have more in common with conservative evangelicals than they have in common with hyper-fundamentalists. In particular, we have more in common with biblically responsible conservative evangelicals than we do with the captains of the King James Only movement. If we believe in separation, we ought to be separating from hyper-fundamentalists more quickly and more publicly than we do from conservative evangelicals.
How do these relationships work out in real life? For the final essay of this series, I would like to deal with two personal examples. The first was an occasion when I was invited to share a platform with a hyper-fundamentalist. The second was an occasion when I was invited to speak with a conservative evangelical. I plan to compare my handling of these situations to the way that other fundamentalists have responded in similar circumstances. While my response to these situations is certainly subject to critique, these episodes offer good, existential case studies of the effort to apply biblical principles to fellowship and separation.
Advent, 1
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)
‘Come,’ Thou dost say to Angels,
To blessed Spirits, ‘Come’:
‘Come,’ to the lambs of Thine own flock,
Thy little ones, ‘Come home.’
‘Come,’ from the many-mansioned house
The gracious word is sent;
‘Come,’ from the ivory palaces
Unto the Penitent.
O Lord, restore us deaf and blind,
Unclose our lips though dumb:
Then say to us, ‘I will come with speed,’
And we will answer, ‘Come.’
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Scriptural declarations mean nothing until you have confidence in the Scriptures.Wow … Nothing to beat a little neo-orthodoxy on a Friday evening.
The truth is that Scripture declarations have meaning whether you have confidence in the Scriptures or not.
So, you must have faith in Scripture before you accept its declarations.But mankind will answer to them and for them whether they accept them or not.
Just to be clear, I doubt there is any debate here over whether the TR or the KJV is the Word of God. The question is whether anything other than the TR or the KJV is the Word of God. Historically, the answer has always been yes. Recently, there is a move to say no. I have tried several times, as yet unsuccessfully, to get Marc to clarify for us what he believes. I think that would help us to know whether he is part of Bauder’s target or not. Hopefully he will indulge us a bit.
What you are failing to grasp is that it was Monte who made the claim that the current TR is the preserved word of God. This is just something he accepts by faith. His argument isn’t based on any biblical passage or historical evidence. He just believes in his belief which is what he wants to believe.
Instead of priding yourself on argumentation, step back and try to understand.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Becky Petersen] 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.Thanks, but my “bad experience” was neither here nor there. My personal experience consisted of little more than squirming through the second half of the sermon with a reeling mind and emotions, and enduring an hour of stilted conversation before bed. Nothing terribly new there.
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.”
No, I was heartsick for the people in that church. And I am concerned for the testimony of conservative American missions in that region.
That’s exactly what they were telling their people — “the Bible available to you in your own language is not acceptable. We use the KJV; therefore, I will read to you from the English KJV only, and I will, with the translator’s help, translate the words for you, until such time as we have completed your authorised version for you.” Apparently, any unauthorised version, English or otherwise, is unacceptable. Apparently, not only is it better to translate from the English KJV, even badly, than to use another “Bible”, but also that it is their main mission.
What??? The implications of this are enormous. It goes well beyond any “honesty” problem that you and I would both have with this. I am trusting this is a very extreme and rare case.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall] ARRG, :tear:, the standard Bible for Russian speakers is the Synodical Version with origins in the Russian Orthodox Church. With this logic. our martyred brothers and sisters did not have the Word of God.Here in Poland there is a group that is reworking an old Bible (because the one they like is too old and people tell them they can’t understand it) based on the TR, from what I understand.
One of the problems is, of course, that the people they were getting to help them were without any background in Biblical languages to help them as they work on updating the old Gdansk version. Then, when they are done, what is it called? The Updated “…” version? Is it a translation, or a paraphrase? It all seems unnecessary and divisive. However, to them it is very important. However, one nice thing are doing is putting a cross reference in the middle so it is more like a study Bible.
They are excited about it but we aren’t really sure what to call it when it is done. I think they’ve finished the New Testament.
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
If PCC, Westcoast, Crown and others brought their scholars together to create a new version in English from the TR would it be accepted?
If yes why, If no why?
The usual answer that i get is that we dont need another version. Yet from history, I don’t see the translators saying “We don’t need another version”? I think the problem lies in our doctrine, tradition, or in contemporary translators.
[Brandon King] Want to give you my background before I ask the question. I am a PCC Alumni, I sat under Dell Johnson, and Greg Mutsch for my undergrad. I took a class from Dr. Johnson on the preservation of our Bible, and textual criticism. I watched the videos from PCC and read the book “From The Mind of God to the Mind of Men”. I later went on to receive my MDIV from Luther Rice University. Our church uses KJV for its worship and programs. Here is the hypothetical that I have asked?There is a big problem in that I do not know of a single faculty member on any of their faculties that can be classified as a scholar capable of doing textual and translating work. Leave out the textual work and there is no one capable of being an accepted translator. Not only do most all have bachelors degrees from sub par schools, but many have masters and doctorates from sub par schools or even a degree mill. PCC may come the closest to having a qualified person. Please understand that many with earned doctorates from highly esteemed schools would not be asked to be on a translating committee because they lack the years of academic research to be recognized by peers as a reliable language scholar.
If PCC, Westcoast, Crown and others brought their scholars together to create a new version in English from the TR would it be accepted?
If yes why, If no why?
The usual answer that i get is that we dont need another version. Yet from history, I don’t see the translators saying “We don’t need another version”? I think the problem lies in our doctrine, tradition, or in contemporary translators.
The NKJV was translated from the same OT and NT textual resources as the KJV of 1611. It was translated by recognized scholars. It was translated by scholars who had far more Biblical theological views than the Anglicans that translated the original KJV. Yet it is rejected by the KJVO and TRO advocates based on their so called critical ( which is human reasoning) and analysis. An analysis by men who are mostly lacking in scholarship credentials.
However, if such a task were to be undertaken by these schools no one would object. It would be interesting to see what they would come up with. Perhaps they would claim divine inspiration for their work. ;)
Why cant we have a new version from TR Text? Could R Pittman or Pastor Monte help me here?
Could you accept a modern translation from the TR using conservative approved scholars? Yes or No
My answer is yes.
[Brandon King] I agree with your assertations concerning scholarship. But the question was formed around the “If”. Many TR only and KJV only often site liberal scholars as part of the reason for not accepting a particular version. So the question is assuming TR Text, conservative theological bent, literal translation from scholars in the Independent movement. Dr. Barnhart was one that was knowledgeable in the texts at PCC.A couple of years ago one of the writers over at JackHammer suggested that a new translation from the TR would be acceptable. He was crucified for it. He then beat a hasty retreat.
Why cant we have a new version from TR Text? Could R Pittman or Pastor Monte help me here?
You see something of that spirit in Roland’s answer to you, where he says, “why would we need a new version, we already have an authoritative version”.
That is precisely why so many are dubious of the sincerity of some who hold the KJO position. The KJV appears to be more than just a translation, regardless of their protests that they don’t believe in double inspiration. No other translations need apply…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Chip Van Emmerik] 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?Yes.
When you’re making an application you’re not claiming no other views are orthodox. You’re putting it in the category of liberty and conscience and agreeing not to “despise” (in the Rom.14 sense) those who arrive at a different conclusion. Same category as music, entertainment, dress, holidays.
Edit: I am assuming here that folks in category 3 know what category 3 is… that is, they’ve come to grips with Rom.14 (and, if I remember right, 1 Cor.10). Sadly, for many, category 3 does not even exist—in reference to anything—so they are not able to put their views on the KJV in that category. (That is, these do not see any difference between a position you derive by application and a position that is taught directly in Scripture. In that case, they are really in category 1… it’s a matter of doctrine for them, right up there with virgin birth and not renting PG rated videos)
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.
Otherwise, it’s not faith at all. It could be any number of things from wishful thinking to having a hunch to being the product of observation and reflection (but that would be “rationalism” to some). But one thing it is not is faith.
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.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Sorry, but by the nature of your many posts on SI and the doctrinal position you hold, I would not consider you one that I would consider responding to on here or elsewhere . Your responses on SI are disingenuous at best. It is called the application of personal separation to the internet.
Bob T.
Other than adding the word, “paraphrased”, I stand by my entire comment, which was:
[Don Johnson] A couple of years ago one of the writers over at JackHammer suggested that a new translation from the TR would be acceptable. He was crucified for it. He then beat a hasty retreat.I was thinking of this statement by you when I wrote that:
You see something of that spirit in Roland’s answer to you, where he says, “why would we need a new version, we already have an authoritative version”. [paraphrased]
[RPittman] I don’t know the answers to these questions but I do have some thoughts. The process of canonization took a period of time. I think the acceptance of the KJV took time as well before it was adopted by the Believing Church. For this reason, I believe, we ought to be very slow in accepting any new translation, even based on the TR, until we see how the Believing Church accepts it. The interesting thing is that even the modernization of the KJV, such as the New Schofield Reference Bible, really never became that popular among the Believing Churches.I think my paraphrase is a fair assessment of what you said. I’ll leave it for others to judge if I am right or not.
You noted the many translations of the past. However, you will also note from history that these many translations fell by the wayside in fairly short order. The KJV became the accepted Bible among the Believing Churches for almost 400 years. This says something.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My point, which I will again emphasize, is that it doesn’t make any sense to villify those who use exclusively the traditional texts. When the critical texts were introduced, some men accepted them and some men rejected them—seeing unmistakable differences. Those who rejected them because of the differences simply maintained loyalty to the traditional texts. They did what the church had been doing for hundreds of years.
Now, a little comment about faith and preservation: The idea that God has providentially preserved His word is NOT non-cessationism. (It’s a little more like Calvinism, and a lot of you should be happy about that!) God is, after all, sovereign. Everyone on this blog, I presume, believes God has preserved His Word somewhere. I happen to believe it is preserved in the texts used consistently throughout church history—you know, those texts that all Christians believed in prior to the late 1800’s. My faith is NOT in my faith. My faith is in the Bible, the traditional texts of Scripture. Do I believe that the Critical Text is the Word of God? Only in as much as it agrees with the traditional texts. Because they’re different, they can’t both be right at their points of difference. My belief rests upon the fact that God inspired His Word and He also preserved it.
There is nothing unorthodox about my position. Conservative Christians held this position prior to the late 1800’s. There is nothing unscholarly about my position. Some of the most revered expositors of the church held to the traditional texts of Scripture as the Word of God. What crime is it to believe that in holding the TR I hold the words of God?
Dr. Bauder’s blog, however, questions the legitimacy of believing what the church historically believed. Worse yet, some on this blog have equated simple faith in the traditional texts with heresy. That, my friends, is way over the top. As I see it, Dr. Bauder is attempting to broaden fundamentalism to the left while narrowing it on the right. That’s too bad because orthodox Christianity is under no threat from those who simply believe in the traditional texts of its Scriptures.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
I believe God has preserved his word in the totality of manuscripts and translations available today. FWIW, I believe that I have God’s Word in the ESV on my desk and the NIV at my office.
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
[RPittman] Personally, I believe in divine preservation of Scripture although it is not explicitly stated as such.This has been the recurring point made by several people in different ways.
You believe.
You have no scriptural basis for the belief.
Yet you foist your beliefs of on others as inviolable.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Personally, I believe in divine preservation of Scripture although it is not explicitly stated as such.This has been my point about Monte. This point you failed to address. Now you make my point in explicit terms.
Your faith is in your own faith about what you want to believe.
Regarding KJVO not being conservative, yes that was judgmental of me. Some guys back in the 20s were judgmental against liberalism. I stand in their tradition against the liberal theology you hold to.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Sorry i couldnt figure how to quote your questions.
Thanks RPittman for your response. I understand your reluctancy in answering the hypothetical, though i think in simplicity with an Almighty God, He could preserve a new translation in English.
So to your questions 1) I believe just as God brought together the cannon of Scripture, where no doubt their were differences in what people thought should be included and excluded, we have a simplified example of the preservation of Scripture. Onto the question of differences in translations, the question rises in how much a difference is their in the translations from the greek and hebrew from one another; this takes discrenment, faithfulness to the text, and great skill in the languages. I think that from the TR we can conclude their has been differences in interpretations over the years in the different readings from the various translations that you have mentioned. Ill let others cite the passages. I believe that in simplest form that textual criticism did take place in the cannonizing of Scripture, and in the production of the KJV. You may disagree with this point.
2) I believe both would be reliable and authoritative if true to the text. If their was a bent or bias in translation due to practice, tradition, or of a particular doctrine that differed from Scripture , we would say it is corrupt.
3) As to scholarship, and who makes the decision on the correct translation. I believe God used men to bring His Word into this world. He inspired the Original writings through some 40 differing authors over the course of time. Can he use men today? Yes, He doesn’t inspire the Word as He gave it to the prophets, and Apostles of old. But can he give men the ability in the translations of New versions in English? Yes. As to which scholarship, I would say the ones that stick closest to the Hebrew and Greek Text.
Ive seen both sides of the version debate. I use the KJV and have not been convinced to change. I enjoy the KJV, the language, my commitment to memorization etc… I think a strength for the TR view does side on history. Though i think from history we see that the translators did not have any problem with a new version that would follow the KJV. I don’t believe that God inspired the translators of the KJV. I do believe it to be the Word of God along with other versions that remain true to the text. Hoped that answered your questions.
My concerns in fundamentalism:
As a churchplanter/Missionary, Ive seen first hand how Pastors will dismiss said missionary, if that missionary doesn’t hold to his position in regards to version; he has dismissed them concerning deputation and support as a missionary. They separate from someone like myself when I dont hold to a strict KJVO position or precise position on the TR. I’ve seen and heard of missionaries being dismissed soley on the school affiliation; no prayer, no explanation of beliefs, simply a dismissal based on attending the wrong fundamental school. This separation is not due to a preference; its due to a percieved difference in doctrine, that to me, wasnt defined to the degree that we now define Bibliology in our doctrinal statements.
These same pastors will invite other independent Pastors to conferences and fellowships that they host; but will not attend a fellowship with the same pastors at a different church that might hold a different view in Bibliology. To me this is sad. This simply is about control.
Whereas, I have seen those from BJU and other like schools treat individuals differently from the example above. Now dont get me wrong i know their have been horror stories from the other side of the fence. But by far, i see less separation from those that hold to the Alexandrian Text over that of the TR persuasion concerning others. I think the jist of Bauder’s argument is that separtaion is necessary from those that are KJVO, and that separation could occur to those that are TRO based on their doctrinal belief and practical application of the belief.
Again, I thank you for your time in explaining your position. Ill retire from writing, and read from here on out. Unless Pastor Monte or another TRO would entertain the hypothetical question.
If Dr. Bauder’s blog is not a swipe at the TR folks, who is he addressing? Ruckmanites? If so, I could concur, but the institutions he named are not Ruckmanite.
Dr. Bauder simply didn’t think this one all the way through. It’s also interesting to note that the schools he mentioned are not likely sending grad students to Central, Calvary, or Detroit for that matter. These schools have literally thousands of undergraduates yearly, but very few would attend those three seminaries. One can’t help but wonder if he would have been more charitable had one of the named institutions been a source for seminary students. Just a random thought!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Did I misread Bauder? He opened his blog with quotations from two men who in their doctrinal statements proclaim a TR position.I think you misread him. The quotes he began with, and the schools in question, do not only hold a TR position. They hold a position about the English text, and that is the issue. Smith uses the word “exclusively” with respect to the KJV, and Crown uses the word “only.” That puts the issue in the realm of English translation.
BTW, I hope, Marc, that you will get time to answer the questions I put forth. I think they would be helpful to us in understanding where you are coming from and exactly where you draw lines on this issue.
I think I speak for many if not most when I say I have no problem with someone who believes that the TR is hte best text or that the KJV is the best translation. I don’t think that is Bauder’s issue, based on how I read him. The issue comes when they refuse to believe that the critical text is a legitimate biblical text and modern translations are the Word of God.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1 John 2:23 NASB
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
What was it the italics meant again in the KJV? Oh yeah, they are there to help clarify what the text means in english when the “traditional text” doesn’t have words for it. Funny thing though about half a verse being in italics. So even the KJV translators went beyond the “traditional text” to translate a verse. I don’t expect some of you to actually have an answer for that. I know you have faith in yourselves that you made the right choice.
Monte, these quotes are yours.
The idea that God has providentially preserved His word is NOT non-cessationism.I didn’t see anyone saying otherwise. Maybe I missed a post or something that said this. This seems to just be a red herring.
I happen to believe it is preserved in the texts used consistently throughout church history—you know, those texts that all Christians believed in prior to the late 1800’s.You speak of it as a singular text that has been used. There is no singular text that has been used for 1900 years. All we have are fragments. All Erasmus had was fragments. Everyone involved in any of these editions or versions we speak of used textual criticism. Have you forgotten the dark ages, when the scriptures were chained? We don’t know what the worldwide actual church was using during that time. We don’t have their Bible. Even if you claim it was the Byzantine text type that was superior, many of the fragments date very late. I don’t have a problem with the Byzantine text type. I have a problem with the persistent misinformation.
My faith is in the Bible, the traditional texts of Scripture.You just make the claim then go against it. You do not have any passage from scripture that says exactly where or how God would preserve his word. You have to go outside the Bible to make your argument. So then your faith is in how man has preserved it? Whether your faith is in yourself or in man it isn’t clear. That it isn’t is God is clear.
My belief rests upon the fact that God inspired His Word and He also preserved it.No one argues that he inspired and preserved his word. You are trying to argue how he did that without anything but your faith. Sorry Marc, but I don’t take your word for it.
Conservative Christians held this position prior to the late 1800’s.Conservative Christians also disagree with your position. Another red herring.
Some of the most revered expositors of the church held to the traditional texts of Scripture as the Word of God.Alot of them didn’t have anything contrary to them either. Another red herring.
What crime is it to believe that in holding the TR I hold the words of God?Who says it is? Another red herring.
Dr. Bauder’s blog, however, questions the legitimacy of believing what the church historically believed.Again, you are simply arguing in actuality for only a few hundred years. You aren’t talking about the entire history of the church. I know you think you are, but that is disingenuous.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
I doubt that anyone would seriously challenge the contention that Dr. Bauder’s call for separatism based upon this criteria is a new thing. In addition to being a new proposal, Dr. Bauder’s idea flies in the face of church history. Calvin, you will recall, used the traditional texts. He believed them to be the preserved words of God. How is it that we lionize Calvin but villify Smith and Sexton?
If you would like clarification about my personal beliefs, I would be happy to have a cup of coffee with either of you. That should be especially easy for Matthew since you reside in Indianapolis. Let me assure you that I do not believe in “double inspiration” nor am I a Ruckmanite. I simply hold the traditional texts of Scripture to be the Word of God and the King James Bible to be the best English translation of those words. In the words of my beloved professor Dr. Dell Johnson, “The text is the issue!”
Matthew, let’s get together for a cup of coffee sometime!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Pastors should know better.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Answers based upon faith are important; answers grounded in the cloudy doubt of rationalism and textual criticism engender doubt. The textual issue is beyond the scope of effective discussion ona blog. Too many participants lack the educational credentials to adequately deal with the topic, and it tends to produce more heat than light.
Remember, the original topic of this blog is not Bibliology. Rather, it is Bauder’s new call for separating from people who believe what the church has always believed. It is his call to separate from people who read the traditional texts and have the audacity to believe they are the words of God. Obviously, Dr. Bauder didn’t think through the implications of his words. We, however, should. There is absolutely no reason to separate—even by degrees—from people who hold to the traditional texts of Scripture. To do so flies in the face of over 1800 years of church history. In his attempt to rope in the left and ostrasize the right, Dr. Bauder has gone too far.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
The topic is Dr. Bauder’s call for some degree of separation from Christians who hold to the traditional texts of Scripture.I wonder if you might show us where Bauder calls for separation from those who hold to traditional texts. I don’t see Dr. Bauder refer to a Greek text at all. Did I miss something? Can you show me where Bauder said anything about traditional texts or people who hold to them?
[From the later post] it is Bauder’s new call for separating from people who believe what the church has always believed. It is his call to separate from people who read the traditional texts and have the audacity to believe they are the words of God.
It reads to me like he is referring to a specific position on an English text, which both of the opening quotes talk about, and that is what frames his article. As I say, I can’t even find a reference to a Greek text, apart from the two opening quotes. We might be able to better interact if we knew what you were basing your assertion on.
I doubt that anyone would seriously challenge the contention that Dr. Bauder’s call for separatism based upon this criteria is a new thing. In addition to being a new proposal, Dr. Bauder’s idea flies in the face of church history. Calvin, you will recall, used the traditional texts. He believed them to be the preserved words of God. How is it that we lionize Calvin but villify Smith and Sexton?Actually, I don’t think the principle is new at all. One of the fundamental issues in the separatism debate has always been Scripture, and particularly, what Scripture teaches about itself. It has quite frequently been various deficient views of inspiration. We have always separated from people who deny the biblical teaching on inspiration and inerrancy. So to extend that in this arena is hardly new, I think. Even the original fundamentals clarified this with Gray’s assertion that inspiration properly applied only to the original writings. So indeed, any view of inspiration that is different is “new.” Anyone who contends that a particular text or translation is without any copyists error is teaching something new. I think it is that to which Bauder refers.
In other words, what’s new is the idea that Bauder is addressing, that only one English text is the Word of God. It is those people who have denied orthodox and historic teaching on the Bible. The Scriptures do not teach that only one English translation is the Word of God, or even that only one text is the Word of God. That is outside the Scripture. It is abiblical at best, and I think unbiblical. So this particular issue may be new because this particular teaching about Scripture is new. Until relatively recent times, this was a non issue because no one believed what is being taught by some. Therefore the application of separation must also be new.
For my dollar, I have no problem with someone who prefers the TR or the KJV. I have no problem if they think the UBS/NA text is deficient, or dare I say, corrupt. I think the TR is manifestly deficient. I don’t think there is any reasonable argument that can be made for the TR being the best text. The Majority Text, yes; the TR, no. But I am fine to let people disagree with me on that. I don’t attack the TR. I don’t say it isn’t the Word of God, or is a perversion. And that’s the issue. The problem comes in when people attack the Word of God in other texts or translations. When they call the Bible a perversion or some such, that is problematic for me. When they get schismatic about it, that is problematic for me.
As for church history, many have said (as have I) that I think you are a bit overreaching here. There are a lot of complexities and hypotheses about textual transmission. And there are good reasons for why much of church history used the “traditional texts.” They really had no other option. So they used what God in his providential grace had preserved for them. I am not sure there is a good argument why we should do less. And furthermore, I think it is irrelevant. The measure of truth is what the Scriptures say. Historical theology informs us and helps us, but it does not dictate to us.
I don’t think appealing to Calvin works much either. I haven’t seen anyone here lionize Calvin that I can recall, but if he is so bad and so deficient in his understanding of salvation, then surely his judgment was flawed on the textual issue as well.
But to the point of my questions to you, the reason I think your personal beliefs are important for this discussion is because you think Dr. Bauder is calling for separation from you, but based on what you say about your own beliefs, that doesn’t seem to be the case. So I asked your position to see if in fact you are being referred to by Dr. Bauder. I think the questions I asked would help to show whether or not you are one of the ones Bauder is referring to. So I will you will clarify where you are getting your understanding that Bauder is referring to Greek texts (he may be and I missed it), and whether he is targeting you.
Thanks Marc, for indulging me here, and I would have that cup of coffee with you if we were ever in the same place.
The only cogent argument that has been presented is the standard KJVO argument—if the KJV (or TR) is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, how can other versions (or texts) also be the inspired, inerrant Word of God when they differ due to manuscript variants or translational choices?
As Dr. Bauder clearly pointed out, and as many others have also done so, the KJV translators themselves stand very clearly opposed to those who put forth this false dilemma. Why? Because:
- They offered marginal readings of textual variants.
- They specifically stated in the introduction that even the meanest translation is the Word of God inasmuch as it accurately reflects the original.
KJVO proponents say they hold the KJV translators in high esteem, and yet put forth arguments the KJV translators specifically refuted.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Maybe you can take a stab at this since Monte won’t.
1 John 2:23 KJV Whosoever
1 John 2:23 KJV
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1 John 2:23 NASB
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
Which text did the KJV translators take the last HALF of the verse from? It wasn’t the TR.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[RPittmanplease answer the following questions in order.1. Yes
- Do the MV’s (modern versions) say the same thing as the KJV?
- Are the MV’s also the Word of God?
- If the MV’s and the KJV do not say the same thing (and they don’t), how can you say both are the Word of God?
- Are the MV’s authoritative?
- If both the MV’s and the KJV (as Dr. Bauder says) are authoritative, how does one know which to believe if two authoritative versions are in conflict?
- If what constitutes God’s Word depends on scholarship (i.e. textual criticism), how do we know that we have God’s Word at all? After all, no chain is stronger than its weakest link and if the text of God’s Word depends on human scholarship, then our confidence can be no stronger than the scholarship that validates the text.
So, friend, if you unwilling or unable to answer all of the above, it would be in order for you to retract your post and apologize to Bro. Monte because you are setting a higher criteria for him than for yourself. I believe there’s a name for that sort of thing. No excuses!
2. Yes
3. They are both God’s Word
4. Yes
5. No major doctrine is affected
6. God has providentially preserved His Word for us in the totality of manuscripts and translations available to us! God has been so good to us!
7. Sorry it took me so long to get my answers in here—I had to wait for a chance to do this over lunch. We are trying to finish out the year here at work and spend our customers’ end of the year budget money! Busy times here!
Thank you for razzing me—keeps me on my toes! You may want to try and add some substance as well—your circular reasoning is making me dizzy!
Godspeed,
Matthew Richards
Just please start with one.
Are any English translations of the Bible the authoritative Word of God other then the KJV?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
If you can’t answer simple, straightforward questions, how are you helping the discussion? What are you contributing to it?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
RPittman wrote:For some who believe that the KJV is the Word of God (and Dr. Bauder says that he believes this too), it would a denial of this belief if they believed that other MV’s were also the Word of God. So, in being consistent with their own belief, which Dr. Bauder apparently believes as well, they must say that they are KJVO. If the KJV is the Word of God, how can there be other differing versions that are also the Word of God? It is the answer to this one question that is the major demarcation between Bauder and Sexton.This was posted on the new thread for part 24 of this series. However, it seems to be Roland’s answer to the question. He does not view any English translation other than the KJV as the Word of God. This quote also precludes any possibility of an updated KJV in modern English, or any other modern English translation from the TR, since these would obviously have differences from the KJV. This is EXACTLY the dangerous, heretical kind of thinking being highlighted here in part 23. This is EXACTLY why Roland (and perhaps Marc) was unwilling to answer the questions posed.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
So… hats off for courage and tenacity.
But, alas, as far as I can tell the position is still wrong.
A suggestion for a position that would be easier to defend and still allow the same end result as far as translation-use is concerned:
And… in response, those who are not KJVO could hold the above position “in high regard” while disagreeing with it.
But it seems few are willing to be that kind of KJVO. I don’t know why not. There’s no shame in saying this is how I see it and other good people see it differently and I respect them anyway. Why is that so hard?
Sadly, many hold to KJVO as foundational doctrine. The necessary inference is that all other translations are abominations and those who use them are something close to apostate. That posture doesn’t give the rest of us anything to “hold in high regard” because we’ve been banished to infidel land. So mutual respect is impossible.
It’s a sad thing to behold.
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.
“Neoevangelicalism and hyper-fundamentalism are equal errors. Whatever we should have done in response to the new evangelicals is the same thing that we should do now in response to hyper-fundamentalists. Historic, mainstream, biblical fundamentalism has no more in common with Pensacola, Crown, and West Coast than it had with Ockenga, Carnell, and Graham.”
What did fundamentalism do with New Evangelicalism? We separated from it as error! Without a doubt, Bauder is calling from separation from all within his new “hyper fundamentalist” category. He even names some institutions: PCC, Crown, and West Coast.
Until we focus on this new call for separatism based upon a new category invented by Dr. Bauder, we miss the heart of the issue.
Mike Harding, who is not a TR man himself, recognizes the legitimacy of holding a traditional text position. For too long that position has been purposely equated with Ruckmanism within some fundamentalist circles. The TRUTH is that PCC, Crown, and West Coast are NOT Ruckmanite institutions. To call for separation from them based upon their choice of Greek Text and English Version consistent with their Greek Text is a NEW position. To class those who use the traditional texts as “hyper-fundamentalist” is a NEW position.
This, gentlemen, is the crux of the issue. Why don’t we address the implications of what Bauder has said?
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Mike Harding, who is not a TR man himself, recognizes the legitimacy of holding a traditional text position.I am fairly sure Bauder does as well, and you have not cited anything from the article to prove otherwise.
To call for separation from them based upon their choice of Greek Text and English Version consistent with their Greek Text is a NEW position. To class those who use the traditional texts as “hyper-fundamentalist” is a NEW position.But can you show us this in the article? Again, I have read it several times, and performed a few searches on it, and I can’t find anything about those who use traditional texts.
Those who use the NKJV would be consistent with a TR position, and yet Bauder mentions nothing about them that I can see. That would seem to show that your contention is not correct.
Why don’t we address the implications of what Bauder has said?Apparently, we are still trying to figure out what he actually said. You won’t show us where he said we need to separate from people who hold a traditional text position. Why not simply show us that, and then we can address the implications of it? Just cut and paste or something … that way you don’t have to type it all out. We all have the article and can read along with you. So why not just show us this call for separation from those who prefer traditional texts?
I suppose I am being a bit of a bulldog here but I really think there is an important issue here. I think we need to see the proof for the statements you are attributing to Bauder. You may in fact be correct. I don’t know … but I don’t see it in the article. So I am asking you to show it to us.
[Pastor Marc Monte] Until we focus on this new call for separatism based upon a new category invented by Dr. Bauder, we miss the heart of the issue…. To call for separation from them based upon their choice of Greek Text and English Version consistent with their Greek Text is a NEW position. To class those who use the traditional texts as “hyper-fundamentalist” is a NEW position.Pastor Monte,
This, gentlemen, is the crux of the issue. Why don’t we address the implications of what Bauder has said?
The reason that we don’t “address the implications of what Bauder has said” is that, prior to discussing such implications, we must first have some agreement about “what Bauder has said.” The question that Larry has asked you is exactly the one that you need to answer: on what basis do you believe that Dr. Bauder is calling for separation from those who believe in the superiority of the traditional text? You have made this statement repeatedly in this thread; like Larry, I don’t see this claim as being anything like a legitimate reading of the original article.
[Aaron Blumer] Sadly, many hold to KJVO as foundational doctrine. The necessary inference is that all other translations are abominations and those who use them are something close to apostate. That posture doesn’t give the rest of us anything to “hold in high regard” because we’ve been banished to infidel land. So mutual respect is impossible.I had a pretty close friend essentially separate from me using that exact word to describe the issues. We have had a number of years of fruitful cooperation, yet he has decided to make the versions thing the ‘foundational’ issue between us. I asked him if he considered it to be part of “the faith” described in Jude 3. He wouldn’t answer the question.
It’s a sad thing to behold.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Larry]I think Dr. Bauder is at least guilty of creating the impression that he is calling for separation from the more moderate side of the KJO movement by some of his remarks in this article. Please note the following progression of thoughts:Why don’t we address the implications of what Bauder has said?Apparently, we are still trying to figure out what he actually said. You won’t show us where he said we need to separate from people who hold a traditional text position. Why not simply show us that, and then we can address the implications of it?
[Kevin Bauder] My second observation is that the attitude displayed by the aforementioned preacher and college is genuinely contemptuous of the Word of God.Here he is clearly referring to Dwight Smith and Crown/Clarence Sexton.
[Kevin Bauder] Extreme as these pronouncements are, evangelists such as Smith and colleges such as Crown, Pensacola, and West Coast actually represent the very moderate side of the King James Only movement.Here he calls the statements that begin the article ‘extreme’.
[Kevin Bauder] Sadly, these people are attempting to create a new fundamentalism on the basis of a new fundamental. They have set themselves up as judges over the Word of God, determining for hundreds and thousands of Christians what will and what will not be recognized as Scripture. Alongside the gospel, they have introduced loyalty to the King James Version as a test of Christian fellowship.Here, ‘these people’ probably refer to the more extreme parts of the KJO movement, but the reference is unclear.
[Kevin Bauder] If we believe in separation, we ought to be separating from hyper-fundamentalists more quickly and more publicly than we do from conservative evangelicals.In this final quotation, a ringing call for separation from hyper-fundamentalists is made. The question is, does he consider Dwight Smith and Crown College / Clarence Sexton to be hyper-fundamentalists? He did say their statements were extreme, but also said they were the very moderate side of the King James Only movement.
So I think at least there is some ambiguity here, and I can see where Marc and Roland take offense.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Neither Smith nor Sexton is Ruckmanite, yet they introduce the article dealing with “hyper-fundamentalism.”
If Bauder isn’t calling for separation in relation to traditional text advocates who use the KJV as the best representation of those texts, what is he calling for? If he is really talking about Ruckmanites, why doesn’t he say so? Is Dr. Bauder confusing traditional text people with Ruckmanites? (We all know he is too smart for this.) If his arguments against KJVO people stem only to Ruckmanites, why did he name so many non-Ruckmanite institutions and personalities? These, my friends, are the burning questions of the hour. (OK, well, maybe not.)
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Did you get a chance to look up 1 Jn 2:23 yet in your KJV, particularly that half the verse in italics cuz it isn’t in the “traditional text.”
One doesn’t have to be a Ruckmanite to be separated from. KJVO is a liberal doctrine in contrast to the fundamental truth. Fundamentalists must be separated from. KJVO need to be separated from.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
There may be some ambiguity as to whom Dr. Bauder is actually referring to. A couple of people are making a big issue of this, saying that the article is divisive and calls for separation from all kinds of folk hitherto regarded as respected members of fundamentalism. But this is not necessarily the only interpretation of the article…
On the contrary, one could look at the article as a call for fairness and grace. Are we as careful and as deliberate and as consistent about our separation to the right of us as we are to the left? Are we as reluctant to separate from someone on the left as we would be on the right?
Are we ready to examine the potential issue to the left of us on a case by case basis and see at what levels we can preserve some kind of fellowship; or, are we too ready to lump everyone on the left under certain labels so that we can completely separate from everyone with that label, every time, no questions asked.
Are we ready to be balanced and treat errors on the right with as much attention as we do the errors on the left, of which they are in some ways mirror images? We should be “just as quick”, or just as slow, to separate from any real error, no matter where it is found, inside or outside, left or right.
[Pastor Marc Monte] Look at the Bauder quotation in my comment #172 at the top. Notice the institutions named—PCC, Crown, West Coast. None of these schools is Ruckmanite. Each of these schools stands for the traditional texts of Scripture. Bauder classifies them as hyper-fundamentalist. He says the hyper-fundamentalist should be treated just as we treat New Evangelicals. That can only mean one thing: separation.This is easy to explain. There is really no difference between a Ruckmanite and someone who believes that God’s Word is preserved perfectly only in one of the TR texts or KJV. One believes in double inspiration and the other arrives at the same conclusion only using other terminology to get there. End result is they all believe that the KJV is a miraculously perfect translation and all other translations are “perversions”. The nutty KJVO church I was raised in used to love to say they were not “Ruckmanites” as if that made their error OK. Fact was that they were all the same. Main difference is that Ruckman admits errors in the TR and believes that the KJV corrects it—“non Ruckmanite” KJVO just refuse to admit that there are any errors at all in the KJV…
Neither Smith nor Sexton is Ruckmanite, yet they introduce the article dealing with “hyper-fundamentalism.”
If Bauder isn’t calling for separation in relation to traditional text advocates who use the KJV as the best representation of those texts, what is he calling for? If he is really talking about Ruckmanites, why doesn’t he say so? Is Dr. Bauder confusing traditional text people with Ruckmanites? (We all know he is too smart for this.) If his arguments against KJVO people stem only to Ruckmanites, why did he name so many non-Ruckmanite institutions and personalities? These, my friends, are the burning questions of the hour. (OK, well, maybe not.)
Matthew Richards
[Matthew Richards] There is really no difference between a Ruckmanite and someone who believes that God’s Word is preserved perfectly only in one of the TR texts or KJV. One believes in double inspiration and the other arrives at the same conclusion only using other terminology to get there. End result is they all believe that the KJV is a miraculously perfect translation and all other translations are “perversions”. The nutty KJVO church I was raised in used to love to say they were not “Ruckmanites” as if that made their error OK. Fact was that they were all the same.Per http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Onlyism-New-Sect/dp/0979114705/ref=sr_…] King James Onlyism: A New Sect : (pp 15-ff)
- Some Prefer the King James Version
- Some Prefer the Textus Receptus
- Some Insist on the Textus Receptus (“some, but not all who hold this view, assert that the use of the King James Version should be made a test of fellowship”)
- Some Insist on the King James Version (God has preserved His word “by means of translations”)
Per James Price: “the last two views are what I regard as radical King James Onlyism”
I personally could fellowship with # 1 and # 2 above. I would suppose that # 3 above would not want to fellowship with me.
Pastor Monte: How would you evaluate Price’s 4 levels above? Where would you position yourself?
[rrobinson] @Don Johnson,As long as the ambiguity stands, confusion reigns.
There may be some ambiguity as to whom Dr. Bauder is actually referring to. A couple of people are making a big issue of this, saying that the article is divisive and calls for separation from all kinds of folk hitherto regarded as respected members of fundamentalism. But this is not necessarily the only interpretation of the article…
Please note that I am not agreeing with the KJO posters in this thread either in their view of Scripture preservation or in their misplaced values on the KJV itself.
But I can see how the impression is given that we should separate from the Sexton, Smith, Crown College, PCC, West Coast, etc. If that is not what Bauder means, he ought to clarify that impression.
[rrobinson] Are we ready to be balanced and treat errors on the right with as much attention as we do the errors on the left, of which they are in some ways mirror images? We should be “just as quick”, or just as slow, to separate from any real error, no matter where it is found, inside or outside, left or right.First, it is not yet established that we are in fact NOT treating errors on the “right” as we are errors on the left. Nor is it established that they are mirror images. (I’ll leave aside your ‘in some ways mirror images’ as a non sequitor. Either they are mirror images or they are not, they can’t be ‘in some ways’.)
In any case, do you think PCC, Crown, West Coast, etc. should be treated like Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Fuller Seminary, etc? Or is it only the more extreme KJO, like the fellow Grady (?? never heard of him before) who Bauder mentions?
It isn’t an unimportant issue to ask who bro. Bauder means by his call for separation.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jim Peet]#1 and #2 are not onlies. I am a member of a church that would clearly be #1. There are other versions for sale in the church bookstore and probably 25% of the attenders are carrying an ESV or NASB to services… #1 and #2 are not KJVO they are KJVP and TRP.[Matthew Richards] There is really no difference between a Ruckmanite and someone who believes that God’s Word is preserved perfectly only in one of the TR texts or KJV. One believes in double inspiration and the other arrives at the same conclusion only using other terminology to get there. End result is they all believe that the KJV is a miraculously perfect translation and all other translations are “perversions”. The nutty KJVO church I was raised in used to love to say they were not “Ruckmanites” as if that made their error OK. Fact was that they were all the same.Per http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Onlyism-New-Sect/dp/0979114705/ref=sr_…] King James Onlyism: A New Sect : (pp 15-ff)
- Some Prefer the King James Version
- Some Prefer the Textus Receptus
- Some Insist on the Textus Receptus (“some, but not all who hold this view, assert that the use of the King James Version should be made a test of fellowship”)
- Some Insist on the King James Version (God has preserved His word “by means of translations”)
Per James Price: “the last two views are what I regard as radical King James Onlyism”
I personally could fellowship with # 1 and # 2 above. I would suppose that # 3 above would not want to fellowship with me.
Pastor Monte: How would you evaluate Price’s 4 levels above? Where would you position yourself?
Matthew Richards
Kevin has written a clarifying post in the thread on part 24 explaining what he means and how it works for him.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I have Grady’s book on my shelf. And I also have Ouellete’s latest book, A More Sure Word (Striving Together publications).
I don’t think the argumentation is on the same level.
Discussion