FBFI and the KJV

All very well to talk slash and burn here on SI, but you have to consider the “collateral damage” here. I think some of you are quite arrogant in your pontificating about what to do. I think our friends who are confused or mistaken deserve patience and respect.

I’m pretty confident at this point that some of our ‘friends’ are more concerned about their ‘friends’ than they are about actual doctrine. But everyone has to draw a line somewhere…to not decide is to decide.

But hey, the FBFI doesn’t need younger fundamentalists anyway. They’re all good.

[Ken S]

Don Johnson wrote:

The problem is that there is a spectrum of belief on the KJV side, some of it is heretical, some is simply confused. All very well to talk slash and burn here on SI, but you have to consider the “collateral damage” here. I think some of you are quite arrogant in your pontificating about what to do. I think our friends who are confused or mistaken deserve patience and respect.

I think you are correct that it is a hard task to move forward on this issue and has the potential to really cause damage in a church. Having grown up in a KJV preferred church it was apparent that although the the pastor was not KJV only, there was a number of vocal members who were. For them the KJV issue is on the level of inerrancy- there will be no amount of patience or respect that will help them see things differently, and they view anyone who disagrees with KJV onlyism as compromising and in error. To use a different version for preaching would be to split the church. Since those who are not KJV only can give up using other versions to keep the peace, they are the ones who always end up needing to acquiesce. I don’t think there is a resolution that will work for the churches in this situation. This leaves the pastor with the decision of whether this is a battle he wants to fight, and in many cases the answer is no.

It is especially difficult now that the problem has festered so long. The time for slash and burn was probably thirty years ago, but it wasn’t done. I think most guys thought it would blow over. Well, you know how that worked.

where we are now, we need patient, firm, courageous teaching. Just going to full “flame on” mode would hurt a lot of people, I think needlessly.

Don, I am just wondering here if you feel what you have written both here on SI and on your blog in regard to separation, music, etc. has been “full flame on”? I would think some of it has come pretty close to that - no? I would also believe that some of those same topics have been covered in a “full flame on” mode from the FBFI. So, in your mind, what makes separation a doctrine that requires “full flame on” when a Biblical approach to KJVOism should not be approached in that way?

I may have misread your initial statement. I was assuming that “certain decisions” referred to the forthcoming statement and not the past. The missteps of the past are the missteps of the past, and I’m not necessarily willing to sweep them under the rug. But I’m also willing to hear people out under the understanding that people (and groups) grow and change. I simply believe that until the FBFI publishes Shumate’s forthcoming statement we should probably keep our slings and arrows in their arrow tube (I had to look up what the thing you store arrows in is called - participating in SI is fun and educational).

I also believe that Don is correct. There are more people involved than the Clarence Sextons and Paul Chappells of the world. It’s easy to stand outside the issue and propose bold and absolute solutions. It’s another thing to think pastorally when dear saints you know and love and who have been misled and taught poorly for decades are involved.

I was raised in a KJV-preferred church, which, for all intents and purposes, was KJV-only. I mean, I grew up in Pensacola, the capital of KJV-onlyism. I understand how damaging KJV-onlyism can be. I too believe that we should separate from those who claim the authority of preacher and/or teacher of God’s Word yet who teach and promote KJV-only. The question is, how does an organization like the FBFI extract itself from the mess without also wounding others? For me, since they have promised a new statement on the matter, I’m going to withhold my criticisms until I see how they propose to move forward.

The nutshell:

• KJVOnlyism is heresy
• KJVOnlyism exisits among the FBFI constituency
• It’s been a problem for 30 years or more (per Don Johnson)
• Rooting it out will “hurt a lot of people” (ibid). Question: “who are those people?”

My take … pathetic excuses!

The irony of what I’m about to write is that I am probably further away from Don on more issues than any other member of SI.

Bob, while I must admit that I’m curious how Don is going to respond to your question, and a question that I don’t think is devoid of value, I also can’t help but wonder if it’s contextually misplaced.

I’m not sure that the FBFI’s position on music and KJV-only are good parallels. I don’t believe that the FBFI is running the risk of wounding people with their positions on music. They don’t wound me, and I’m almost 100% certain that many of the pastor-members of the FBFI wouldn’t allow me to teach Sunday school at their church because of the music I listen to. That’s fine.

My point, when the FBFI makes statements against music, they’re doing so to an audience that is in agreement with them. They’re trying to “hold the line,” so to speak. Making a statement about the KJV will (as it’s already done) offend people that men like Don know and have a responsibility before God to disciple and shepherd. With statements about the KJV, the FBFI is trying to “move the line,” and that requires a different tact than “holding the line.”

Craig, while reading your question, dozens of men and women that I know who have faithfully followed their Savior but who have been misled by the bad teaching of others popped into my head.

It’s easy to flame away (though not the best way) on issues that are external to your church or group since there is little chance that you will offend people who are already part of your group. They already agree with you so you are in effect preaching to the choir. The KJVO issue is not an external issue. A wise and loving pastor should be preaching with the intent to effect change in his listeners. Taking a hard line on this is going to be a very hard pill for many to swallow and will certainly split churches. Slow, careful, and loving teaching has the most chance of effecting change for those who are willing to hear. Changing people’s minds on this issue requires telling them that their view is wrong and even heretical - human nature automatically makes something like that very difficuIt to hear. I can’t imagine how going full bore on people is a better option than patient teaching.

Just going to full “flame on” mode would hurt a lot of people, I think needlessly.

Or it might wake up people who aren’t paying attention and make them aware of the situation / danger they are in.

Compromise almost always happens slowly, as people and institutions gradually make foolish, dangerous or unwise choices and alliances with people they should otherwise mark and avoid.

That is how I see this situation, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

[Bob Nutzhorn]

Don, I am just wondering here if you feel what you have written both here on SI and on your blog in regard to separation, music, etc. has been “full flame on”? I would think some of it has come pretty close to that - no? I would also believe that some of those same topics have been covered in a “full flame on” mode from the FBFI. So, in your mind, what makes separation a doctrine that requires “full flame on” when a Biblical approach to KJVOism should not be approached in that way?

I am certainly willing to “flame on” with many issues. I have no problem with that, I doubt anyone would disagree.

In my own local ministry, the KJV is a “flame on” issue. I will not tolerate KJV onlyism in any form in our church. I have called people down publicly for promoting those views. That is absolutely my responsibility. One of the reasons we use the NASB (not the only reason) is to inoculate our church against KJO activists. They can spew their drivel elsewhere.

However, within the broader range of fellowship, I think there are a lot of good people who are simply confused and mislead. I want to influence them to a wiser position. So in my broader ministry on this point I am more patient. You all can criticize all you want. Doesn’t bother me any. I am simply expressing my own personal views.

I am grateful for the leadership, friendship, and balance of the other men on the FBFI board. I think we are thinking through these and other issues all the time, trying to be an influence for good in the broader body. Obviously we aren’t moving fast enough for some of you on this one. Well? Whatever! We will have to work through the issue on our own time and at our own pace. Can’t do much more than that.

Appreciate JohnE’s comments. Glad to see we can agree on some things.

With that, I am off for the day, other responsibilities call.

[John E.]

we should probably keep our slings and arrows in their arrow tube (I had to look up what the thing you store arrows in is called - participating in SI is fun and educational).

THAT’s the word I was looking for. My mind went blank while I was typing, so I quickly googled it. “Arrow tube” popped up. It didn’t sound right, but I clicked on a bow and arrow link and the site used the word. I thought, “What do I know?” Now we all know the answer to that.

Verily, mine brethren in the FBFI art in a tough spot. Again I say unto you, I am well pleased they invited mine yokefellow, Mark Ward (a true brother in the faith), to speak at such a time as this. Truly truly, this topic bringeth out the worst in any man. Indeed, it is good to offend not in word, for the tongue (or, as it were, fingers) is a small member which worketh out of all proportion to its size. Like a ship’s rudder that turneth a ship whithersoever the governor listeth, how great a matter a little fire from the tongue kindleth!

Truly, there are many confused brethren abroad in our land today. Thou speakest the truth in that respect. I thank God there art resources to help bishops lead churches out of the darkness and into the marvelous light of English bible version orthodoxy. I recommend mine brethren consult this webpage from Bro. Overmiller, another true brother in the faith.

I think a lot of this has to do with a person or pastor’s attitude. I have counseled a few people (new believers) away from KJVOnlyinsm. I called it heresy as it is but I tried to approach it as more of an act of love than a rebuke. To a one they have repudiated it and have educated themselves to be able to help others. That to me is different from someone who is an evangelist for the position. It’s also a lot different than a pastor teaching it from the pulpit. If a new believer fails to accurately articulate the Trinity we understand that. If a pastor does so we have way less patience. As I understand the FBFI it is a fellowship of pastors. They should know better but I don’t think everyone in the pews necessarily should.