Marks Of The False Teachers Among Independent Baptists--Part 3 Noting The Examples Of Hyles, Schaap, and Sexton

Sexton and VanGelderen are Christ-deniers?

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend…” You may want to back up a couple of notches; you’re shedding credibility fast.

[Lee]

Sexton and VanGelderen are Christ-deniers?

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend…” You may want to back up a couple of notches; you’re shedding credibility fast.

• Start with points of agreement
• List points of disagreement
• Do doctrinal triage and consider something like the bulls-eye below

Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine

Comment: I’m mindful of the fact that because I claim to be a 5 Pt Calvinist there is someone who considers me a “false teacher”

To some separation is all or nothing. In practice, they see no difference between Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, John Piper, John MacArthur, or Al Mohler. Their label of what constitutes false teaching may be stuck on anything from denial of the trinity and virgin birth, amillenialism, multiple elders, differing modes of baptism, to (yes Jim) Calvinism.

Sometimes they remind me of the little town I knew that had four KJV Only churches that had split from each other over their views on the KJV.

[GregH]

Sexton is speaking at the 2014 FBFI annual meeting along with Minnick, Van Gelderen and Vaughn. Interesting.

I wonder if anyone will write a blogpost calling Minnick, VG, and Vaughn to repentance for not being separated enough from the KJVO movement or from Hammond. /humor

Seriously, you have to think of the FBFI as a coalition of Fundamentalistic cultures. The theology doesn’t fit, but from what I can tell, the cultures of the churches and how they operate are very, very similar, so they probably get along fabulously. They use the same Bible translations, the same music, the same parachurch ministries, so they’re natural friends. Now why Minnick in particular doesn’t address the KJV issues at Sexton’s church is beyond me, considering he and his church was the lead for Mind of God, Mind of Man and the other book that was published on the issue. Maybe he sees it as a theological aberration, but doesn’t think that Sexton has elevated it to the level of heresy. Maybe he feels like he is helping Sexton come out of the Hyles cess. Who knows?

I do think that the FBFI ought to have more sense than to invite Sexton, but I’ve thought that for years and it hasn’t seemed to have happened yet. It’s part of why I’d be reticent to join up with them.

[Jim]

• Start with points of agreement
• List points of disagreement
• Do doctrinal triage and consider something like the bulls-eye below

Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine

Comment: I’m mindful of the fact that because I claim to be a 5 Pt Calvinist there is someone who considers me a “false teacher”

Not sure if this was specifically a response to me or just a general post on the thread. However, I think I repeatedly nuanced my take on these men. On the other hand, I don’t think Bibliology is a periphery issue. Why are inerrancy and inspiration fundamental doctrines if preservation is not? Aren’t they all equally necessary to have an authoritative document?

I don’t view either Bibliology (or for instance Christology) as peripheral issues. But with regard to Bibliology (and of course we have discussed this at length on S/I):

• What is the nature of a preserved Word of God? (You have those who view the received text as perfectly preserved)
• Are translations theologically neutral? (thinking of the old RSV with “maiden” instead of “virgin”) (article)

My conclusions:

• I have not reached definitive conclusions on these matters (so to my critics … I have concluded not to conclude! :) )
• The KJVP (strong preference people), love the Word of God as much as I do. They have a high view of Scripture (Brandenburg, DA Waite) (Sexton’s view may be in here too .. not sure)

And then I see:

• Some who have a different view of the “Evangelist”. I see him as a church planter .. others see the role as a revivalist itinerant preacher
• Various views on the Sovereignty of God in salvation (most know my view … but in sum the golden thread of Romans 8:29-30)
• And then you have various approaches and views of sanctification and personal separation. (For example … for me a Christian who privately has a glass a of wine with a meal is not sinning)

You mentioned Van Gelderen earlier. I don’t know much about him but I suppose there is some connection between him and the Van Gelderen over in Wisconsin. I like those guys at Falls River. I’m not writing them off. I hope they haven’t written me off!

So Jim,

You didn’t say specifically whether you see preservation as a less important issue than inerrancy or inspiration. Can we still claim an authoritative document if we are lacking any one of these three assurances? Are we going to give the same latitude to those who disagree with our understanding of inerrancy or inspiration, or are we going to hold preservation to a different standard?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

So Jim,

You didn’t say specifically whether you see preservation as a less important issue than inerrancy or inspiration. Can we still claim an authoritative document if we are lacking any one of these three assurances? Are we going to give the same latitude to those who disagree with our understanding of inerrancy or inspiration, or are we going to hold preservation to a different standard?

My best responses:

• I do believe in inspiration and inerrancy
• I don’t see preservation as less important. I see that Word of God is preserved in the extant manuscripts. The problem is that if one believes in verbal inspiration (as I do), why wouldn’t one believe in verbal preservation. AND because all of the manuscripts do not agree and as a matter of fact they disagree in some places. AND there is no complete “received” manuscript. So it is all kind of muddy for me. Sorry but that’s where I’m at.
• Is the Bible authoritative. Well of course it is.
• Back to my ordination council (where I had at the lectern my KJV). I was asked “Do you in your hand have the inspired, inerrant, preserved Word of God?” Oh those ordination questions - they get tricky!
• For me I acknowledge that God promised to preserve His Word and I would say (see above but repeated), He preserved it in the extant manuscripts. I’m sorry that I cannot be clearer than that. That’s as far as I can go.
• Are there textual variants? Sure! The received text position has the same issue - they don’t have one complete “received” MSS.
• Basically because the variants are so (relatively) few and minor it rarely is an issue for me. But when it comes to the last twelve verses of Mark (a relatively large chunk!) or the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) (another rather large chunk!) … I am going with the majority!
• Everyone Christian who has studied textual criticism / textual variants / history has the same struggles. I’m OK that Sexton says he prefers the KJV. At least he is out front about it. Not equivocating!
• On the KJV specifically: I have it to the left of my chair as I write now. It is beneath (they are stacked horizontally) the ESV, NKJV, NASB. We had a speaker at church this last Sunday who preached from the KJV. I think this is perhaps the first time in a number of years I have heard the KJV from the pulpit. It’s not modern English and I am a modern

Thanks Jim,

I agree with everything you said apart from the verbal preservation. However, that’s my point. When people start attacking all other translations and denying they are scripture, they have violated a bibliology, a fundamental aspect of our faith. When Sexton writes in his church doctrinal statement that the KJ is the only English version they will accept (not just prefer or use), they are clearly self-identifying with that error.

I agree in spirit (and in practice I hope) with the visual you posted here. However, over the years as I have been forced to sort through what I identify as primary and secondary issues, bibliology has risen into the primary category. If we start undermining the authority of the scripture, as the KJVO crowd does, we undermine the very authority on which our faith is established. We are nothing without our Bibles. While I may disagree with and argue against the KJVO-preferred position, I see the clear difference between them and the KJVO crowd. The dividing line is how they esteem other English translations.

In my neck of the woods, a Baptist church (with a Christian School) famously burned an NIV (not 4th Baptist which is both in my neck of the woods AND has a Christian school).

On the NIV: Ernest Pickering (a former Central Seminary President and former Pastor of 4th Baptist - now with the Lord) was a proponent of it. GARBC article … also I attended his “Pastors’ School” when he pastored in Toledo, OH.

What I learned from Pickering: While I am not a fan of the NIV, I realized that he had a high view of Scripture. Not comparing myself to him because I’m not in his class, but he believed inspiration, inerrancy, and preservation as much as I!

Back to my colored bullseye above, for me the version issue is not in the red zone.

Jim,
I think that Chip trying to figure out where and when does a topic or issue moves from the ‘convictions’ circle to ‘absolutes’, and what the appropriate response to that issue should be if it violates clear doctrinal positions. By moving the KJV to the place where the use of the KJV is an absolute, as per Sexton’s church DS, then it has become an absolute and also runs contrary to established and orthodox Bibliology. So that would merit separation on the part of those like Minnick, Vaughn, etc. That’s why I’m confused that Minnick is involving himself with Sexton and the rest.

You seem to be saying that you don’t see an issue with them putting it as an conviction. I think we all agree on that. The question is kind of threefold:

1. Is it truly an absolute for Sexton’s church? It seems to be.
2. Is this an issue that Sexton would preach against or discipline someone over? Again, the answer seems to be yes.
3. What, then, should be our response to this since we consider the use of the KJV as an “doctrinal absolute” to be wrong. It seems like a “game-breaker” to Chip and I.

Does anyone here have an issue with the King James Version being an excellent sample of the preserved Word of God in English? I would think that 200 plus years of practical exclusivity in the English speaking church would allow us to agree at least on that.

[Lee]

Does anyone here have an issue with the King James Version being an excellent sample of the preserved Word of God in English? I would think that 200 plus years of practical exclusivity in the English speaking church would allow us to agree at least on that.

Back to the GARBC article that I mentioned above

• I am very comfortable saying the KJV is the inspired, inerrant Word of God with a proviso that I mention below
• I am also comfortable saying this about the ESV, NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, and the HCSB
• My proviso: inspiration and inerrancy only applies to the original autographs
• So the inspiration and inerrancy of a translation is “derived”
• What I am not comfortable saying is that any of the above translations are perfect translations.

A minor quibble with the KJV. I do not think 1 John 5:8 is part of the Word of God

[Lee]

Does anyone here have an issue with the King James Version being an excellent sample of the preserved Word of God in English? I would think that 200 plus years of practical exclusivity in the English speaking church would allow us to agree at least on that.

The King James Bible is terrible for use today. It is written in archaic language that no one uses. It is based on a handful of manuscripts which, if Erasmus had his druthers, would have added more.

I am not going to argue with you Lee but you seem to restrict “the church” to your definition of who is “in”. Wescott and Hort did the church a great favor with their work. The RSV has been used by many Christians for over a hundred years and is superior to an English translation that is 400 years old.