Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap & John Vaughn ??

[Jay C.] Here’s a basic list of what I believe, which I think most people on SharperIron would gladly affirm:

*It is not a sin or a problem to have a preferred Bible translation - I have one myself.
*It is not a sin or a problem to have a preferred set of Greek manuscripts
*It is not a sin or a problem to argue/discuss those topics.
*It IS a sin to ascribe a specific act of Divine (Re-)Inspiration to a specific translation.

Ok, thanks. I am sure that you have made that position clear in the past, and it is easier to simply say “Bibliology” in a forum post. However, I wasn’t sure whether you were including in that a rejection of anyone who had any hint of a KJV position. So I appreciate the clarification. I agree with your definition.

However…

[Jay C.] So, Don, if you use, prefer, and love the KJV, we’ve got no problems :)

Uh oh… I use and love the KJV … but I prefer the NASB … so where does that leave us?

[Todd Wood] But since I have been studying John 17 (and not Ockenga or Henry) for some time now … I have been a little convicted by the Lord’s prayer on the night before He died.

So, Todd, are you sure you are getting John 17 right? Are you just using your Bible and concordances or are you using evangelical commentaries to come to your conclusions?

Do you think that it is our responsibility to ensure the prayer is fulfilled?

You’ve said that you have zero (or practically zero) fellowship with other independent Baptists in your town. Obviously you must think that some disunity is permissible even in light of John 17, no? Or are you saying that these other men are not brothers?

[RPittman]

[Jay C] Here’s a basic list of what I believe, which I think most people on SharperIron would gladly affirm:
*It is not a sin or a problem to have a preferred Bible translation - I have one myself.
*It is not a sin or a problem to have a preferred set of Greek manuscripts
*It is not a sin or a problem to argue/discuss those topics.
*It IS a sin to ascribe a specific act of Divine (Re-)Inspiration to a specific translation.

[Jack Schaap] I believe fundamentalism in general and those of us who are King James-only believers in particular have allowed certain novices and extremists to bring in damnable heresies similar to the cults, the Catholics, and the charismatics by vehemently insisting that the KJV was given by inspiration. This cultish teaching is similar to the Mormons’ teaching that Joseph Smith received inspired writings in the 1800s from the Angel Moroni. That is a damnable lie. To teach that the Hampton Court translators in 1604-1611 were given inspired writings from God allows for any man at any time to announce that he has received divine inspiration.

This teaching muddies the waters of truth. Because we fundamentalists strongly believe in divine inspiration, meaning God gave the very words of Scripture, we become confused when that word inspired is used by these ignorant or deceptive teachers when applied to the KJV. I believe the KJV was not given by inspiration. It was given by hard work and diligent labor, and I believe that work was providentially superintended by God and that the KJV is the preserved Word of God, as the Scriptures promised that God would preserve His words. The same God Who could speak His words to man can also preserve His words through man. [emphasis added] http://www.fbchammond.com/dr-jack-schaap-speaks-on-inspiration-and-the-…

Jay, Jack seems to agree with you that teaching re-inspiration of the KJV is a “damnable heres[y].”

Schaap doesn’t believe the KJV was given by inspiration. He believes it was providentially preserved and is now perfect with no translational errors of any sort. Oh and by the way, he believes that no other Bible translation is acceptable or perfect like his King Jimmy. Who really cares what they call it—in the end he and Ruckman arrive at the same destination! If someone calls it double inspiration or someone calls it the miracle of divine preservation of only the KIng James Version—it is still garbage…

[RPittman]

[Jack Schaap] I believe fundamentalism in general and those of us who are King James-only believers in particular have allowed certain novices and extremists to bring in damnable heresies similar to the cults, the Catholics, and the charismatics by vehemently insisting that the KJV was given by inspiration. This cultish teaching is similar to the Mormons’ teaching that Joseph Smith received inspired writings in the 1800s from the Angel Moroni. That is a damnable lie. To teach that the Hampton Court translators in 1604-1611 were given inspired writings from God allows for any man at any time to announce that he has received divine inspiration.

This teaching muddies the waters of truth. Because we fundamentalists strongly believe in divine inspiration, meaning God gave the very words of Scripture, we become confused when that word inspired is used by these ignorant or deceptive teachers when applied to the KJV. I believe the KJV was not given by inspiration. It was given by hard work and diligent labor, and I believe that work was providentially superintended by God and that the KJV is the preserved Word of God, as the Scriptures promised that God would preserve His words. The same God Who could speak His words to man can also preserve His words through man. [emphasis added] http://www.fbchammond.com/dr-jack-schaap-speaks-on-inspiration-and-the-…

Jay, Jack seems to agree with you that teaching re-inspiration of the KJV is a “damnable heres[y].”

So I may be mistaken in that I thought Schaap claims that the KJV wasn’t re-inspired, but his position is still very similar…God chose to preserve His words in the King James Version (and not in any other translation).

I am no splitting hairs here, guys. If the King James is the only true Bible, then we’ve got serious problems. This position, in terms of principles and outreach, is no different from Hyles’ claim that if you aren’t saved in the King James, then you aren’t saved at all.

Don - it leaves us right where we started as friends. I’d have you over to my house of tea and crumpets, if I knew where you lived :)

1. There are the depths of John 17 that will take me a lifetime to understand.
2. Concerning the pastors, they are all brothers.

[Todd Wood] 1. There are the depths of John 17 that will take me a lifetime to understand.
2. Concerning the pastors, they are all brothers.

Hi Todd

1. True enough,but isn’t that also true of every passage of Scripture?

2. So are you saying “Yes, even in light of John 17 some disunity with brothers is warranted”? It seems that you are.

My other question was: “Do you think that it is our responsibility to ensure the prayer is fulfilled?”

I don’t think you answered that one.

The oneness is created and fulfilled through the Triune God alone. That oneness analogy in the prayer is mind-boggling.

But we have responsibility concerning this unity. And I see our responsibility fleshed out in Ephesians 4.

In light of Todd and Don’s exchange, I’d like to posit that unity is always solely based on the truth of God’s Word. See:

I Corinthians 1

10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.

Ephesians 4:

4:1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift…11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I’m sure there are others as well…those are just the two that come to mind immediately.

—edit—
So when Don asks:

So are you saying “Yes, even in light of John 17 some disunity with brothers is warranted”? It seems that you are.

Yes, I think that there is a time for disunity - because the core doctrines at stake are being imperiled by other Christians [either by mistake or by intent]. Keep in mind that Church discipline is done only in order to bring a sinner back to repentance…to restore that unity that they have with Christ and other believers. It is basically throwing someone out of the Church because they do not appear to be a believer - which means that they shouldn’t be in there in the first place.

My other question was: “Do you think that it is our responsibility to ensure the prayer is fulfilled?”

No. Keep in mind that Jesus is asking the Lord to unite us all in Him. I think, personally, that we ought to strive for unity and be amenable to working with other Christians, but at the same time we have to be prepared to pull in the welcome mat and not even bid godspeed to people [like Schaap] who teach wrong doctrine.

Hi Jay,

I tried to write a response last night along those lines, but I was up way too late and it wasn’t making much sense (taxes!). So… I think you express the gist of the unity-separation tension.

I would add that a good deal of what Eph 4 and ALL of the church discipline passages are local church oriented, rather than wider-church oriented. I believe there is such a thing as a universal church, but it really isn’t the main point of church doctrine in the NT - it is a bit of an idealized concept in Eph 1-3, and is realized in Rev, but beyond that the doctrine has limited usefulness to us on a day to day basis.

So I don’t think that when we are talking about divisions from others outside our own local assembly, we aren’t really interested in restoration - and we don’t need to be. The pastors Todd mentioned with whom he has little or no fellowship — is his distance or disunity for the purpose of restoration? I doubt it. It would more likely be for the purpose of keeping a distance from notions or practices that Todd would find harmful to his own people.

Now, one last thing, you said this:

[Jay C.] I think, personally, that we ought to strive for unity and be amenable to working with other Christians, but at the same time we have to be prepared to pull in the welcome mat and not even bid godspeed to people [like Schaap] who teach wrong doctrine.

Yes I agree, but wonder about putting Schaap in the “not bid godspeed” category. I don’t particularly like Schaap. I find the bits regarding communion (cited earlier) very very offensive. BUT… to ‘not bid godspeed’, the category is someone who is denying that Christ is come in the flesh. I am not so sure that I could say that of Schaap. We could say that, I think, of a Bart Ehrmann (sp?), but Schaap? Here are the relevant passages:

KJV 2 Jn 1.7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

KJV 2 Jn 1.10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

And in the NAS;

NAU 2 Jn 1.7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

NAU 2 Jn 1.10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;

So I think this kind of animosity is reserved for a pretty high degree of false doctrine. I am not sure Schaap has gone that far.

[Don Johnson] So I don’t think that when we are talking about divisions from others outside our own local assembly, we aren’t really interested in restoration - and we don’t need to be. The pastors Todd mentioned with whom he has little or no fellowship — is his distance or disunity for the purpose of restoration? I doubt it. It would more likely be for the purpose of keeping a distance from notions or practices that Todd would find harmful to his own people.

man, I see I wasn’t making sense in my last post either….

This statement should read:

[Don Johnson] So I think that when we are talking about divisions from others outside our own local assembly, we aren’t really interested in restoration - and we don’t need to be. The pastors Todd mentioned with whom he has little or no fellowship — is his distance or disunity for the purpose of restoration? I doubt it. It would more likely be for the purpose of keeping a distance from notions or practices that Todd would find harmful to his own people.

… to remove a glaring double negative…

I just wasted an hour of this vapor called my life watching examples of the ravings of Jack Schaap including the infamous “slap Grandma’ bit. Will we ever see the day when this man and men like him will be specifically named and criticized by the leaders of sane fundamentalism?