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
This is easy to explain. There is really no difference between a Ruckmanite and someone who believes that God’s Word is preserved perfectly only in one of the TR texts or KJV. One believes in double inspiration and the other arrives at the same conclusion only using other terminology to get there. End result is they all believe that the KJV is a miraculously perfect translation and all other translations are “perversions”. The nutty KJVO church I was raised in used to love to say they were not “Ruckmanites” as if that made their error OK. Fact was that they were all the same. Main difference is that Ruckman admits errors in the TR and believes that the KJV corrects it—“non Ruckmanite” KJVO just refuse to admit that there are any errors at all in the KJV…This is exactly right and is stated well and clearly. Thank you Matthew.
For those confused about what Dr. Bauder said here, please read the book, “One Bible Only?” put out by Central Seminary. Dr. Bauder’s position with the various degrees of KJVO, KJVP, TRO, and TRP are made clear and the why is given.
[Don Johnson]The central debate in this whole thread seems to indicate that errors on the right are not in fact treated the same as errors on the left. First, there is a debate that there is any error at all, unless it is practiced by some extreme, extreme “Ruckmanite”, and it is so obvious that no-one can deny it. Otherwise, any potential error is masked as something that the church or fundamentalists “have always believed”. Secondly, it seems one that may be in error has only to claim the label of Fundamentalism and say, “surely you don’t mean to say there is something wrong with the views of x, y, and z institution?” I think the article does mention how historic fundamentalism is being redefined by groups that are in error. I don’t have any comments for that part of the debate.[rrobinson] Are we ready to be balanced and treat errors on the right with as much attention as we do the errors on the left, of which they are in some ways mirror images? We should be “just as quick”, or just as slow, to separate from any real error, no matter where it is found, inside or outside, left or right.First, it is not yet established that we are in fact NOT treating errors on the “right” as we are errors on the left. Nor is it established that they are mirror images. (I’ll leave aside your ‘in some ways mirror images’ as a non sequitor. Either they are mirror images or they are not, they can’t be ‘in some ways’.)
No, I don’t think something is either a mirror image or not a mirror image, unless it is in fact an image, or a mathematical formula or something whose properties one can actually measure and determine some values of inversion or symmetry or whatever. Dr Bauder is using this as a metaphor. And there will be some specific ways in which he is proposing a mirroring. He gives one example — the left is blurring the boundaries (a neo, despite his personal adherence to the gospel may work with someone we would not work with); a hyper fundamentalist is, conversely, limiting the boundaries by adding a man-made doctrine as a test of fellowship.
So, yes, I think there are different “ways” in which something could exhibit some mirroring: could be degree, result, type of error, whatever. I don’t presume to know how Dr Bauder, you, or anyone else would compare an error on the left with one on the right; nor what parallels you would draw and why, and what cases and implications are relevant to your ministry and context. But as the article suggests, I agree that errors on the right are as serious as errors on the left, and the tendency may be to overlook them in the interest of some kind of false Fundamentalist unity.
[Don Johnson] In any case, do you think PCC, Crown, West Coast, etc. should be treated like Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Fuller Seminary, etc? Or is it only the more extreme KJO, like the fellow Grady (?? never heard of him before) who Bauder mentions?I don’t know how one would answer individual cases. I think “treated like” is part of the issue. Do we instinctively, or “movementally” react to certain things in one direction, but not in the other? Certainly, if the intent or even by-product of certain institutions was graduates who had certain unbiblical or unhealthy views of the Bible and of users of different versions of the bible, then I would personally have as many reservations about going there or recommending it as I would Fuller.
[Don Johnson] It isn’t an unimportant issue to ask who bro. Bauder means by his call for separation.It’s not unimportant. I was just trying to point out that it is also important to see the article positively as a call to reflect on what constitutes a serious error and why it should be treated as we treat other serious errors, in case it hasn’t been — rather than seeing the article simply as a divisive call to label certain fundamentalists with some kind of new and arbitrary label.
Each of these schools stands for the traditional texts of Scripture.Only partially correct. Each of them stands for more … They stand for one particular English translation as you can see from the quotes. If the issue were only the traditional texts, then there would be no need to state the point about the KJV. If I am not mistaken, they will not allow, for instance, the NKJV which is also translated from the traditional texts. Nor will they allow the KJ21 (I believe it is called). That means that the issue is not only the traditional texts but the KJV.
Further, it is not just that these schools use and stand for the traditional texts, it is that they attack the Word of God in other texts and translations saying that they are not the Word of God. That is problematic as well.
Neither Smith nor Sexton is Ruckmanite, yet they introduce the article dealing with “hyper-fundamentalism.”I am not sure why you keep bringing Ruckman up. Bauder didn’t mention him, and I don’t think “hyper fundamentalism” is equated to “Ruckmanite.” So he seems off topic. Ruckman is not the only problem out there.
If Bauder isn’t calling for separation in relation to traditional text advocates who use the KJV as the best representation of those texts, what is he calling for?It reads to me like he is calling for separation for people who add to the biblical doctrine of Scripture and proclaim it as if God had said it.
As an example, consider your own stated position: The TR is the best text and the KJV is the best translation. So long as you recognize that (1) God hasn’t said that, (2) that people with equal commitment to the inspiration and authority of the Bible differ in good conscience and for good reasons, and (3) you give them room to differ without attacking them or the Word of God, then I don’t see much of a problem.
Remember, Bauder didn’t mention texts or textual preference. You are the only one bringing that up, I think.
If he is really talking about Ruckmanites, why doesn’t he say so?Probably because he’s not “really talking about Ruckmanites.” I think he is targeting more than Ruckmanites.
Is Dr. Bauder confusing traditional text people with Ruckmanites?I doubt it. As you say, “We all know he is too smart for this.”
If his arguments against KJVO people stem only to Ruckmanites, why did he name so many non-Ruckmanite institutions and personalities?Perhaps your why answers your if, which is to say the reason that he names non-Ruckmanites is because he isn’t addressing only Ruckmanites.
Bottom line, I am not speaking for Bauder because all I know is what I have read in this article, but I don’t see him saying what you claim he is saying, and you haven’t shown (at least to my satisfaction) that you have rightly read him.
[Todd Wood] I don’t think Crown or West Coast is on the same level with Grady.I would disagree. Grady’s book was available in the West Coast book store. I purchased it there some time ago. Ouellete’s book was also purchased there. It is published by their publishing company. It starts off advocating a kindler and more gentle approach to the discussion and then resorts to the same old KJVO arguments of demonizing all other translations and attempting to show their apostasy. He then seeks to show the faithfulness of the TR and in doing so shows he knows very little of the true facts. He doesn’t appear to understand the difference between the TR and the Byzantine family of texts. This is another case of someone who most likely cannot even read the Greek NT trying to tell us all about translation errors and textual history. Remember, WCBC has all graduates take an oath regarding continuing loyalty to the KJV. They ask that if a graduate changes their stance that they return their diploma.
I have Grady’s book on my shelf. And I also have Ouellete’s latest book, A More Sure Word (Striving Together publications).
I don’t think the argumentation is on the same level.
The substance of the beliefs and arguments of the KJVO position are such as to make a kindler and gentler approach impossible. They are classifying others who disagree as heretics. The LBC will not accept your Baptism unless it was done in a IFBC that is KJVO.
If we insist on lumping stuff together where people are trying to make distinctions, we will never effectively answer them because whatever answer we offer is an answer to something other than what they are saying.
I don’t believe Kevin’s essay is unclear. Of course, every piece of writing can theoretically be more clear, but at some point you have to stop editing and publish (and sometimes in editing you cross over from making more clear to making less clear).
Anyway, the essay is not about those who hold to “the traditional text” but rather to how some hold it and what significance they attach to their view.
Consider the difference between these two statements:
1) I believe Chicago pizza is the best pizza in the world… given a choice, I’d never choose an alternative.
2) I believe Chicago pizza is the righteous pizza and all alternatives are not truly pizza… and those who eat the alternatives are not true pizza eaters.
Is it really that hard to see the difference?
What makes it more subtle in this case is that you have what doctrinaire KJVO/”traditional text” proponents spell out in doctrinal statements, and then you have necessary inferences from what they spell out. In some cases, the latter are intended and in some cases they aren’t—it’s just that well meaning folks have not really thought things through and recognized what necessary follows from what they’ve asserted. So it can be hard to tell weather you’re seeing a truly doctrinally aberrant position or just one that would be doctrinally aberrant if it were logically consistent.
Then you have the fact there is a third category that I think Kevin missed…
3) I believe principle requires that we eat only the best pizza in the world, and Chicago pizza fits that role in my/our view. However, others who agree with our principles have different views about what pizza is really the best. We respect their liberty in this.
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.
I still don’t really see a difference between 1 and 3. Both are identifying what they think is best. Both are graciously allowing others to disagree. The only difference is that one claims personal preference and the other claims a principle of some sort. Isn’t number 1 using some kind of principle to determine which they like best, even if it’s just taste, appearance, locale, or something like that?
By the way, I must conscientiously disagree - I hate Chicago style pizza!
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I would be interested in official statements in the Striving Together movement. (There are a lot of urban legends and cultural traditions and community nuances in LDS country which are strong, but I always have to go back to the official statements for the defining of the movement.)
I could go on, but I won’t! :)
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
But I must sincerely confess … I look forward to getting back to Idaho. Our pizza with homegrown potato ingredients is a knockout.
[Todd Wood] Bob, certainly, there are issues where I disagree with the growing Striving Together Baptist network in the West, but I have not heard or read anywhere formally about graduate oaths or baptism acceptance connected only w/ KJVO churches.Todd
I would be interested in official statements in the Striving Together movement. (There are a lot of urban legends and cultural traditions and community nuances in LDS country which are strong, but I always have to go back to the official statements for the defining of the movement.)
The graduation oath at WCBC is well established fact. Please reread the subject article of this thread where Dr. Bauder mentions it. WCBC does not deny or hide this. They are proud of this loyalty demand as they view it as true loyalty to God and Christ. To them denial of the KJVO doctrine is a denial of God and His word. In this article Dr. Bauder stated:
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.”This has been information verified by multiple sources here locally and on the internet. Also, the Baptism policy has been verified by several and that includes me. Several KJVO churches in many parts of the country have the Baptism requirement. This is not new information. Certainly it is not urban legend or rumor. Also, go to the Fighting Fundamentalist forum and go to their schools section and to West Coast Baptist College. There are some interesting discussions there.
One poster on here claimed I was prejudice against WCBC and LCBC. That is of course very true as I am against their KJVO position. The KJVO and TRO argumentation goes outside any Biblical revelation in their last step of application. The KJV and the TR are of course not mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, to apply any principles of preservation in scripture to them as the sole acceptable and preserved word of God is extra Biblical. The proposed doctrines go beyond scripture and is extra Biblical and the reasoning (or commandments) of men They have their own critical method and critical texts by analysis. However, they then call them the commandments of God.
It is most interesting that most Pastors who advocate this doctrine speak with great authority but may not be able read the Greek NT if put in front of them. Yet they speak with great authority about translation, mis translation, and Greek manuscripts. Most of us are not scholars but some can read and translate the languages and have enough study to know the issues and discern the truth from error. On this and other SI threads there appear to be a few posters who know little or no Greek and Hebrew but wish to speak with authority on the issues. We therefore end up with many arguments on the internet that are lacking common sense, avoid the real issues, or retreat into a false concept of faith verses reason. Some who argue for the KJVO position have almost no training in Greek, Hebrew, and textual criticism. This is the nature of many KJVO advocates. Many do not have enough study in the subject to even understand how little they know. A perfect example is seen in the recent book “A More Sure Word,” by R.B. Ouellette.
The scriptures instruct us to “reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition” (Titus 3:10-11). It also tells us to “rebuke them sharply” who are false teachers “that they may be sound in the faith and not giving heed to jewish fables and commandments of men” (Titus 1:10-16). Acts 20: 17-35 gives us the admonition to watch over the souls of the assembly. There are various dangers to the assembly in various degrees. I would put the KJVO and TRO doctrines in the same category as the Pentecostal and Charismatic doctrines. They both are of great danger to the assembly. By their own doctrine many of them separate from us. However, we also have a duty to expose and separate from them. This can be done within the framework of Christian love and with the varying degrees of fellowship that Dr. Bauder allows for in part 24 of this series. However, we must not minimize this threat to the truth integrity of the Christian faith.
But I appreciate your last comment to me. It has got me thinking.
The Baptism thing really concerns me, if this is true of Lancaster. I will need to find out for myself from them. If it is true, West Coast will not be coming to Berean. Baptism issues are directly tied to Gospel issues.
Merry Christmas,
et
[Chip Van Emmerik] Aaron,Well, I don’t think the #1 folks are necessarily making any biblical claim at all. Kevin, for example, doesn’t use the KJV exclusively but uses it over other translations whenever he has the opportunity. He doesn’t precisely say why in this essay (that I recall… not going to reread just now). But the implication is that he’s got alot of personal history with it and just likes it better. So there is a difference between that and saying “Since we’re talking about the word of God, we ought to use as pure a translation as possible and we think this one is purest.”
I still don’t really see a difference between 1 and 3. Both are identifying what they think is best. Both are graciously allowing others to disagree. The only difference is that one claims personal preference and the other claims a principle of some sort. Isn’t number 1 using some kind of principle to determine which they like best, even if it’s just taste, appearance, locale, or something like that?
By the way, I must conscientiously disagree - I hate Chicago style pizza!
But when it comes to how these two rationales deal with people who differ: no, not a whole lot of difference.
You are sadly mistaken about Chicago pizza, but I respect your right to be wrong. ;)
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. I like red cars better than any other color
2. I do not believe public education fits the biblical instruction for rearing children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord
Both would provide Rom 14 room for disagreement with brothers, but only one would be a personal violation of conscience for me to ignore in my own personal life.
Re: Chicago style pizza. If I feel like having big chunks of veggies, I’ll order salad. I’ll stick with my western style, thank you very much.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Not sure how far to take that.
But what I meant to get at earlier is that I don’t think it’s helpful to lump matters of conscience and matters of personal preference together… because people often approach the questionable things (adiaphora?) as though you either have a “thou shalt not” or it’s “just your preference.” There is much in between.
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