"Pastor Sexton’s college has actually backed away from its strict KJO position as stated in its doctrinal statement."

I wish it were so. Unfortunately, the very phrase the Dr. Bauder identifies as the “really problematic part of the statement”, the part about only accepting the KJV, is still in Pastor Sexton’s church’s doctrinal statement here:

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. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice. (Bold Added)

I do not see any reason to consider this as anything other than an abberrant and errant doctrinal position being welcomed by the FBFI. Still one of the major problems I have with the FBFI. They give the appearance, as an organization, that they are more concerned with cultural conformity within their group than doctrinal conformity to scripture. While Dr. Bauder downplays the importance of pulpit association, the FBFI has made this a much bigger issue and should be held to their own standard in the same way apply it to others.

Kevin Bauder is correct to point out that they have diluted the Crown College Statement. My suspicion is that it is based on pragmatism as it opens the door to hiring faculty from places like BJU and attracting students from non-KJVO churches.

Bauder is not fully transparent in his remarks. He has not acknowledged that the previous Crown College Statement was fully acceptable to platform speakers in FBFI down through the twentieth century. Indeed, many FBFI churches would have held to that position. That is why Bauder statement that “the King James Only error heaps contempt upon the Word of God, it is a serious error” is frankly disingenuous and an attempt to revise FBFI history. Bauder writes like one of the gay rights advocates trying to silence all Christian views with pejorative and inflammatory statements like, “It would be tragic and perhaps even devastating to what is left of fundamentalism if a prominent national organization like the FBFI gave its endorsement to the King James Only position or treated it as if it were less than a serious error.”

It is not only Crown College that has changed but also the FBFI. I don’t view it either change for the better but I am sure my views will not be endorsed by many here.

I don’t concern myself too much over what para-church organizations do. That doesn’t mean I dislike the FBFI; I just don’t spend any amount of time caring what they do. There will be a whole lot of spilled ink here on the nuances of separation, as there always is. What the FBFI does is meaningless to me; what do I care? Does it impact my church? Most of my people don’t even know the FBFI exists and wouldn’t care if they did know.

I am very happy that all I have to worry about and be held accountable for is (1) my own stewardship of the church the Lord has placed me in and (2) my own life. I have to make my own choices about implementation of separatist principles with missionaries, speakers, and the like at my own level. Let the FBFI worry about itself. Let Sexton worry about himself. I have other things to worry about. I’m just not interested in politics and I doubt I ever will be.

Tyler wrote: I’m just not interested in politics and I doubt I ever will be.

Tyler,

You are welcome to disengage, but let’s not tar those who do not follow suit by equating disagreement over doctrine (in this case such an important one that biblology is included in most statements of the fundamentals as the first one) with mere politics.

It’s not that I want to “disengaage.” I just don’t see why I need to care about what the FBFI or what Sexton does. All I need to care about is my church. I certainly do think bibliology is important, and I have my own conclusions on the version issue. Therefore, I don’t need to spend time analyzing the pros and cons of the FBFI’s decision to invite Sexton. I don’t belong to the FBFI. I don’t care what the FBFI does. It’s purely abstract and irrelevant to me. Why? Because nobody will agree about what issues are worth separating over. Nobody. And you know what - that’s fine with me! It really is. I’ve reached my own conclusions. I’m not worried about what other people think. That’s why Baptist churches ought to be autonomous - that means I don’t necessarily have to parse the nuances of separation within a larger ecclesiastical hierarchy. I am responsible before God for (1) the church He has given me and (2) my own life. I’m worried about that bubble, not the FBFI/Sexton bubble.

As far as politics go, surely you acknowledge that politics are inevitable when one goes beyond the local church and into the para-church organizational level? (They’re even inevitable at the local church level, but you get what I’m saying!) You need to worry about what other Pastors might think. You need to ponder what different “wings” of your constituency will accept or tolerate. Meh - someone else can have that quagmire. Again, it’s not that I don’t care about the doctrine of separation - I just don’t see the real, practical benefit to discussing the separatist practices of a para-church organization!

1. Reach your own prayerful conclusions about what issues are (1) explicit and implicit teachings, (2) implied teachings, (3) general principles and (4) optional practices and implement in your bubble accordingly.
2. Be ready to stand before God for your decisions
3. Nobody will ever see eye to eye with you
4. Live with it and soldier on
5. Re-examine and refine your own views along the way
6. Meanwhile, expect the conversation on separation to be a bit like this while we wait for the Lord to return …

I am just the son of an Idahoan chemist, but hey … I am ok with this, too.

This is not a fundamentalism worth saving.

I’m glad that Sexton seems to be swinging away from the KJV Only position, but I also felt like Bauder was doing a bit of a disservice in this Nick. Whether he likes it or not, sharing a platform at a conference has always been seen as an endorsement and a big deal in fundamental baptist circles. That was actually, I think, one of the many things people have complained about with NIU recently and was certainly a big deal when Calvary had Dever there a couple years back.

Maybe Dr. Bauder has never taken this as a big deal, but that’s not quite the case for the rest of the FBFI-ilk.

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International is giving thoughtful fundamentalists an occasion to reflect upon our principles. It is also giving an occasion for thoughtless critics to say, “Gotcha.” What is the occasion? The FBFI has invited Clarence Sexton to return to its platform.

Some leaders of the FBFI have been friends with Sexton for years. In fact, he has even preached for the fellowship before. If memory serves, he and I shared the platform when the FBFI met in Indianapolis some years ago.

For me, it’s not an opportunity to say ‘gotcha’ as much as even more proof that the FBFI isn’t as consistent as they want their supporters to be. But that’s not news…I’ve known that for years.

Very well put by Kevin. To be a critic is to be thoughtless if you recognize the doublespeak. Sigh.

I’m glad to see the FBFI welcoming Sexton back to their group. I’m sure there’s plenty of room.

[James K]

This is not a fundamentalism worth saving.

I agree, the unbiblical arguments for adherence to one specific English translation is not something which is good for F’ism. It is good to see some more clear thinking on the Text by the leadership at CC…God bless them…

[James K]

Very well put by Kevin. To be a critic is to be thoughtless if you recognize the doublespeak. Sigh.

Agreed. I can’t believe I am agreeing with people I usually never agree with on this like Kent Brandenburg, James K, etc. First, the idea that you have a problem with this makes you thoughtless according to Bauder. That is arrogance. Secondly, Brandenburg actually makes some good points on this. The KJVO issue is far from the only thing from Sexton that “thoughtful” fundamentalists are supposed to have problems with. Bauder’s piece smells like bad politics. Maybe I am wrong but that is the way it comes across.

Kent’s blog post on this is worth a read, and this section, I thought, raised an especially interesting question:

Perhaps here is a thoughtful question. What has Sexton done to merit an FBFI national conference speaker status? What does anyone do to get that slot in a national conference? Is it because he has been faithful to the Word of God? Is it because his church is a model of biblical obedience? is he a model of biblical preaching? Bauder concludes by saying that a good reason to allow Sexton on your platform is to encourage him for having his feet pointed in the right direction on KJO.

I don’t know that Bauder simplified this down to ‘having his feet pointed in the right direction’, but still…it would be interesting to get the raison d’être​ for this choice. I doubt that reason will ever see the light of day, though.

Here’s what Dr. Bauder writes about Sexton’s Crown College:

“Another consideration also comes to bear, namely, that Pastor Sexton’s college has actually backed away from its strict KJO position as stated in its doctrinal statement. It used to say that, “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.” Now it states that, “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 use; the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the English version we use in the English-speaking world.” The elimination of the word “accept” means that this doctrinal statement no longer rejects other versions as the Word of God.” [Emphasis mine]

Pulling up the college’s online doctrinal statement confirms this:

http://thecrowncollege.com/whatwebelieve/

––-

Looking at the online doctrinal statement of Sexton’s church, Temple Baptist Church, Knoxville, TN, however, the word “accept” is still there:

“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. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice.”

http://templebaptistchurch.com/pages/statement-of-faith.php (accessed on 05/12/2014 @ 1:44 CST)

––—

So which is it?