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

Larry,

I noted the exact same thing at the very beginning of this thread, but, apparently, no one wants to deal with that.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Larry,

I noted the exact same thing at the very beginning of this thread, but, apparently, no one wants to deal with that.

Sorry Chip: I picked up the thread late, and I somehow overlooked your previous mention of it.

It seems like a glaring inconsistency to me! Pastor Sexton can apparently believe one thing as Pastor of his church, and another thing as President of the college…and the FBFI apparently gets to make amends with Sexton based on the version of him they like.

Ugh!

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2014/05/thoughtful-fundamentalists…

Comment: Arrived in my inbox as a filing suggestion. Posting here to keep in one thread.

[Larry Nelson] So which is it?

I don’t read the two Sexton positions as being mutually exclusive.

But the points Brandenburg/Mitchell bring up are of far greater concern, imo.

[DavidO]

I don’t read the two Sexton positions as being mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct.

They are different statements in the way that Dr. Bauder views them as being different. The nuance involved may be somewhat subtle; reread Bauder’s article again for the distinction.

The distinction is only that one says less than the other. 100 percent of those who hold to only accepting and using the TR can affirm the new CC statement as true, even if it does not express all that they believe on the matter. And many who hold to the CC statement could also affirm the church statement. Not mutually exclusive therefore not necessarily inconsistent.

Ergo one need not believe one thing as pastor and an entirely different thing as the prez of CC.

Here’s how the difference plays out in practice:

Under the college’s doctrinal statement, one could presumably use the ESV without being considered a heretic or an apostate (if the statement there merely expresses a choice/preference). The ESV may not be the version of choice there, and the user would be asked to use the KJV instead for purposes of uniformity and compliance, but the ESV would still presumably be recognized as being God’s word.

Under the church’s doctrinal statement, if the TR/KJV is truly the only version of God’s word they accept (not just prefer or choose to use), then the ESV would presumably not be recognized as God’s word. (Gail Riplinger calling…)

I know of a church which only accepts and uses the KJV in my area which reportedly burned a NIV sometime back in demonstration of that belief!

And wasn’t it just a few years ago that the FBFI thought the (nonexistant) distinction mattered?:

http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Only-Examining-Exclusive/dp/0825420482

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-God-Man-Laymans-Guide/dp/1889893382/ref=sr_1…

Seems like a lot of wasted effort if there’s really no practical difference involved.

Whenever I read something like…

“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”

…I always want to ask which textus receptus? The differences abound between the various editions. Then if I receive a response, I would want to ask, why? What made that particular edition the right one and the others rejects? Of course the reality is the textus receptus was itself a product of textual critical choices made by editors over many years.

Yet it is insufficient parsing that allows one to make fallacious statments like

Pastor Sexton can apparently believe one thing as Pastor of his church, and another thing as President of the college

As for Darrell’s question of which TR, at least one group holds that the true TR is the Greek that underlies the KJV. Which they say is Scrivener’s reverse engineered 1881 (84?) version.

Let’s say there were a fellowship of individual pastors and deacons and interested members of various churches. Let’s say the premiere qualification for inclusion in that fellowship were the embracing of a true gospel, and that denying the true gospel would earn one denunciation as an apostate and expulsion from that fellowship. Furthermore, any members found among that fellowship arguing that said deniers of the true gospel were less than apostates should also subject to the same treatment. Let’s now say that teaching easy believe-ism and denying of the necessity of repentance for salvation amounted (by fellowship consensus) to a denial of that true gospel. Let’s say then that one among that fellowship were honored by its leaders despite the fact that he taught easy believe-ism and denied the necessity of repentance for salvation. And none of the members acted as if this were a problem.

What would be the proper adjective for such a fellowship?

Could it be that the FBFI needs to have Sexton and his school? Does anyone know whether the FBFI is growing, shrinking or staying the same?

FBFI – Fundamentalist Being Found Inconsistent

FBFI – Fundy Buddies Fawning Indefensibly

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.,

Calling to work together sounds great, until some of the men you describe are asked to work with someone who uses an NIV or ESV or even NKJV. Then their refusal to “accept” any version but the KJ makes it impossible.

When Temple Baptist declares in its doctrinal statement [ http://templebaptistchurch.com/pages/statement-of-faith.php] that “the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use” are they not running afoul of the following FBFI resolution?:

––––-

95.16 REGARDING TRANSLATIONS

“The FBF, while recognizing that God has used the King James version of the Bible in a special way in the English speaking world, reaffirms its belief that the original manuscripts of Scripture are the documents which are inspired by God and that Bible translations may be considered trustworthy only if they accurately reflect the original manuscripts (II Timothy 3:16). In light of the considerable discussion among Fundamentalists about the issue of manuscripts and textual theories, no particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core Fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of inspiration with equal strength without embracing the same belief about textual criticism. Additionally, proper evaluation of the doctrinal integrity of any particular English translation can only be done by examining its faithfulness to the original languages, not by comparing it to another English translation. While the process of comparing it with other translations may be profitable for matters of clarity and readability, this process cannot pass as the test of doctrinal accuracy since it is illegitimate to check one copy by another, one must compare the copy to the original. In a day when translations abound, Fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both the selection and rejection of translations. Some professing Fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God’s Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of Fundamentalism. Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of Fundamentalism must be rejected.”

http://fundamentalbaptistfellowshipinternational.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Complete-Resolutions-2010.pdf