"...(M)any fundamentalists have damaged their credibility as separatists because they don’t apply what they believe about separation to the KJVO issue."
Quote:
“We believe that the Holy Bible, as originally written, was verbally inspired and the product of Spirit-filled men and has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter. We believe the Bible to be the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried. We believe the Bible to have only one interpretation which may be revealed to any believer by the Holy Spirit. Whereas there are a number of other versions of the Bible in circulation, all of which are not reliable due to their omission of words and their being translated from corrupt manuscripts, we consider it, therefore, a necessity and privilege to use only the King James Version AV 1611 in our pulpit and in our classrooms.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This statement of faith does in fact express double inspiration. It implies that God intervened and directed a group of men in selecting manuscripts, and then in translating from the Greek and Hebrew to English, so that a 1611 KJV is without error. This requires that the same quality of superintendence took place upon a group of 15Th century Gentiles acting under the directions of James I as occurred upon the original writers of scripture. It goes beyond manuscript preference and translation acceptance to endorsing an English version as resulting in it being “without any admixture of error for its matter.” A statement that the 1831 New Hampshire Confession of Faith (Baptist) states regarding the original manuscripts.
This is the very kind of KJVO endorsement that Christians have a duty to separate from. It expresses a view of our truth sources concerning God and his revealed knowledge that is not supported by the scriptures statements concerning themselves. It is also contrary to the clear external evidence on this matter. There is nothing within scripture pointing to the KJV as being such a preserved product. The foundation of such an assertion involves Gentile men making conclusions about historic processes and matters external to the scriptures. Such a conclusion about the Revelation and inspiration of God in giving and preserving His word brings disrepute upon the true nature of the word of God to men. The evidence offered for such a conclusion takes the opinion of men and exalts it to the level of Apostolic endorsement. It brings great disrepute upon the epistemological basis of the Christian religion. A passionate concern for Christ and His word should make us reject churches and Christians who endorse this and such other views of the KJV.
The Oracles of God were given to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2). The only non Jewish author of scripture is Luke. The reception of his writings involved the necessity of the Jewish Apostles being there to endorse his writings. Those who wish to have some special status given to a version or translation must do so without such endorsement. This is what makes such a viewpoint heresy and contrary to Christian orthodoxy. This is a very serious matter. Where does divine infallability stop?
Actually, to minimize controversy many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals give a little too much credence to the King James version. It was a good translation that today is only minimally adequate. The supplying of such words as “church, Bishop, and Baptism” has supported much bad theology. We now know the nuances of grammar and words of the Greek and Hebrew much better which helps in more recent translating efforts. Also, we have gained greater understanding of manuscript characteristics that has allowed a better grasp of differences and in making decisions. This has left the so called Westcott and Hort theory as of interest and value but only one of many factors in textual criticism. The textual criticism that is practiced by KJVO advocates is done with exclusionary presuppositions. However, it is the same kind of human process and decision making. Then they take the arrogant and dishonest step of seeking to make their human conclusions as having the same divine approval and outcome as the original manuscripts. The KJV is presented as without error and by implication or expression all other translations are with error and therefore not God’s word as the KJV is. Good translations are the NKJV, ESV, and the NASB. The NKJV gives preference to the Byzantine family of manuscripts. The NIV is also a good translation even though it gives more credence to English reading understanding through dynamic equivalence. The handicaps and prejudices of the KJV translators exceeded those of most modern translators in these versions. Many Fundamentalists have dealt dishonestly with the truth on these matters. I use the NKJV and NASB along side the original languages for study. I presently read the NIV for personal reading. I preach from the NKJV and the NASB. The days of the KJV are long gone for me. I am now preaching exclusively from the NASB in the church I am starting. If someone comes and is offended by that they should simply discuss it with me and accept it or go elsewhere.
These KJV advocates are unfortunately called “Fundamentalists.” Those who are Fundamentalists with a true religious epistemology, based on the scriptures alone, must do all that is possible to differentiate themselves from such and practice separation in both personal ministry and church association. This must be done to have a genuine Fundamentalism based on Acts 20: 17-38. I view this passage as the foundation and heart of Fundamentalism. A passion for Biblical ministry that loves God and loves people involves the uncompromising declaration of the whole counsel of God (Biblical exposition), the protection of the flock from wolves within (other believers and ministries), and from wolves without (apostates and unbelievers). The KJVO advocates are insidious wolves within that are a danger to the souls of men and unity of churches. In practicing separation we love God and love men and express a passion for Christ and His word. We may recognize the KJVO person as fellow believers and have personal fellowship with them. I also do the same with Charismatics. However, formal ministry association and church association needs to be lovingly avoided.
By the way, the above is common sense Biblical realism. Also, common sense epistemology.
“We believe that the Holy Bible, as originally written, was verbally inspired and the product of Spirit-filled men and has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter. We believe the Bible to be the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried. We believe the Bible to have only one interpretation which may be revealed to any believer by the Holy Spirit. Whereas there are a number of other versions of the Bible in circulation, all of which are not reliable due to their omission of words and their being translated from corrupt manuscripts, we consider it, therefore, a necessity and privilege to use only the King James Version AV 1611 in our pulpit and in our classrooms.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This statement of faith does in fact express double inspiration. It implies that God intervened and directed a group of men in selecting manuscripts, and then in translating from the Greek and Hebrew to English, so that a 1611 KJV is without error. This requires that the same quality of superintendence took place upon a group of 15Th century Gentiles acting under the directions of James I as occurred upon the original writers of scripture. It goes beyond manuscript preference and translation acceptance to endorsing an English version as resulting in it being “without any admixture of error for its matter.” A statement that the 1831 New Hampshire Confession of Faith (Baptist) states regarding the original manuscripts.
This is the very kind of KJVO endorsement that Christians have a duty to separate from. It expresses a view of our truth sources concerning God and his revealed knowledge that is not supported by the scriptures statements concerning themselves. It is also contrary to the clear external evidence on this matter. There is nothing within scripture pointing to the KJV as being such a preserved product. The foundation of such an assertion involves Gentile men making conclusions about historic processes and matters external to the scriptures. Such a conclusion about the Revelation and inspiration of God in giving and preserving His word brings disrepute upon the true nature of the word of God to men. The evidence offered for such a conclusion takes the opinion of men and exalts it to the level of Apostolic endorsement. It brings great disrepute upon the epistemological basis of the Christian religion. A passionate concern for Christ and His word should make us reject churches and Christians who endorse this and such other views of the KJV.
The Oracles of God were given to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2). The only non Jewish author of scripture is Luke. The reception of his writings involved the necessity of the Jewish Apostles being there to endorse his writings. Those who wish to have some special status given to a version or translation must do so without such endorsement. This is what makes such a viewpoint heresy and contrary to Christian orthodoxy. This is a very serious matter. Where does divine infallability stop?
Actually, to minimize controversy many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals give a little too much credence to the King James version. It was a good translation that today is only minimally adequate. The supplying of such words as “church, Bishop, and Baptism” has supported much bad theology. We now know the nuances of grammar and words of the Greek and Hebrew much better which helps in more recent translating efforts. Also, we have gained greater understanding of manuscript characteristics that has allowed a better grasp of differences and in making decisions. This has left the so called Westcott and Hort theory as of interest and value but only one of many factors in textual criticism. The textual criticism that is practiced by KJVO advocates is done with exclusionary presuppositions. However, it is the same kind of human process and decision making. Then they take the arrogant and dishonest step of seeking to make their human conclusions as having the same divine approval and outcome as the original manuscripts. The KJV is presented as without error and by implication or expression all other translations are with error and therefore not God’s word as the KJV is. Good translations are the NKJV, ESV, and the NASB. The NKJV gives preference to the Byzantine family of manuscripts. The NIV is also a good translation even though it gives more credence to English reading understanding through dynamic equivalence. The handicaps and prejudices of the KJV translators exceeded those of most modern translators in these versions. Many Fundamentalists have dealt dishonestly with the truth on these matters. I use the NKJV and NASB along side the original languages for study. I presently read the NIV for personal reading. I preach from the NKJV and the NASB. The days of the KJV are long gone for me. I am now preaching exclusively from the NASB in the church I am starting. If someone comes and is offended by that they should simply discuss it with me and accept it or go elsewhere.
These KJV advocates are unfortunately called “Fundamentalists.” Those who are Fundamentalists with a true religious epistemology, based on the scriptures alone, must do all that is possible to differentiate themselves from such and practice separation in both personal ministry and church association. This must be done to have a genuine Fundamentalism based on Acts 20: 17-38. I view this passage as the foundation and heart of Fundamentalism. A passion for Biblical ministry that loves God and loves people involves the uncompromising declaration of the whole counsel of God (Biblical exposition), the protection of the flock from wolves within (other believers and ministries), and from wolves without (apostates and unbelievers). The KJVO advocates are insidious wolves within that are a danger to the souls of men and unity of churches. In practicing separation we love God and love men and express a passion for Christ and His word. We may recognize the KJVO person as fellow believers and have personal fellowship with them. I also do the same with Charismatics. However, formal ministry association and church association needs to be lovingly avoided.
By the way, the above is common sense Biblical realism. Also, common sense epistemology.
[Susan R] Our church’s Doctrinal Statement says:We believe that the Holy Bible, as originally written, was verbally inspired and the product of Spirit-filled men and has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter..
[Susan R] I believe in and support this statement.
[Susan R] It is also important to point out that the ‘revisions’ between 1611-1769 were to correct printing and spelling errors.You have to choose: Either “the 1611 edition is without any error” OR “the 1611 edition needed correcting.” If preservation in English is, in fact, a Divine work, any error is impossible.
Follow-up question: Since church doctrinal statements are simply the outlining of what the church believes Scripture to teach, each point is usually followed by a listing of references from which that specific doctrine is taken. I’m curious, what verses are cited in the DS teaching that God will preserve His Word in a particular translation a millennium-and-a-half in the future?
[CBC Doctrinal Statment] We believe the Bible to be the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried.
[Becky Petersen] It sounds like when Jack Schaap wanted to educate people, some actually listened (to the history of the English Bible), others just figured they’d given into the non-Bible believers (their words). Exactly what is their stance now? To be honest, I’m not sure. They say they are what Hyles USED to believe.Becky, I went to school at HAC for 1 year in 1980. This was the time-frame in which Jack Schaap’s star was beginning to rise, and he was beginning to become the heir-apparent to the throne…uhh, pulpit of FBC Hammond.
At that time, Jack Hyles was preaching that KJV Inspiration or Preservation in Inerrant form required a second act of inspiration, and is thus a form of continuing revelation after the canon of Scripture is closed. He called it heresy. This was Jack Hyles’ position up until the scandals in the late 80’s. In the midst of the scandals, he began to morph his views to the KJVO position. This provided him with a new constituency of supporters at a time when his name was under some attack in more maintstream portions of Fundamentalism.
I am not publicly accusing him of changing his position for that reason. I cannot know his motives. He may have sincerely changed his mind.
However, this gives new color to the Jack Schaap issue. He is returning FBC Hammond to their historic position after a few decades of abberation.
Now I’ll make a statement that is a little harsh: The mind-set of the people who attend FBC Hammond has always freaked me out (one of the reasons I left after year 1). Most disturbing is the fact that Jack Hyles CHANGED his doctrine and teaching on this in about 2 month’s time, and everyone talked about it like nothing had changed. That reminds me of the novel 1984. “This week the enemy is the KJVO people, and it always has been them. Next week, the enemy will be the non-KJVO people, and they will always have been the enemy!”
There is a difference now, though. Outside of FBC Hammond, I suspect that Jack Schaap will find the change back a little rocky. Jack Hyles was a big catch for the KJV Only Movement. But the KJV Only movement is bigger than Jack Schaap’s reputation. He will lose many followers over this.
On the other hand, it’s great to see the pulpit in Hammond acting on conviction rather than political calculation. Jack Schaap is clearly concerned only with what he views as truth (which, accurate or not, is a whole lot more orthodox than what some KJV Only folks believe).
The attacks being made against Jack Schaap provide an interesting look into that wing of Fundamentalism too. I’ve seen this kind of thing several times on the web: “If he’s giving up on the Inspired KJB, what will be given up next? Dress codes? The virgin birth?”
A non-doctrine is set at the same level as a conviction and as a doctrine by this statement. And they call that “Fundamentalism”?
We should probably take the discussion on the use of the 1611 and Susan’s church [provided she wants to continue it] to the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forums/english-bible-text-debate] English Bible Forum , as this thread is drifting off-topic. I will note, however, that the 1611 KJV is available for download for E-Sword, so it’s not totally inaccessible.
Mounty, I don’t think that I see any separation levels in the Bible that are outside of a person to person framework. Matthew 13 [?] is primarily brother to brother, Peter withstood Paul to his face, and I Corinthians 5 all seem to indicate individual to individual confrontation. I know that the church didn’t have megaparachurch ministries in Paul’s day, but I would think that the NT would indicate separation on an organizational level if God intended us to do it that way. This isn’t to say that we can’t do it - I want no part in Driscoll’s church, for example, and will not endorse anything of his for my church to use - but I just don’t see org. to org. separation done in the NT…please correct me if I’m wrong.
Finally, I’m fairly sure, based on having Dr. Doran as an adjunct professor at NBBC, that he is speaking ONLY of double or KJV inspiration in his article. I do not think that he is referring to KJV-preferred or anything like that as well, and it is a little frustrating [to me, anyway] to even use the “KJV Only” label simply because we HAVE to add modifiers to it now. But I [and I’m fairly sure he] use it for lack of a better label.
Mounty, I don’t think that I see any separation levels in the Bible that are outside of a person to person framework. Matthew 13 [?] is primarily brother to brother, Peter withstood Paul to his face, and I Corinthians 5 all seem to indicate individual to individual confrontation. I know that the church didn’t have megaparachurch ministries in Paul’s day, but I would think that the NT would indicate separation on an organizational level if God intended us to do it that way. This isn’t to say that we can’t do it - I want no part in Driscoll’s church, for example, and will not endorse anything of his for my church to use - but I just don’t see org. to org. separation done in the NT…please correct me if I’m wrong.
Finally, I’m fairly sure, based on having Dr. Doran as an adjunct professor at NBBC, that he is speaking ONLY of double or KJV inspiration in his article. I do not think that he is referring to KJV-preferred or anything like that as well, and it is a little frustrating [to me, anyway] to even use the “KJV Only” label simply because we HAVE to add modifiers to it now. But I [and I’m fairly sure he] use
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay, I was the one asking the question, so I’m certainly not about to jump in and correct you now that someone has spoken to the issue. :) Ministry separation these days, as the concept is bandied about, seems to me to be one man making the decision for 40 to 4000 and then expecting that all will obey the edict to separate.
Maybe that deserves its own topic in the forums, too. :)
Maybe that deserves its own topic in the forums, too. :)
[mounty] Jay, I was the one asking the question, so I’m certainly not about to jump in and correct you now that someone has spoken to the issue. :) Ministry separation these days, as the concept is bandied about, seems to me to be one man making the decision for 40 to 4000 and then expecting that all will obey the edict to separate.Boy, Mounty. That’s a GREAT point that I’ve never heard anybody make before. Start it up and I’d discuss that one with vigor.
Maybe that deserves its own topic in the forums, too. :)
[Becky Petersen]Let me repeat.
Choosing which KJVonly ers to separate from will be tricky.
Example in point…the discussion between Susan and the guys who disagree with her church’s position. It just isn’t an easy matter. One says, “separate, it’s not orthodox”, another says, “it’s not where I am, but it’s okay.” Sp do we disagree with Susan’s church’s position (and thus, Susan), or do we not? Are we no longer separatists if we don’t?
Who’s deciding?
[Becky Petersen] Who’s deciding?We need a fundamental pope to officially tell us who we should separate from.
Oops… my bad. We had fundamental pope(s) who did just that. Now we’re trying to get away from that.
Oh well, carry on the conversation!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Charity Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement] We believe that the Holy Bible, as originally written, was verbally inspired and the product of Spirit-filled men and has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter.
Sister Susan,
I hope that, in our interactions over the last few months, you have recognized that I appreciate your love for the Lord, and your common sense application of the Scripture. I would never intentionally attack, insult you or humiliate you with any comment - public or private.
With that as a background, I ask the following: Is there a source or a link (audio or text) to your pastor’s last sermon from the book “Bel and the Dragon”? Or “1 Maccabees”?
This is one of the points of logic that has always escaped me as we discuss the Authorized Version of 1611. The books of the Apochrypha were included in a translation that - according to the church’s DS - “has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter.” If this is so, why don’t the churches who adhere to this belief regularly teach from the Apochryphal books (as in “Teaching the Whole Council of God”)?
And if they do not teach from the Apochryphal Books because they believe that those teachings contain error, how can they hold the position that Scripture “… has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter”?
I’m not attacking, nor am I looking for a fight. I simply do not understand how these issues can be resolved and the position still be tenable.
KWIM?
I started a thread http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-inspiration-preservation-double-ins…] here to answer your question so this thread doesn’t get any more off track.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/fire.gif Bring marshmallows.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/fire.gif Bring marshmallows.
[Mike Durning]By popular request…[mounty] Jay, I was the one asking the question, so I’m certainly not about to jump in and correct you now that someone has spoken to the issue. :) Ministry separation these days, as the concept is bandied about, seems to me to be one man making the decision for 40 to 4000 and then expecting that all will obey the edict to separate.Boy, Mounty. That’s a GREAT point that I’ve never heard anybody make before. Start it up and I’d discuss that one with vigor.
Maybe that deserves its own topic in the forums, too. :)
http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-separation-scope
Discussion