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.’

Discussion

[Pastor Marc Monte] I wouldn’t want to stand at the judgment seat having condemned their ministries!
And therein lies the very problem Bauder is treating. Personally, I would not want to stand at the judgement seat having endorsed the ministries with which I am familiar in your post.

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

I want to thank you for your excellent work in this entire series and this last post. Thank you for your willingness to deal with this matter.

Brent Belford

Chip, this is the first time (to my knowledge) that I have been criticized for being too broad in my endorsements. Folks typically view me as a conservative voice when I post on Sharperiron. Now, however, it appears I am endorsing questionable institutions. That’s a new one for me!

To take my analysis of Bauder’s thoughts to their logical end, I wonder—based upon his criteria for fundamentalism—if I still qualify to post on this blog. Bloggers are asked to agree with Sharperiron’s statement of faith. I wonder—given my new status as a hyper-fundamentalist—if I am still welcome. I WOULD LIKE A MODERATOR TO CHIME IN ON THIS. I’m not being sarcastic; I’m simply wondering if Kevin’s new separatism applies to me—a simple believer in the traditional texts of Scripture.

Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com

SI publishes articles for discussion, but those articles do not ‘define’ SI or who can participate at SI. The only requirements for participation are that you agree with the Doctrinal Statement and to abide by the Comment Policy. Being KJVO or KJVP, however you want to describe your belief on this topic, does not preclude your participation. There are mods who are KJVO/P also, myself included.

Whew! Thanks for the affirmation. See, everybody? I’m still a fundamentalist..and the top brass of sharperiron confirms it! :)

Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com

“Let a man so account of vs, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreouer, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithfull. But with mee it is a very small thing that I should bee iudged of you, or of mans iudgement: yea, I iudge not mine owne selfe. For I know nothing by my selfe, yet am I not hereby iustified: but hee that iudgeth me is the Lord. Therefore iudge nothing before the time, vntill the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkenesse, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall euery man haue prayse of God.” (I Corinthians 4:1-5 from KJV 1611)

If one’s conscience is clear, then he can safely leave the “iudgement” to the Lord and receive “prayse” from God, and not worry about what other Fundamentalists of whatever ilk think (which praise I gather from the comments above is the least of Marc’s concerns).

Kevin said, “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?”

As far as I can see, the comments have addressed the first bone of contention, that is, “how do we regard other versions of the Bible?”

How should the difference between “personal preference” and “doctrine” come into play here? In other words, into which of these categories is the use of the KJV (1611 or any of its revisions) or another updated version to be placed? This has been touched upon, but I would like to see more discussion of its implications in this and other areas.

Just a reminder of what Kevin’s thesis here is…
[KB] 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.
This is an interesting idea. I’m personally not yet convinced that the two are quite parallel. But I’m open to persuasion. That they are disturbingly close to parallel, I can’t deny.
[Marc]… See, everybody? I’m still a fundamentalist..and the top brass of sharperiron confirms it!
Marc, I’m not sure how seriously to take this, but it may be an example of what you’ve been doing in other posts in the thread and an example of what Kevin addresses early in the article. How to put it… let’s say more precision in your reasoning would be helpful. Kevin’s example is that when he criticizes KJVO positions people leap to the conclusion that he is anti KJV. Similarly, the fact that SI accepts someone as a registered user does not mean we are saying that person is a fundamentalist. It means that person is “a fundamentalist for the purposes of the site.” We’ve repeatedly rejected any claim to have a right to define what fundamentalism is for anyone else.

But back to the KJV issue, you make the very same error in your first post…
Simply stated, the KJV remains the most faithful translation of the traditional texts of Scripture. Those who hold to the traditional texts are not criminals or theological weirdos. In fact, all of the Reformers, including Dr. Bauder’s beloved John Calvin, believed the traditional texts of Scripture to be the very words of God! Holding to the traditional texts of scripture is…well…traditional—meaning that ALL BELIEVERS accepted them as God’s Word until a some scholars came around and said otherwise.

My ignoring the NKJV doesn’t make mean I hold to double inspiration any more than Kevin Bauder’s liking of John Calvin makes him an adherent to the traditional texts. Such thinking is emotionally charged but logically fallacious.
Nobody is saying that those who “hold to the traditional texts” are criminals or theological wierdos.

Nobody is saying that the traditional texts are not God’s word.

Nobody is saying that if you “ignore” the NKJV you hold to double inspiration.

(At least nobody was when you wrote the post… I skipped a few of the subsequent posts)

So how about interacting with what folks are actually saying?

JG… I think he has an excellent point. But I don’t completely agree. That is, I agree that if the motive for using KJV exclusively is that you believe it to have fewer errors, that’s not despising the word of God. However, putting it in a doctrinal statement is still—as Kevin argues—highly problematic. There is an unintended despising of the word of God in the elevation of KJV exclusivity as a matter of doctrine.

It would be so, so much better to put in the doctrinal statement something like this:

We believe the word of God deserves to be studied and read in the most precise and accurate of translations and we believe the KJV represents that in English at the present time.


To put this in a doctrinal statement still elevates it too much, but at least it says “it’s about accuracy” and says hypothetically that if something more accurate came along, it would be better.

To me, the latter is the acid test of true motivation. If it’s really about “too many errors” in the alternatives, are they open to studying new alternatives as they come along to see if they might have fewer errors? To me, being unwilling to even look at what might be more accurate is indeed despising the Word.

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.

Marc,

Based on what you are saying here about your position, I wonder if you are included in what Kevin is saying. He is not talking about those who prefer the traditional texts (though claiming the church has used them fro 1800 years is, at best, beyond the evidence, and in fact probably contrary to the evidence, but that’s another discussion).

I suppose my questions for you are these:

  1. Is the KJV completely completely perfect in any issue of translation (whether word, grammar, etc)?
  2. Would you accept another English translation based on the Traditional Text?
  3. Do you believe that versions like the NASB and ESV are the Word of God?
    If your answers are No and Yes and Yes (which is what they should be, according to the Bible itself), then I don’t think you are who Kevin is referring to.

    It is clear that there are a lot of people out there who Kevin is targeting who have in fact denied the Bible’s teaching about itself and raised another fundamental in terms of bibliology. In so doing, they have lied about the Bible and about God himself (perhaps with good intentions, which of course doesn’t make it okay). Having 700 in church and 15-20 professions of faith does not make that okay either. It is way past time for us to separate from these kinds of people. And many of us have done this already. Kevin simply has a platform to say what many of have long said, which is that the Bible commands us to separate from those with aberrant doctrine. And bibliology must be right near the top of that list, right?

    What strikes me though is that you claim you wouldn’t want to sit in judgment of these men’s ministries, but yet you have no problem sitting in judgment of other men’s ministries, men whose problems are far less significant than denying or adding to the Bible’s teaching on itself (or some of the other things going on in these ministries). So I wonder why you are comfortable judging some ministries and not other’s? Someone like John MacArthur (just to pick a name out of the hat) has had far more influence and ministry success for the gospel than any of the men you mention, and likely more than all of them put together. Yet, I imagine that you have no problem sitting in judgment on his ministry. I wonder if you might help me understand your thinking on this.

    Thanks,

(with apologies to Dr. Bauder for continuing an off topic line of discussion)
[Pastor Marc Monte] The KJV was NOT “breathed out by God” (read “inspired”) in 1611. The texts that underlie it are God’s inspired, preserved words. The KJV is a faithful translation of these words.
So you believe that God inspired (and preserved) portions of the Bible in Latin?
[Preface to The New Testament in the Original Greek, edited by Scrivener, published 1881,] In considering what text had the best right to be regarded as “the text presumed to underlie the “Authorised Version,” it was necessary to take into account the composite nature of the Authorised Version , as due to successive revisions of Tyndale’s translation …

There are however many places in which the Authorised Version is at variance with Beza’s text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors…

On the other hand some of the readings followed, though discrepant from Beza’s text, may have seemed to be in a manner sanctioned by him, as he had spoken favourably of them in his notes…

It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it follows exactly the Latin Vulgate.

Thank you Pastor Monte for providing that link. I think it is quite helpful in supporting Dr. Bauder’s basic premise and for showing the lengths to which certain folks will go to secure co-belligerents. It’s another lowlight for Lou to side with KJVO defenders in order to attack Bauder.

It might be better to give that link a thread of its own if genuine critique and defense of it opens up. There is a lot there that warrants the former. Since you’re a product of Fourth Baptist and hold Doc Clearwaters in high esteem, maybe you should lead off by showing that nothing in the Clearwaters quotes he offers contradicts the ones that Dr. Bauder set forth. Evangelist Smith leaves us with the impression that Doc Clearwaters spoke out of both sides of his mouth and that shouldn’t be allowed to stand. You and I both know that Doc was brighter than that, but it seems Mr. Smith needs some help seeing that he is misusing the Clearwaters quotes which he provides.

DMD

[Aaron Blumer] That is, I agree that if the motive for using KJV exclusively is that you believe it to have fewer errors, that’s not despising the word of God. However, putting it in a doctrinal statement is still—as Kevin argues—highly problematic. There is an unintended despising of the word of God in the elevation of KJV exclusivity as a matter of doctrine.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Aaron. I’d like to explore this a little further, though I have to give advance notice I may have to drop out of the discussion anytime. I’d like to put a couple points to this for your consideration, if you have the time.

1. Would you consider it problematic if someone included in their doctrinal statement the position that “we use only accurate translations and do not use paraphrases as the Word of God”? I’m assuming you wouldn’t. You might not do it yourself, but it is putting theology into practice. What if someone said, “We believe verbal inspiration calls for formal equivalence in translation, and so we do not use or accept the NIV in our church/school because of its broad use of dynamic equivalence”? You might not agree with such a position, but is it really a big problem? It’s an application of doctrine.

For a church, statements on translations are probably better in a policy statement than a doctrinal statement, but I’m not sure I see any real Biblical basis for a huge distinction between the two. We all know broadly what Clarence Sexton believes and teaches on translations no matter which piece of paper explains it. Is there any Biblical basis for saying a doctrinal statement is worse than a policy statement? What matters on this is what he teaches and his actions towards others. If he is teaching that the 1611 translators were inspired, that is an error from which I would separate. If his actions towards others demonstrate a divisive spirit towards those who disagree with him on texts and translations, again, I would find that a separation matter.

I remain just about 100% persuaded that Dr. Bauder’s real objection is not which church document contains the statement, but rather that Dr. Sexton teaches the position he teaches. That is ultimately what Dr. Bauder and others who hold a different view find objectionable, whether it is in a doctrinal statement, a policy statement, or completely unwritten.

2. As to “unintended despising” of the Word of God, we are all guilty of intentional or unintentional despite of the Word virtually every day. Dr. Bauder was guilty of this when he failed to speak the truth in love in asserting that Dr. Sexton is not willing to agree to disagree. If we make “unintentional despite of God’s Word” a separation offense, then I’d better separate from everyone unless they appropriately separate from me first.
[Aaron Blumer] To me, the latter is the acid test of true motivation. If it’s really about “too many errors” in the alternatives, are they open to studying new alternatives as they come along to see if they might have fewer errors? To me, being unwilling to even look at what might be more accurate is indeed despising the Word.
Again, I have a couple thoughts.

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

2. To a traditional texter, there are really only two significant translations to choose from. If one has concluded that the NKJV is inferior, the decision has been made. Being “unwilling to even look at” Critical Text-based translations is entirely appropriate if one is persuaded that the CT is the wrong text.

I have heard that Dr. Sexton at times refers to the Greek in his preaching. I’m loathe to assume that someone who does that has concluded that it is theoretically impossible for any improvement in translations, even if he thinks no current translations have succeeded in improving on the KJV.

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

Those who want to separate from Dr. Sexton (or want others to do so) will applaud this article. So also those who want to have closer ties to conservative evangelicals will like his ranking of the “badness” of the different camps. Those who know they often have to separate but don’t like to do so from any brother, especially brothers who are obviously committed to the Gospel, may feel differently, and will want something more substantive than “he mentioned translations in his doctrinal statement, and I disagree with what he said!”

If Dr. Sexton truly has been divisive in his actions over the translation, or if he has other doctrinal positions or ethical/moral problems which demand separation, then by all means, let us separate. But in calling for us to separate from him, I would like to see some actual evidence of wrongdoing, beyond differences over translations.

As usual, I’ve probably been too long-winded. Sorry about that. :)

Pastor Monte, you chastise the NKJV for having textual variants noted in the margins. Do you know that the original KJV does the same?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Marc, do you agree with/endorse Smith’s statement?

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