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
I am not sure who made the point better, Bauder or Smith. I will go with Bauder due to him not sounding like the kid left out of the neighborhood dodgeball game.
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.
In email we have exchanged in the past, I asked you if you thought it was a “crime” for me to refer to the TR in my exegetical studies. I pointed out that Calvin used essentially the same text I use in exegetical work. If I recall correctly, you kindly responded that my adherence to the TR is not a theological crime. I hardly think my defending my choice of Greek texts constitutes belligerence. Dr. Bauder prefers the KJV based on sentimentality; I use it because it is an accurate translation of the traditional texts of Scripture, the ones the church has historically used (the ones used by John Calvin himself).
As to Mr. Smith’s article, I posted the link for ONE REASON: He asked me to post it because he forgot his Sharperiron password and can’t figure out how to retrieve it. (Could a MODERATOR send me his user name and password via email? I promise to send it to him, and I will impersonate neither him nor Dr. Clearwaters on this site!)
Once Mr. Smith is up and running again, I think he should answer your questions about Clearwaters. I don’t want to answer for him, and I don’t want to be a mediator or referee.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[Pastor Marc Monte] As to Mr. Smith’s article, I posted the link for ONE REASON: He asked me to post it because he forgot his Sharperiron password and can’t figure out how to retrieve it. (Could a MODERATOR send me his user name and password via email? I promise to send it to him, and I will impersonate neither him nor Dr. Clearwaters on this site!)Password recovery help is here: http://sharperiron.org/user-guide-for-si-30
We will not send passwords via other members (and as far as I know .. no moderator / admin knows anyone’s password!)
It hadn’t occurred to me that Bauder was offering an unprovoked attack on Dwight Smith, especially since Bauder quoted Smith’s disgusting pseudepigraphical attack. Perhaps Smith apologized somewhere for cloaking his misguided prejudices in the mantle of R. V. Clearwaters, but I haven’t seen it. If Smith has acknowledged the cheap, dishonest tactic that he used as such and Bauder still held it against him, then maybe it was an unprovoked attack. I’ve not known Kevin to be an unforgiving man, so my inclination is to think Bauder was acting legitimately to provide evidence that some men have made the KJVO position a point of doctrinal orthodoxy and ecclesiastical fellowship. And it seems clear that Smith’s post at Lou’s place confirms that.
I’ll just note in passing that the portion of your post that should serve everybody well as a point of contemplation is this, “Calvin used essentially the same text I use in exegetical work.” Specifically, think about the significance of the fact that you used (and must use) the word “essentially” rather than a word like “exactly.” I would suggest that conceding that it is essentially the same rather than exactly the same vitiates the KJVO and TR arguments. IOW, you argue as if it is “exactly” the same, but have to admit that it is “essentially” the same.
DMD
As to the Pseudepigraphy - It was clearly stated at the bottom of the post that I wrote it, not Dr. Clearwaters. I also left my e-mail at the bottom of the post for anyone who wished to personally correspond with me about it. Of course, I don’t hold it against anyone for not remembering this clearly because my post was only given an hour or so of internet time on si.
Having a Dad who sat under Dr. Clearwaters and having sat under his preaching minstry for a time, I knew well enough to state that Clearwaters was not a proponent of multiplied versions. This is clarified in the quotes from his autobiography.
As to my relationship with Dr. Bauder, the note was not just posted open and online. It was sent to him personally. He sent me back a timely and personal reply as if he were writing Dr. Clearwaters, and he maintained a good sense of humor about it. :-)
He must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30).
Remember, King James decided on a new translation because the Geneva Bible (especially its notes) was too Protestant (one might even say, too Calvinistic!).
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Wouldn’t this make Calvin a bad guy for TR guys?
Forrest Berry
[Forrest] I’m a little confused at the use of Calvin to support the TR. Calvin used the TR but even in his commentaries he offered emendations for particular passages and rejected some readings for others.Since this thread has no hope of staying on a single topic, I feel no regret for this digression. In Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, T. H. L. Parker examines Calvin’s use of the Greek text. Skipping through the boring stuff (and I say that as someone who has studied both Calvin and NT text criticism), Parker comes to some surprising conclusions. Earlier in Calvin’s career, he has a marked preference for the Colinaeus and Complutensian editions rather than for the Erasmus text. Both those texts have a number of features that conform strikingly to modern critical editions.
Wouldn’t this make Calvin a bad guy for TR guys?
Later in life, Calvin embraced what we now know as the TR texts. Why he changed, no one knows. Stephanus and later Beza came to live in Geneva, and there is a good chance that the relationships there, coupled with the growing scholarly acceptance of Erasmus, influenced him. Parker notices, though, that oftentimes Calvin will as an exegete prefer a reading that we would now see in our critical texts, but based on the scholarly consensus of the TR finally opt for another reading. That to me is fascinating. Had Calvin followed his exegetical instincts, he would have been much less TR friendly.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Pastor Mike Harding
[Pastor Marc Monte] And, just in case you’re wondering, God seems to bless preaching from that book. We had over 700 in church on Sunday morning, 15-20 adult professions of faith, and numerous decisions at the altar. I say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”I hope I’m not derailing the argument and I’ll let the geniuses debate the texts, but for us reg’ler folk born in the South who quote the KJV to ourselves when we go to sleep at night I just have to point out a little problem with Brother Monte’s argument. There’s a preacher man ‘cross town that seems quite persuaded that God is blessing his preachin’ ‘cause he has — get this — way more than 700 folk come to his preaching all the time and he gets decisions galore. He doesn’t preach from a Black Book, the KJV, or sometimes — sakes alive! — he doesn’t even preach from a book! Sometimes he gets all intellectual and sits on a stool, for cryin’ outloud, ‘cause he thinks talkin’ is better than preachin’. Now I’m sittin’ here scratchin’ my head ‘cause if havin’ 700 folk is proof of the blessing of God Almighty on a preacher man’s ministry then I’m sort of gettin’ greedy for more than a measly 700. I’m thinkin’ I might check out the good ol’ boy down in Texas who, folks say, is gettin’ upwards of 30,000 people to come to the house of God each an’ evr’y Lord’s Day. And all he does is grin. Grinnin’ is sure ‘lot easier than studyin’. And Brother Monte, bein’ the fightin’ fundamentalist that he is, has just reassured my soul that if it works it’s a bein’ blessed! Seems one might be able to be a fightin’ fundamentalist and be smittin’ starry-eyed by the same kind of ph’losophy that slick-haired preacher down in Texas has. I think they call it pragmasumthin…
And Bob Bixby…:D
Forrest Berry
If I believe the same thing about the text of Scripture that John Calvin believed and if I use the traditional texts that he used, why is he a hero and I a villan? (or at least a “hyper-fundamentalist”).
Dear Bob Bixby: I put that little line about Sunday’s results at the close of my post just to touch on a nerve! I was being mischievious. We did have a great Sunday with scores of first-time visitors, and the numerous decisions for Christ I mentioned. Rejoice with me that the power of the Gospel drew men to Christ!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
If I believe the same thing about the text of Scripture that John Calvin believed and if I use the traditional texts that he used, why is he a hero and I a villan? (or at least a “hyper-fundamentalist”).Marc,
Two things:
1. I am not convinced appealing to Calvin here is helpful since (1) Calvin might be wrong (don’t you think he was wrong on a great many things? In fact probably everything except this?), (2) Calvin is generally not a hero to people here even though they might share his view of soteriology, and (3) wasn’t Calvin generally considered “pre-critical text”? In other words, Calvin couldn’t really make a choice since the traditional texts were about his only option. I am not sure about this, but the eclectic text is a few years later than Calvin I think. Some of the readings would have been available, but not as widespread right?
2. I asked a couple of questions above that I hope you will take a minute to answer. They would be helpful, to people like me at least, in understanding where you are coming from.
Let me repeat them here to save the effort of looking for them (and add one for good times sake).
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?
4. How would view or treat a man or a ministry that used a NASB, an ESV, an NIV, a NKJV, or a HCSB for example?
I do rejoice with you. Truly. I was just making the point that it was irrelevant as an argument in favor of your position. I know that you know that, but I also know that there are plenty of readers who don’t make that distinction. That was the purpose of my attempt to humorously discount that kind of argument for those working through all of this.
“If Brother Dwight, Pastor Monte, or Dr. Sexton use the KJV exclusively on account of its longtime history and use, familiarity, eloquence of translation, or textual base, that is legitimate.”
This, brethren, is all I have been trying to say! I used Calvin as an example, not because I’m a fan, but because a number of the men who post here favor Calvin. I enjoyed reading about Calvin’s favoring the TR later in life in Charlie’s post #38. I think he probably made the switch because, as he got older, he got wiser! Maybe he got saved! (THAT WAS A JOKE! LAUGH, LIGHTEN UP OUT THERE!)
Dr. Harding, thank you for your balanced comment. You are both factual and non-schismatic in your approach, and I appreciate it.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Discussion