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

C. D. Cauthorne Jr. wrote:

As an FBFI member, I heartily welcome my brother Clarence Sexton!  His position on Bible versions mirrors that of the last head of the FBFI (Rod Bell), and I would even say that it represents the view of most older members (not board members) of the FBFI.  KJO Pastor Jody Jenkins spoke at our regional meeting.  We need desperately to work together as brothers in Christ!

C.D. - 

This is exactly the problem that I have with the FBFI, and it's why this is 'newsworthy'.  This is also a VERY longstanding gripe that I have with the FBFI.

Someone just pointed out that Sexton's position runs afoul of the FBFI's own resolution.  It also runs contrary to sound doctrine (hello!?).  Yet Sexton is being presented as someone who is 'good enough' (for lack of a better term) to present for the FBFI's members at their National Meeting (?1?) and as a good fellow soldier for the Lord. Just look the other way while we brush over the whole "the KJV is the only acceptable translation" error.

So the FBFI either:

1. Wasn't aware of the massive conflict OR
2. Didn't do their due diligence enough to ensure that Sexton's position had actually changed OR
3. Has taken such this kind of position in spite of their own resolutions.

It smacks of either general cluelessness or a lack of sober-mindedness for the FBFI leadership to run the organization this irresponsibly.  ESPECIALLY when the FBFI takes threats to Fundamentalism so seriously that they will pass resolutions against or warning believers about other orthodox Christians like John MacArthur.

If the FBFI wants to be taken seriously, then why are they continually supporting and giving the platform to preachers who endorse false doctrine and maliciously slander other believers?  I'll take Mark Dever / Tim Keller / John MacArthur's seriousness and sobriety any day of the week over Clarence Sexton's heresy.

Personally, I think Clarence Sexton was invited because he's friends with the higher-ups at the FBFI, but still...it's gross incompetence or doctrinal negligence to write this off as not a big deal.  It's even worse to say that he is headed in the right direction if he's clearly not.

Jay, those are great options to choose from: intentionally brushing aside significant doctrinal matters or incompetence.  I don't think this is about the FBFI for Kevin.  Central Seminary must be hard up for students for Kevin to have made such a thoughtless endorsement.

One would think that Kevin would know better: http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Only-Examining-Exclusive/dp/0825420482/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1400093627&sr=8-9&keywords=kevin+bauder

Jay, those are great options to choose from: intentionally brushing aside significant doctrinal matters or incompetence. 

I also did say that I think that this is primarily an issue where personal friendships are clouding the organization's vision (last paragraph).​..I'm open to any other suggestions.  Those were the reasons that I could think of, and this isn't the first time this kind of thing has occurred under the FBFI auspices.  The worrying thing to me - not that I spend a ton of time worrying about the FBFI - is that this situation keeps recurring.

...You guys hard up for students? 

Since it has been declared here that that is the only reason you'd make such an endorsement I thought I'd go to the source and ask.  Just trying to clear the air here.

Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder were the general editors of the book One Bible Only?, which came out in 2001.  I know that many here have seen it, and even likely have a copy.

I pulled mine out last night, and started paging through it.  Here's one sample quotation, written by Larry D. Pettegrew, taken from pages 186-187:

"In spite of the fundamentalists' rightful respect for the King James Version, they must not allow bad doctrine into their churches. The King James-Only position is based on a heterodox view of the inspiration and preservation of the Bible and is, consequently, nonfundamentalist and nonevangelical. The Bible clearly teaches that one of the serious responsibilities of pastors is to protect the sheep from wrong doctrine (Acts 20:28-31)."

IF Sexton has turned away from KJVOism (which Bauder thinks may be the case because Crown College appears to have modified its doctrinal statement), then the question remains as to why Temple Baptist's doctrinal statement reflects no such change.  If Sexton has not turned away from KJVOism, then the FBFI needs to explain why they are holding hands with someone who holds to a "bad doctrine" and "heterodox view" from which they should be "protect(ing) the sheep" (see above).

I am trying to figure out why this is so different from T. D. Jakes and the Elephant Room. Bad doctrine excused on the basis of friendship. Seems like the same standard should apply. If Sexton has accepted other English translations of the Bible in the same light as the KJ, then let him say so clearly and put the matter to rest. I personally am not on a witch hunt, but I refuse to accept the double standard that has existed in the past in the FBFI of denouncing some doctrinal error while glossing over others. 

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Chapter 1 - section 8

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

In defense of the KJV guys ... they take preservation seriously

Lee wrote:

...You guys hard up for students? 

Since it has been declared here that that is the only reason you'd make such an endorsement I thought I'd go to the source and ask.  Just trying to clear the air here.

Who said it was the "only" reason?

Jim wrote:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Chapter 1 - section 8

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

In defense of the KJV guys ... they take preservation seriously

Who do you mean by "the KJV guys"? If you are talking about the KJVO crowd that has been the focus of this thread, I would argue otherwise. Pyromaniacs recently ran a post about the common link between leprechauns, mermaids and loving homosexual relationships. The common thread - they don't exist. That's because true love does what is best, what is good for the other person, and anything that violates scripture does not qualify (greatly paraphrased). The same is true here. You can't claim to love, or in your words take seriously, a truth of scripture when you are violating it. The KJVO guys take their aberrant theology seriously, not God's Word or His teaching on preservation.

The last President of the FBFI was Rod Bell.  He held/holds to a similar view of the KJV as Clarence Sexton.  No one has addressed that point.  Clarence Sexton is not out of place at the FBFI National Meeting.  He represents a definite constituency within that group (a majority of the members?).

Only using the KJV in public worship is not bad doctrine.  It is probably the practice of the majority of the FBFI's churches.  The view that the KJV is the superior translation of our day is not bad doctrine either.  It is based, for those of us within the FBFI who hold to that view, upon a high valuation of the source materials that the KJV comes from and upon a respect for the KJV's beautiful/majestic style.

I think there was a blow up in the 1980's within the FBFI where those who could not tolerate the use of modern versions left the fellowship.  I fellowship with those who use modern versions, but I do not choose to use them in the ministry God has called me to.  That does not make me, or Clarence Sexton, a heretic.

Again, as an FBFI member, I heartily welcome Clarence Sexton to our national meeting!

C. D.,

This statement, " I fellowship with those who use modern versions, but I do not choose to use them in the ministry God has called me to." sets you apart from Clarence Sexton. Choosing not to use another translation is not the same as refusing to accept it as God's Word. Sexton has essentially placed the NIV, ESV, NASB and all others in the same category as the New World Translation produced by the JW's - not God's Word because of corruption/mistranslation. 

Rod Bell is not the President of the FBFI any more, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

Temple Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement:

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God...” (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God's preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed. 

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.

I won't disagree with you that the majority of the FBFI's members use only the KJV in their churches.  I know that.  My question to you is this - do those churches also say that the KJV is the only version they "accept"?  If I show up at an FBFI church with my ESV, that translation would be rejected by the pastor and congregation?  On what basis?  Since when did the FBFI decide to make that change, and why?  I think an explanation is merited given their past positions on the King James Issue, this this one:

84. 10 REGARDING THE SCRIPTURES
The FBF affirms that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments (66 canonical books), is the verbally and plenarily inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God in the autographs.

We reject the books known as the Apocrypha as the inspired Word of God.

We condemn paraphrases such as The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man and the products of unbelieving and liberal scholarship such as the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible.

We deplore the rash of new versions which add to or delete from the Word of God, such as the New International Version, with special reference to those so-called "revisions" which by footnote additions undermine the text.

We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version, providentially preserved by God in the English-speaking world.

We reject as heretical the concept that any translation of the Bible is given by inspiration, which has in our generation fostered a cult. We believe firmly that inspiration ceased upon the closure of the canon of Scripture in the original auto graphs. We likewise reject the practice of exalting any version or translation to the position held uniquely by the original writings.

I'm sorry, but decreeing that there can be only one acceptable English translation of the bible is heresy; there is no Scriptural basis for this position.  No matter how you slice it.  Even the FBFI knows this.

Now if the FBFI is largely an "Only the King James" movement, then sure, invite Sexton...he should fit right in.  But that's not a group I want to be a part of, and don't present him as a solid and orthodox preacher.

There is a huge chasm between being "King James Preferred" and "King James Only."  Based on your "Rod Bell?" post, and your church's doctrinal statement, you appear to be in the "Preferred" category.  Choosing to use only the KJV is not bad doctrine.  Believing it is a superior translation is not bad doctrine.  We are at liberty to make such choices.  It becomes bad doctrine, however, when one believes that the KJV is the only English translation that is God's word; and that, conversely, all other English translations are not God's word.

I don't know enough about Rod Bell to know if he is in the "Preferred" or "Only" category, but since he was the president of the FBFI from 1977 to 2003, I'd find it hard to believe that as an "Onlyist" he would oversee the 1995 resolution I quote in full a few posts up.

Has anybody bothered talking to Sexton about this?  I find it incredible that he is being labeled as fomenting heresy without an eyeball to eyeball meeting with witnessing elders when it is quite clear to anyone without an agenda that he loves and cherishes the Gospel and the Christ of that Gospel.

Furthermore, I would find it quite incredible that he actually did foment heresy in the Scripture issue since we share a significant mentor--Dr. Frank Sells (now with the Lord)--who was anything but KJVO as presented here. 

Lee, so this thoughtful leader was so inept as to agree to a heretical statement of faith?  That is one way to build a case...

...you did not know Frank Sells

I noticed a few here (such as Chip and Larry) who point out the doctrinal statement mismatch between Sexton's church and school.

Now I don't have any inside info on either, but this much I do know as a typical Baptist—changing a school's doctrinal statement takes a lot less than changing a church's. Getting some board members of a school to come to agreement versus getting a large congregation to all be on board for a doctrinal statement change without fomenting a possible church split are two very different things. So the fact that the church statement is "behind" the times versus the school's statement should not be too much cause for alarm if the momentum seems to be showing a shift away from the earlier position.

I'm ignorant of when the school changed the statement, but if it was within the last year (or maybe even two), then I would not expect the church to have yet followed in those steps (assuming, of course, such a change is even being pursued by Temple Baptist Church).

I say this only to note that the mismatch should not be an issue. This does not mean that Sexton's welcome or not into the FBFI should or should not be considered on the basis of the narrow statement of the church. That is for the interested parties to determine. I only point out that the mismatch should not be considered a negative in the discussion. If anything, it should point to momentum in a change of thought/attitude from the old to the new.