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.
- 420 views
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