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.
- 421 views
[Pastor Marc Monte] Dear Greg: Geneva Bibles are hard to come by these days.SNIPNot really, it’s available in modern reprints and at least one web based Bible site.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
No! This has been well documented by Dr. James Price, Dr. William Combs, Dr. Stuart Custer, and the KJV translators themselves. No translation can legitimately make this claim. Such a claim requires double inspiration and a perversion of the doctrine of providential preservation. This claim of perfection is true only of the original text of Scripture in its original languages.
2. Would you accept another English translation based on the Traditional Text?
Yes! There are actually three major texts—the Received text, the Majority Text (differs from the RT in about 2000 instances), eclectic text NA 27th edition which correlates all available textual information.
3. Do you believe that versions like the NASB and ESV are the Word of God?
Yes. Though I prefer NASB to the ESV, both are good literal translations. ESV, for instance, has corrected a translational error in Romans 16:7 both in NASB and the KJV, making it clear that there is no female apostleship endorsement in the NT.
4. How would you view or treat a man or a ministry that used a NASB, an ESV, an NIV, a NKJV, or a HCSB for example?
I would treat them with all the respect and honor due them. All the translations are legitimate translations of the original text. None of the translations can claim direct inspiration; however, all the translations derive their inspiration from the original text which God did inspire. I strongly prefer formally equivalent translations over functionally equivalent translations; however, a good functional equivalent, meaning for meaning translation is very helpful for interpretive reasons.
Pastor Mike Harding
But I’m not ignoring you.
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.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
It sounds very much like you are King Jame Preferred—is this the case or are you King James Only? I think there may just be a huge misunderstanding on this thread… Do you agree with Pastor Harding’s comments?
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
Those who accept the Critical Text are left with the daunting task of searching for God’s words from among thousands of varient readings—all of which tends to foster doubts and questions as to the precise wording in almost any given passage.
Some folks use OKJV in place of KJVO, but these lables are too easily confused with the HERESY of PETER RUCKMAN. In order to distance myself from RUCKMAN’S HERESY, I will simply call myself TR only. If anyone else wants to join my newly tagged movement, you are welcome. :)
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[JG] Is there any Biblical basis for saying a doctrinal statement is worse than a policy statement?No, I think it’s more of a historical basis, which is more the way Kevin argues it as well… and a logical basis also. The history is that groups have been selective about what they put in creeds/statements of faith, etc., either because they are reacting to something weighty that is a current issue or because the doctrine itself has far reaching impact/implications. So they are saying it’s a Big Deal.
The logical reality is that we are selective about what we put in these statements, and there must be some conscious or unconscious test of selectivity. Policy statements are selective also but the test is different: it’s about execution, practical matters, etc.
So I think the difference matters.
[JG] 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…Well, I agree there except for the implied either-or: either it’s what he teaches & his actions that matter or what he says in in doctrinal statements that matters… I’d just say they both do, but I’m splitting hairs I think.
[JG] As to “unintended despising” of the Word of God, we are all guilty of intentional or unintentional despite of the Word virtually every day…Perhaps. I think I might get through a day or two once in a while. :) But, more seriously, the fact that various kinds of “despisings” happen doesn’t mean they are all equally weighty or even in the same league. When you’re stated doctrine of Scripture officially refuses to pursue the most accurate Bible available in the future, that’s a far more direct assault on orthodox bibliology than a garden variety lapse in obedience.
(What I mean by “in the future” is that a doctrinal statement that commits to the KJV, period, vs. one that commits to accuracy (and KJV “for now”) is rejecting ahead of time more accurate work that may come along in the future)
[JG] 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.In general, I’d agree, but it is easier to eliminate a motive than to establish one. That is, if I say I buy pizza because I love the cheese, but then I pick the cheese off every time, the evidence is pretty strong that love of cheese is not my motivation… leaving the question open what my motivation actually is.
So when a group says we are KJVO only because we believe the KJV is the most accurate, they can easily demonstrate that this is not their actual motive if they are not continually looking for something even more accurate. That is, there must be more to it. It’s not logically self-consistent to say “this is about accuracy and nothing more” then, as new translations come out, show no interest in examining them for accuracy. In reality, there must be some underlying convictions regarding the very possibility of something else being more accurate. So when I speak of “motivation” in this case, I’m really talking about thought process, which can be pretty transparent sometimes.
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.I actually don’t know anything about the Sexton case in particular.
As for separating from KJVOs in general… I do remain somewhat skeptical of the idea that the kind of KJVO Bauder is talking about here is equal and opposite of the neo evangelicalism of the 2nd half of the 20th century. So I’m not seeing applying separation princples to it as quite matching either (it’s a little hard to explain why, because I haven’t arrived at clarity in my own thinking on it yet… but one factor has to do with what the “nearest neighbors” are doctrinally and “movementally”… these are very different for KJVO and neo-evangelicalism, though both errors put those who hold to them in a precarious relationship with a near neighbor that is far worse)
But I am sold on the premise that our calls for separatism ring hollow if we are not willing to separate (or at least intentionally limit fellowship somewhat punitively) with serious error on the right as well as on the left.
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.
[RPittman]RP… I’m trying to follow your argument here. So, because lots of people style themselves “recovering whatever,” that means nobody has actually ever really recovered from anything? (In particular, it proves Matt has not recovered from KJVO?)[Matthew Richards] Great article, Dr. Bauder. I sat under William Grady in “College” and am a recovering KJVOnlyite. I have now been out of that group for roughly 13 years or so. There is a vast difference between someone who prefers the KJV and someone who is KJVO. I get it because I have attended both types of churches. Thanks for articulating what so many of us already believe regarding the grave errors of the KJVO movement. Looking forward to the next installment…I am greatly amused by your self-appellation of “a recovering KJVOnlyite.” In this politically correct world, one fad, which I think has passed its zenith now, is to be a recovering ____________. It’s so typical for Christians to follow all the fads a day late. So being, it prompts me to observe that we’re not so really different from the world, just behind the times.
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
[RP] Matthew, you are so adamant and forceful in your assertions. Did you leave the movement on good terms or do you have some lingering resentment toward KJVO folks?Again, if there is an argument here, is it that if he left with lingering resentment this would mean he is incorrect? Just looking for the relevance.
[RP] As for recovering from whatever, I question if there’s such a big change. It seems to me that one icon simply has been changed for another, William Grady for Kevin Bauder. What we really need are independent thinkers who can think for themselves. I cannot see much difference between your expressed attitudes, except for the content, and the stereo-typical Hyles-Anderson spirit.This one has me groping even more for an argument. First, when one “icon” is replaced with another, this is automatically not much of a change? What if the first “icon” is, say, Joseph Stalin and the second is, say, Bernard of Clairveaux? (I realize there’s a chronology problem there. Sorry, long day.)
But the reasoning fails on multiple levels. Are you suggesting that agreeing with someone’s position means you have made an icon out of them? I think I agree with about 4 billion people that breakfast is generally a good idea (give or take a billion).
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.
With no intent of chasing this all the way around the barn, I am curious as to how you would answer your questions posed to Kevin Bauder. Of particular interest to me is the last question you ask in the final paragraph, “how does one know the original language reading because there are variants here?”
The reason that last question interests me most is the condition of all the textual families/traditions (i.e., there are no variant free ones). Perhaps I am misreading your comments, but are you suggesting that there is a Greek or Hebrew tradition available to us that is without variant readings? And if you acknowledge the reality of variant readings, how are these to be resolved apart from scholarly analysis?
The ball is back in your court…
DMD
You said:
Apparently, Dr. Bauder has followed the usual path of rational reasoning in denying KJV only claims. In a very simplified manner, it goes something like this. Variants in manuscripts exist. These variants represent errors. Due to the variability found in all manuscripts, there is no perfect text. Therefore, there is not one text or translation that can claim superiority or ascendancy over all the others. Thus, all texts/translations are God’s Word in as much they are faithful to the original autographs (whatever they may be).In my opinion your problem on a logical level with the “rational reasoning” is in the line “Therefore, there is not one text or translation that can claim superiority or ascendancy over all the others.” If I am wrong that you do not find that to be one of THE major problems with the rational reasoning then forgive me and disregard the rest of this post.
But to be fair all texts are not created equal. Certain texts are earlier and more reliable than others. (Note “earlier” and “more reliable” are not necessarily the synonymous, tho they often are.) Scholars do not pick their readings by dubious means or for theological reasons. They are picked according to the established rules of textual criticism.
In answer to your hypothetical test:
1. Yes
1. If the KJV is the Word of God, are other modern translations also the Word of God in English?
2. If the KJV is Holy Scripture, are other modern translations also Holy Scripture?
3. If the KJV is authoritative, are other modern translations also authoritative?
4. If one is obligated to obey the KJV, is one also obligated to obey other modern translations?
5. Do all translations, both KJV and modern, say the same thing?
6. If a modern translation varies from the KJV, which translation is one obligated to obey?
Let’s take this a step further. Supposing that all translations do not say the same thing, how can one know which is the correct one? The first answer is probably the one faithful to the original language. Well, how does one know the original language reading because there are variants here? The final answer is that scholars, who presumably know, must tell us. The point that the thing, which “came not in old time by the will of man,” is now determined by a human system of scholarship. In other words, man and his scholarship has become the determiner of what constitutes the Word of God.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Mostly, but I am assuming you are expecting a straight yes or no, so no (although I am dying to caveat that, but for sake of argument I won’t.)
6. Whichever is faithful to original autographs
Then the rub, how do you know which one is faithful?
I say it is the text that are the earliest and come from the most reliable manuscripts. Sure, its a man-made system that is used to find the earliest and best texts (in my opinion).
You say its the text which was composed by a man-made system in the 1500’s to be the best text. You accept this on faith. You believe God preserved his text, and he did so perfectly in the TR.(If I am wrong in thinking you believe its the TR I apologize; it’s sometimes hard to remember who believes what in this thread.)
I accept my position on faith as well. I believe God preserved his text. I believe that he preserved it in such a marvelous way that a text composed of readings from from manuscripts that were composed a thousand years before those of the TR are nearly identical. I believe that my criteria for selecting the text is better than yours.
That’s what it comes down to.
Your serve … .
Forrest Berry
[RPittman]RPittman,[Matthew Richards] Great article, Dr. Bauder. I sat under William Grady in “College” and am a recovering KJVOnlyite. I have now been out of that group for roughly 13 years or so. There is a vast difference between someone who prefers the KJV and someone who is KJVO. I get it because I have attended both types of churches. Thanks for articulating what so many of us already believe regarding the grave errors of the KJVO movement. Looking forward to the next installment…I am greatly amused by your self-appellation of “a recovering KJVOnlyite.” In this politically correct world, one fad, which I think has passed its zenith now, is to be a recovering ____________. It’s so typical for Christians to follow all the fads a day late. So being, it prompts me to observe that we’re not so really different from the world, just behind the times.
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
Matthew, you are so adamant and forceful in your assertions. Did you leave the movement on good terms or do you have some lingering resentment toward KJVO folks?
As for recovering from whatever, I question if there’s such a big change. It seems to me that one icon simply has been changed for another, William Grady for Kevin Bauder. What we really need are independent thinkers who can think for themselves. I cannot see much difference between your expressed attitudes, except for the content, and the stereo-typical Hyles-Anderson spirit.
Let me put it this way. Just because you were part of Hyles-Anderson does not necessarily qualify you as an expert or competent to articulate “the grave errors of the KJVO movement.” You are puffing your limited experience with one fringe element, although high profile, into esoteric, expert knowledge. I don’t buy it because I know that it is NOT representative of the whole position.
Matthew, I do NOT question your person, character, sincerity, motivation, spirituality or love for Christ but I do challenge your knowledge and conclusions.
Your assumptions are quite comical. I am also a recovering man-worshipper. I actually never held William Grady in the same awe that I held Jack (I spent the better part of 22 years as a member of FBCHammond)—but I did sit under Bill’s teaching in classes on the KJVO position at HAC. I have long ago repented of my man-worship and do not hold anyone up in that way anymore—Praise the LORD! I will answer your other post directed at me here as well when I say that labels tell us something and KJVP is a far cry from KJVO. If someone prefers the KJV more power to them—most of us have memorized countless passages in this version and continue to use it to this day. It is entirely possible to be in the KJVP category (gasp!) and hold to the orthodox position on the Holy Scriptures. If you find yourself in the KJVO sect you cannot hold the orthodox position, IMHO. I have no love lost for Hyles or HAC although I still have better than 30 relatives caught in her clutches. My position is that we can all prefer whichever text or version we would like and still be Fundies. When someone crosses that line and makes their favorite text a doctrine worth separating over that is when my radar goes off. Thanks for not calling my person, character, sincerity, motivation, spirituality or love for Christ into question!
Matthew
The missing element in this discussion is FAITH. I believe the words of my TR are the words of God BY FAITH. Ultimately, it comes down to FAITH, and that’s OK; because “without faith it is impossible to please God.” There are, generally speaking, two approaches to epistomology: faith and rationalism. Prior to the Enlightenment, the faith approach reigned supreme. Every Christian believed the received texts to be the Word of God by faith. The rise of rationalism and the enthronment of rationalistic principles of literary criticism (the “cannons”) as applied to the Biblical text muted faith.
I, for one, believe faith is far superior to rationalism. Faith, after all is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In the textual debate, there are a lot of “things not seen.” By faith, I simply believe that the Textus Receptus that rests on my desk is the Word of God. I never question it or second guess it. I take it at face value by faith. My faith, therefore, excuses me from having to rummage around the variants of the critical text apparatus. I’m not looking for God’s words; I have them.
This flies in the face of contemporary scholarship, but I think I’m better off just believing in the words God’s church has always believed. My approach has not harmed me spiritually, and when I look upon the sacred words of the TR, my heart is filled with gratitude for the God who gave and preserved His word.
Of course, my position—if universally accepted—would put some folks out of a job.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
- 1. We use the KJV in our church but the KJV crowd is still not happy with us. Many times they are not happy with each other.
- 2. Someone recently told me that they will always stick with the KJV because it came from the textus receptus. When I told them that there are a number of times where the KJV chose the Vulgate over the textus receptus, they did not know what to say.
- 3. There are a number of ministries that were not KJV only, that now are. It is easy to get the impression that is a bandwagon type of thing in certain circles.
- 4. Many of the people I meet who graduated from colleges that are KJV only do not hold that position when they get outside of those educational bubbles. My guess is that this is why West Coast has to have their graduates make that pledge.
- 5. Most of the people of this world are never going to see, let alone read a KJV and more English speaking people than ever before do not understand 1769 English. You would think that the experts on the textus receptus would be more concerned about getting and updated English translation out there if they believe there is not one, than writing books about how bad all of the other updated English translations are. What is really ridiculous to me is for them to tell people who do not understand 1769 English that they should understand it, knowing that the KJV updated the English a number of times between 1611 and 1769.
- 6. There are a number of people who say they are KJV only based on the textus receptus who say that it is not a test of fellowship with the brethren but it does create a lot of testy felllowship.
- 7. Oh, someone told me they use the KJV because it comes from the textus receptus and it does not use that dynamic equivalency. What planet teaches that there is no dynamic equivalency in the KJV? How do you translate without implementing dynamic equivalency?
[RP] one concludes that Bauder follows the accepted Modernist epistemology of rationalism although he would probably qualify a few presuppositionsRoland, you trot this one out whenever someone makes a cogent argument for a position you disagree with. As an attempt to dismiss the cogent argument, it’s not a very effective maneuver.
There is no tension between the work of the Spirit and the use of the mind rationally any more than there is tension between the work of the Spirit and use of the mind intuitively (or non-rationally, or whatever term you prefer). The mind is tainted by sin in all parts. One “part” or function is not more reliable than another.
So, to answer your question…
[RP] how do we factor the Holy Spirit into the rational process of scholarship?We listen to what He says in Scripture. We seek His aid in thinking clearly. We yield to the unmoveables Scripture clearly hands us. Then we reason to conclusions based on what Scripture asserts, what we observe around us, and the work thinkers of the past have generated over the centuries. There is really no problem here. (Not that it’s easy to execute, but the way is not hard to identify)
Where we run into trouble with enlightenment “epistemology” or “paradigms” etc., is when we start to buy notions like a) all the truth that matters can be arrived at via observation and reasoning, b) the human ability to reason is only limited by capacity and intelligence (i.e., there is no moral factor, no sin factor, no spiritual factor), c) whatever is inconsistent with what we ourselves observe and reason is not true/real.
Throw in the modern notion of materialism… d) the material is either all that is, all that matters, or all that can be known with any certainty.
These ideas are what make “modern epistemology” a problem. Without these and other unbiblical ideas, no epistemology/paradigm is “modernistic” in any way that matters.
The KJVO argument that says “all other views are de facto modernistic/rationalistic and therefore false” is probably the least compelling argument in the whole bag.
[RP] If you’re interested, we’ll talk about some specifics.Roland, you still have the ball because you didn’t answer the question. It was a simple question. Is there a MSS tradition that is without variants or not? It requires nothing more than a “yes” or a “no.” Your unwillingness to answer it directly speaks volumes. The “it depends on what you want” and “we can’t begin there” stuff is an extremely thin smokescreen because it in no way impacts the answer to the question.
Ball returned … . .
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.
Discussion