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.
- 332 views
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
If PCC, Westcoast, Crown and others brought their scholars together to create a new version in English from the TR would it be accepted?
If yes why, If no why?
The usual answer that i get is that we dont need another version. Yet from history, I don’t see the translators saying “We don’t need another version”? I think the problem lies in our doctrine, tradition, or in contemporary translators.
[Brandon King] Want to give you my background before I ask the question. I am a PCC Alumni, I sat under Dell Johnson, and Greg Mutsch for my undergrad. I took a class from Dr. Johnson on the preservation of our Bible, and textual criticism. I watched the videos from PCC and read the book “From The Mind of God to the Mind of Men”. I later went on to receive my MDIV from Luther Rice University. Our church uses KJV for its worship and programs. Here is the hypothetical that I have asked?There is a big problem in that I do not know of a single faculty member on any of their faculties that can be classified as a scholar capable of doing textual and translating work. Leave out the textual work and there is no one capable of being an accepted translator. Not only do most all have bachelors degrees from sub par schools, but many have masters and doctorates from sub par schools or even a degree mill. PCC may come the closest to having a qualified person. Please understand that many with earned doctorates from highly esteemed schools would not be asked to be on a translating committee because they lack the years of academic research to be recognized by peers as a reliable language scholar.
If PCC, Westcoast, Crown and others brought their scholars together to create a new version in English from the TR would it be accepted?
If yes why, If no why?
The usual answer that i get is that we dont need another version. Yet from history, I don’t see the translators saying “We don’t need another version”? I think the problem lies in our doctrine, tradition, or in contemporary translators.
The NKJV was translated from the same OT and NT textual resources as the KJV of 1611. It was translated by recognized scholars. It was translated by scholars who had far more Biblical theological views than the Anglicans that translated the original KJV. Yet it is rejected by the KJVO and TRO advocates based on their so called critical ( which is human reasoning) and analysis. An analysis by men who are mostly lacking in scholarship credentials.
However, if such a task were to be undertaken by these schools no one would object. It would be interesting to see what they would come up with. Perhaps they would claim divine inspiration for their work. ;)
Why cant we have a new version from TR Text? Could R Pittman or Pastor Monte help me here?
Could you accept a modern translation from the TR using conservative approved scholars? Yes or No
My answer is yes.
[Brandon King] I agree with your assertations concerning scholarship. But the question was formed around the “If”. Many TR only and KJV only often site liberal scholars as part of the reason for not accepting a particular version. So the question is assuming TR Text, conservative theological bent, literal translation from scholars in the Independent movement. Dr. Barnhart was one that was knowledgeable in the texts at PCC.A couple of years ago one of the writers over at JackHammer suggested that a new translation from the TR would be acceptable. He was crucified for it. He then beat a hasty retreat.
Why cant we have a new version from TR Text? Could R Pittman or Pastor Monte help me here?
You see something of that spirit in Roland’s answer to you, where he says, “why would we need a new version, we already have an authoritative version”.
That is precisely why so many are dubious of the sincerity of some who hold the KJO position. The KJV appears to be more than just a translation, regardless of their protests that they don’t believe in double inspiration. No other translations need apply…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Chip Van Emmerik] Aaron, why wouldn’t category three people be in separation territory? Does it have any practical difference in every day life from the people in category 1?Yes.
When you’re making an application you’re not claiming no other views are orthodox. You’re putting it in the category of liberty and conscience and agreeing not to “despise” (in the Rom.14 sense) those who arrive at a different conclusion. Same category as music, entertainment, dress, holidays.
Edit: I am assuming here that folks in category 3 know what category 3 is… that is, they’ve come to grips with Rom.14 (and, if I remember right, 1 Cor.10). Sadly, for many, category 3 does not even exist—in reference to anything—so they are not able to put their views on the KJV in that category. (That is, these do not see any difference between a position you derive by application and a position that is taught directly in Scripture. In that case, they are really in category 1… it’s a matter of doctrine for them, right up there with virgin birth and not renting PG rated videos)
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.
Otherwise, it’s not faith at all. It could be any number of things from wishful thinking to having a hunch to being the product of observation and reflection (but that would be “rationalism” to some). But one thing it is not is faith.
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.
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.
Sorry, but by the nature of your many posts on SI and the doctrinal position you hold, I would not consider you one that I would consider responding to on here or elsewhere . Your responses on SI are disingenuous at best. It is called the application of personal separation to the internet.
Bob T.
Other than adding the word, “paraphrased”, I stand by my entire comment, which was:
[Don Johnson] A couple of years ago one of the writers over at JackHammer suggested that a new translation from the TR would be acceptable. He was crucified for it. He then beat a hasty retreat.I was thinking of this statement by you when I wrote that:
You see something of that spirit in Roland’s answer to you, where he says, “why would we need a new version, we already have an authoritative version”. [paraphrased]
[RPittman] I don’t know the answers to these questions but I do have some thoughts. The process of canonization took a period of time. I think the acceptance of the KJV took time as well before it was adopted by the Believing Church. For this reason, I believe, we ought to be very slow in accepting any new translation, even based on the TR, until we see how the Believing Church accepts it. The interesting thing is that even the modernization of the KJV, such as the New Schofield Reference Bible, really never became that popular among the Believing Churches.I think my paraphrase is a fair assessment of what you said. I’ll leave it for others to judge if I am right or not.
You noted the many translations of the past. However, you will also note from history that these many translations fell by the wayside in fairly short order. The KJV became the accepted Bible among the Believing Churches for almost 400 years. This says something.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My point, which I will again emphasize, is that it doesn’t make any sense to villify those who use exclusively the traditional texts. When the critical texts were introduced, some men accepted them and some men rejected them—seeing unmistakable differences. Those who rejected them because of the differences simply maintained loyalty to the traditional texts. They did what the church had been doing for hundreds of years.
Now, a little comment about faith and preservation: The idea that God has providentially preserved His word is NOT non-cessationism. (It’s a little more like Calvinism, and a lot of you should be happy about that!) God is, after all, sovereign. Everyone on this blog, I presume, believes God has preserved His Word somewhere. I happen to believe it is preserved in the texts used consistently throughout church history—you know, those texts that all Christians believed in prior to the late 1800’s. My faith is NOT in my faith. My faith is in the Bible, the traditional texts of Scripture. Do I believe that the Critical Text is the Word of God? Only in as much as it agrees with the traditional texts. Because they’re different, they can’t both be right at their points of difference. My belief rests upon the fact that God inspired His Word and He also preserved it.
There is nothing unorthodox about my position. Conservative Christians held this position prior to the late 1800’s. There is nothing unscholarly about my position. Some of the most revered expositors of the church held to the traditional texts of Scripture as the Word of God. What crime is it to believe that in holding the TR I hold the words of God?
Dr. Bauder’s blog, however, questions the legitimacy of believing what the church historically believed. Worse yet, some on this blog have equated simple faith in the traditional texts with heresy. That, my friends, is way over the top. As I see it, Dr. Bauder is attempting to broaden fundamentalism to the left while narrowing it on the right. That’s too bad because orthodox Christianity is under no threat from those who simply believe in the traditional texts of its Scriptures.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
I believe God has preserved his word in the totality of manuscripts and translations available today. FWIW, I believe that I have God’s Word in the ESV on my desk and the NIV at my office.
Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN
[RPittman] Personally, I believe in divine preservation of Scripture although it is not explicitly stated as such.This has been the recurring point made by several people in different ways.
You believe.
You have no scriptural basis for the belief.
Yet you foist your beliefs of on others as inviolable.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Personally, I believe in divine preservation of Scripture although it is not explicitly stated as such.This has been my point about Monte. This point you failed to address. Now you make my point in explicit terms.
Your faith is in your own faith about what you want to believe.
Regarding KJVO not being conservative, yes that was judgmental of me. Some guys back in the 20s were judgmental against liberalism. I stand in their tradition against the liberal theology you hold to.
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.
Discussion