Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

[Bob T.] Also, in your post you are giving a quote from Susan R, your site administrator. She appears to be offended by the word heresy in this regard and some other statements. According to her statement on another thread a few months ago, she holds to the KJVO position and attends a KJVO church (not KJV preferred). However, she then claims that the use by others of other than the KJV does not bother her and that her church allows it. That’s nice but is it not very inconsistent.

It is not inconsistent, because one can hold to a conviction without placing the same demand on others or making it a separation issue. I also have come to other conclusions in my faith and practice about clothing, media, music, holidays, family life, etc… that are matters of conviction and preference. IOW, they are a conviction for us as a family or me in particular, but they are not used as a matter of fellowship with others or a measure of spirituality. I understand that others make different choices in good conscience before God, or I wouldn’t be participating at Sharper Iron, much less be part of the team.

BTW, our family attends a different church now, but church leadership can have convictions without making it a doctrinal issue for the congregation. For instance, the pastor can homeschool or his wife and daughters wear dresses, but he doesn’t necessarily have to make that a criteria for membership or fellowship, and he may in a message, on a website or blog, or in some other way define or explain to the congregation how and why he reached those conclusions for himself and his family. But that information doesn’t in and of itself comprise a demand for others to make the same choices.

I’m not offended by the word ‘heresy’ when it is applied to those who make these kinds of issues a test of salvation or spirituality. But the broad brush soaking in the invective bucket needs to be left alone. It doesn’t do anything to further the conversation or promote understanding to call a diverse group of individuals ignorant and unGodly for sharing a similar belief on whether or not God preserved His Word, and basically it’s the same trick with a different dog.

I’m not offended, so there’s no need to forgive, as far as I’m concerned.

Again, all I’m trying to do here is figure out what you’re trying to accomplish. You have spoken about “the bounds of Bible-believing Fundamentalism,” yet have also disparaged the notion of contending for labels. I have tried to establish that there is a divide, and that it is increasing. It seems to me that there will never be a way to definitively satisfy what you are calling for- someone is always going to contend with the conclusion. Central has stated what they are willing to do, who they are willing to support and work with. Others have expressed opposition to that. What’s left? I can’t imagine the one’s Central has identified surrendering their positions. I don’t see Central surrendering theirs. It seems to me an impasse is being approached.

There are essentially three types (here we go again:) of approaches to this topic of fund-evang unity/non-unity.

1. First approach - Every belief is worth separating. All or nothing. Those that believe this will end up in an isolationist context. Hyper-Fundamentalism and even some of the more militant versions of the movement are here - and headed to all points “out there.” The problem is not so much having a strong view of “this” or “that” - the problem is treating 2nd and 3rd level doctrines, belief’s, etc….as if they were essential to faith and any level of fellowship. In my view - too much of fundamentalism past and present are here.

2. Second approach - No belief’s are worth separating - or maybe a few belief’s are worth separating. Those that belief this risk having true heresy and/or “real” worldliness invading assemblies and context’s that ought to be safe-gaurded by the gospel and clear, Biblical (as is from the text not placed on the text) teaching. In my view - too much of evangelicalism has been here.

3. Third approach - This attitude holds with equal commitment “”unity” as well as a willingness to “divide” themselves from that which distorts the gospel or Christ’ character. Those that hold to this approach will admit that at times there is an uncomfortable tension that is felt. It frankly is not always easy to know when to give grace and when to cut lines for sake of Christ. This group rejects the notion that when in doubt “always cut” or “always unite”. Those that respond rightly to separation do so with a humble and almost a hurting spirit that they have to limit their connection with a brother or groups of brothers. True faith according John results in an unmistakable love for those in the body. When groups separate with a “glee-like mentality” you know their spirit is not from Jesus of Nazareth.

In my view - you have an emergent middle or “Type B” fundamentalism that is growing because like-minded men from both evangelicalism and fundamentalism want something better. They’re finding it in the Scriptures and with the koinonia of like-minded brothers - who are cutting themselves loose of labels (at least to some degree). Funny enough….there is a new kind of group that is forming - but no one wants to call it a group - because the guys from evangelicalism don’t want it to look like modern day evangelicalism and those from the fundy side don’t want it to look like modern day fundamentalism. Interesting.

Straight Ahead!

jt

”Opinionum varietas et opinantium veritas non sunt hasusta”

“Variety of opinion and unity of opinion are not incompatible”

(Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs - 1600-1646)

The three approaches Joel, are not necessarily equal to your earlier taxonomy approach grouping fundamentalists into Type A, B and C are they? I see the first approach as type A. But your second approach above is more like a type D or a non-fundamentalist. Type B + C are together under the third approach above. At least that’s how I’m viewing this.

I would say that Type B fundamentalists hold over a certain viewpoint of what separation is and looks like. Type C (which are CEs if I remember right), have a different viewpoint of what separation is and looks like. Speaking up and standing up for something, is a form of separation even if a cut-and-run doesn’t occur (especially in Baptist groups which already are expressly designed to promote local autonomy).

Aaron, below is the WCBC doctrinal statement on the scriptures from their website.

The KJVO position is that the KJV is the perfect word of God and all other translations are not. This is the normal usage of the term. The KJVP (preferred) may include several opinions but does not indicate that there is special divine preservation for the KJV. This is the way KJVO has been consistently defined by most all. I do not understand the present confusion on this. All who advocate the KJVO position make it a doctrine and part of their doctrine of Bibliology. Those who are KJVP do not make the textual superiority of a text type as infallable and perfectly preserved by divine intervention and do not advocate for the KJV as a perfectly preserved translation. As you know there are advocates for better or superior text types and for better or superior translations but claim no perfect preservation for those. They do not elevate to doctrine and is not part of their doctrinal statement.

There are also some who claim to be KJVP but treat the subject as though they are KJVO, which in reality they really are. Pensacola College is an example. The eminent scholar James D. Price so handles all this in his book “King James Onlyism - A New Sect.” He is an eminent scholar and was Executive Editor and chairman of the review committee for the “New King James Bible.” His book is IMO the best on this subject. As handled by Price and others:

All KJVO = divine intervention gauranteeing perfect preservation which implies inspiration.

KJVP = most who have various views in which they preseve the KJV. Some who by implication are really KJVO though denying it.

Here is the WCBC statement of faith (doctrine) on the Bible.

The Bible

We believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, fully and verbally inspired of God. We believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God, as found within the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. We believe God not only inspired every word, but has preserved them through the ages. We believe the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people and is the only acceptable translation to be used in this college by faculty or students (Psalm 12:6-7; II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:23-25; II Peter 1:19-21).

1. God inspired every word. 2. God preserved every word. 3. The KJV is the preserved word of God for the English speaking people. This requires divine preservation that involves divine superintendance that protects from error, which is inspiration. Every book I have read on the controversy so defines the KJVO position.

[Greg Linscott] Becky,

No two brand of Swiss chocolate compare perfectly in texture, flavor, or quality. Besides, Hershey’s has been, without question, the preeminent chocolate brand since it was introduced. Furthermore, we shouldn’t have to go to Switzerland to get chocolate for s’mores- Hershey’s is available and accessible to the common man. You can have you elitist Euro-chocolate. As for me, if it was good enough for Milton, it’s good enough for me!

There go you crazy fundamentalists again - Why can’t we all just get along ;)?

[Susan R]

[Bob T.] Also, in your post you are giving a quote from Susan R, your site administrator. She appears to be offended by the word heresy in this regard and some other statements. According to her statement on another thread a few months ago, she holds to the KJVO position and attends a KJVO church (not KJV preferred). However, she then claims that the use by others of other than the KJV does not bother her and that her church allows it. That’s nice but is it not very inconsistent.

It is not inconsistent, because one can hold to a conviction without placing the same demand on others or making it a separation issue. I also have come to other conclusions in my faith and practice about clothing, media, music, holidays, family life, etc… that are matters of conviction and preference. IOW, they are a conviction for us as a family or me in particular, but they are not used as a matter of fellowship with others or a measure of spirituality. I understand that others make different choices in good conscience before God, or I wouldn’t be participating at Sharper Iron, much less be part of the team.

BTW, our family attends a different church now, but church leadership can have convictions without making it a doctrinal issue for the congregation. For instance, the pastor can homeschool or his wife and daughters wear dresses, but he doesn’t necessarily have to make that a criteria for membership or fellowship, and he may in a message, on a website or blog, or in some other way define or explain to the congregation how and why he reached those conclusions for himself and his family. But that information doesn’t in and of itself comprise a demand for others to make the same choices.

I’m not offended by the word ‘heresy’ when it is applied to those who make these kinds of issues a test of salvation or spirituality. But the broad brush soaking in the invective bucket needs to be left alone. It doesn’t do anything to further the conversation or promote understanding to call a diverse group of individuals ignorant and unGodly for sharing a similar belief on whether or not God preserved His Word, and basically it’s the same trick with a different dog.

Susan, the KJVO position has to do with what the scriptures teach concerning themselves and how we today receive the truth of God and prove its reliability. It has to do with how we know the Gospel is true historically as based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have regularly preached and taught that the resurrection of Christ is the most well evidenced fact of historical antiquity based upon historiography which includes the reliability of the the thousands of manuscripts and textual analysis. All this relies on the treating of scripture as a received book with historical characteristics and the normal processes of history research. The KJVO doctrine and assertions take the scriptures away from historical analysis and attempt to establish them on a non provable event or events of divine intervention of inspiration. In so doing they remove the facts of Christianity from the arena of human history and seek to denigrate the historical evidence of textual criticism and therefore the historical foundations of Christianity. In other words the very basis of Christianity is undermined by the KJVO position. This is not a choice like clothing, media, music or blogging on a website. This involves the very doctrine of Bibliology. It involves what the Bible is, how we have received it, how and why it can be trusted, and how we know about God, Christ, and salvation through special revelation.

It is the position of most all Fundamentalist and Evangelical scholars that the KJVO position is wrong and absolutely contrary to all evidence regarding history, textual criticism, and translation. To them, it is so obviously wrong, and the arguments for the KJVO position so convoluted, and contrary to reality, that they see more than just sincere differences in some of those who hold the position. Those advocating the position often have limited education, and have not been heavily involved in textual criticism and translation. Most all are simply not scholars.

The word heresy is used regarding any main teaching that is contrary to scripture and to the history of orthodoxy of a doctrine. Bibliology is a main foundational doctrine. It is possible for a person to be heretical on a doctrine but not apostate. In other words they still believe the Gospel and are saved. As the Central Seminary Ethos statements indicates, The Fundamentalism that advocates such doctrine as the KJVO position is dangerous to Christianity.

I hope your family has found a good Christian fellowship that is not advocating the KJVO position. Please read my post to Aaron where I differentiate between the KJVO and KJVP positions.

Bob H.

You are right on the mark with these three classifications not being the same as my earlier attempt with ABC. I would agree with your linking the earlier tax with this present analysis. Thanks for helping me with my thinking! Shalom!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Aaron,

A CORRECTION: on post above. It should read KJVP = most who have various views in which they prefer the KJV. Some who by implication are really KJVO though denying it.

Also you stated:

None of the KJVOs I know personally believe that.

Speaking of KJVO and post apostolic inspiration.

You have had extensive debate regarding preservation with RPittman on SI. He is KJVO and holds to a perfect KJV. There can be no theory of a perfect canon of scripture that is KJV or any other translation without a post apostolic divine protection that by definition is the same as that inspiration and protection from error given the original authors for the original manuscripts. Every KJVO I know, by definition, holds to a perfect and pure Bible as found in the KJV. That is the very essence of the movement and KJVO is the term used to describe those who hold to such a position. I do not know where you are suddenly coming up with this revised definition of KJVO but that term is used as I have used it by every faculty member at Central and by every book that speaks to this debate. Please note the title of the best book on this subject. It is: KING JAMES ONLYISM - A NEW SECT. by James D. Price. He handles all this in his book “King James Onlyism - A New Sect.” He is an eminent scholar and was Executive Editor and chairman of the review committee of the “New King James Version.”

Again, this term is contrasted to the term KJVP which is King James Version preferred. Kevin Bauder uses these terms and contrasts these positions here on SI. There is the KJVO Ruckman position that expressly speaks of divine inspiration of translation and correcting the Greek and Hebrew by the KJV. The other KJVO positions do not all expressly speak of inspiration but their position makes it implicit. You cannot have perfect and pure preservation or translation without having divine inspiration protecting from error. Thats the essence of the KJVO position and problem.

I am confused as to your statements on this matter. As I recall the definitions of KJVO and KJVP used on all other SI threads have been as I have used them here. Some have questioned that the term KJVP can include some who are actually KJVO. Other than that there has been no question on SI of what the doctrinal position of a KJVO person was. I am also taken back by Susan Rs approach to this matter. This thread was having a coherent discussion regarding several matters to do withe the Central Ethos statement. The KJVO position came up and both Jeff Straub and Kevin Bauder spoke to it, and those who espouse it, in very direct and strong terms. I agree with their statements. I and some others got involved in the discussion. Then Susan, a site administrator, gets involved and makes the discussion a personal application of offense. Then you get involved and ignore Straub and Bauder and name me for using the word heresy. Well, it involves the doctrine of Bibliology and a position that is spoken of as dangerous. It does not require a thread discussion or writing of a dissertation on the word to know it is properly used here. Several books on the subject use the term. Others who had been on the KJVO side of the issue raised objections and issues but did not make it a personal offense issue. The language and terms used here were acceptable to all in the discussion. Then Susan seeks to post and give me an answer and likens the issue to her choice of clothing, music, and other small life choices which are which she sees as other personal preferences not worth separating over. She then uses language denigrating the use of the term heresy She obviously does not understand the issues here. Pastors, teachers, and Theologians were involved in discussing this subject. It is an important subject. I am thankful for the strong and open statements made by Bauder and Straub on this fundamentalist movement. I am thankful for the strong statement and position of the Central Ethos statement. It reflects a strong backbone and willingness to speak the truth. It is hoped some will listen, learn, and turn from the error of their ways. A false doctrine of Bibliology that is a danger to Christianity is worth separating over.

1. God inspired every word. 2. God preserved every word. 3. The KJV is the preserved word of God for the English speaking people. This requires divine preservation that involves divine superintendance that protects from error, which is inspiration. Every book I have read on the controversy so defines the KJVO position.

If you see an attack on inspiration here you are reading into it. Though there are those who link inspiration and preservation, I am not aware of many who link them by saying “KJV is preserved because it has been re-inspired during the translation process” or some variation of that.

Just to help you see the possibilities. Here’s one way you can hold to an orthodox view of inspiration and still believe in word perfect preservation in the KJV (which I do not believe in, by the way).

1. God inspired each book of Scripture (perfectly of course) once and only once
2. He miraculously or providentially preserved each of these books word for word (all kinds of ideas on how that happened, as far a I can tell. Some believe the text is routinely corrupted but re-purified through the efforts of chosen institutions, today being His churches).
3. The KJV was made from a word perfect text preserved in this way
4. God miraculously or providentially guided the KJV translators to produce a perfect transation
   In this reconstruction of events, the position is that the KJV is “inspired” because it’s a word perfect match, not that it is a word perfect match because it has been re-inspired or continually inspired.
   
   Now as I write this, I can see all kinds of problems in the sequence of events proposed above, and some logical problems (how can any document be said to exist word perfectly in a different language? When that happens, all the words are different!). But this does not make it heresy or, specifically, an attack on inspiration. People have been referring to the KJV as “the inspired word of God” for centuries. They are speaking somewhat loosely, and given recent (as in last 50 yrs or so) developments in this area, I believe it’s better now to be more precise, but the statement itself does not necessarily imply an unorthodox view of inspiration.
   
   It does suppose several miracles (or at least extraordinary providence) subsequent to inspiration.
   
   To relate back to the topic of the article, all of this is to show that not everybody who holds to exclusive use of KJV is guilty of anything even close to heresy or even anything that requires fundamentalists to repudiate their position, much less “separate” from their ministries.
   
   But of course, almost any position can become heretical if it’s incorrect and is also employed in a schismatic way. I’ve described that in earlier posts. But quite a few who hold to a perfect KJV do not obsess on the idea, sneak into every sermon (or even every third sermon), an constantly declare all other views to be a betrayal of the Christian faith (or worse). Those that do, have turned their view into a heresy, in my view. Those who don’t just have what is—from my POV a doctrinal quirk.
   
   Terminology/labels problem
   
   A big part of the problem in relating to folks with diff. views regarding the KJV is with labels. KJVO or KJVP? Well, the position I’ve just described with the non-schismatic posture I’ve just described, is not all that unusual. Because it’s quiet, it doesn’t tend to dominate the headlines. But the problem is that these folks sometimes don’t feel that “preferred” puts their position strongly enough. So they claim “only.” But then others, who do not distinguish between variations of kjvO lump them in with the Ruckmanites and their close cousins.
   
   So this is why I believe it’s helpful to recognize that not everyone who claims “KJVO” is the same as everyone else who claims or is labeled “KJVO.”
   
   This is really not that hard to grasp if one tries.
   
   Just caught something I missed previously….

   divine preservation that involves divine superintendance that protects from error, which is inspiration

   This is not inspiration. If you read Thou Shalt Keep Them for example, which is unquestionably a KJVO position, they specifically deny that any inspiration has occurred since the originals were penned. They are on pretty solid ground making that distinction since orthodox views of inspiration include the idea that God moved particular men as they wrote.
   
   We all believe God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform. There’s plenty of room for non-inspiration “superintendence” if folks want to suppose that. (My beef isn’t that their belief in that is somehow heretical but that Scripture doesn’t seem to warrant it and the external evidence is consistently against it.)

Aaron, you are attempting to deny the obvious and ignore the logical conclusions. Most all scholars who have written against the KJVO position take a stronger stand than you evidently do. Obviously the faculty of Central does as seen in their book on this subject.

A definition of inspiration: That process whereby God so superintended the authors of scripture so as to insure that their words chosen and written were without error and the very words He desired to be used. This gave the attribute of perfection to the original manuscripts.

In order to have a preserved word of God for the English speaking people there must be the miracle as you say. Logically, that miracle must meet the definition of inspiration. A KJVO has a finished product that makes such implicit whether they explicitly deny this or not. If you do not like to use the term “inspiration” and avoid calling it heresy, fine. That is your preference but not the preference of many Pastors and scholars who oppose the KJVO view. James D. Price actually indicates he places Hills, Ray, Wait, Fuller, Cloud, and their pretensions to claim for a preserved underlying Textus Receptus as a “pseudo-scholarly screen for a hidden King James Only agenda.” He states on the same page: “I see no practical difference with this view and that of Peter Ruckman.”

Their necessary process includes a miracle or miracles (as you appear to concede). These miracles must logically involve a process that falls within the definition of inspiration as normally defined in Bibliology. Further, the process takes authority for canon and inspiration of God’s words beyond the apostolic authority to a post apostolic authority of determining the given word of God.It is similar to that claimed by Joseph Smith, Ellen White and other Cult founders. The KJVO advocates are masters at convoluted arguments that make no sense. To them the earth is flat and gravity make all things fly upward. To them the hight of their arguments are rants against all other translations claiming they compromise the basic doctrines of Christianity. It is a mild and normal assertion to see them as dangerous and to use the term heresy regarding their position.

SI needs to allow for normal and reasonable discussion or it will continue to lose people who desire to post here. Perhaps there needs to be more real conviction to allow normal expression and stop trying to over superintend all discussions. This thread involved most all Pastors, theologians, and teaching professionals. Do they really need to have the term heresy defined for them just because some moderator or administrator doesn’t like it? Lets get some old fashioned back bone that allows discussions to proceed with expressing convictions with back bone. Again, the statements of Central faculty on this thread were much stronger than mine. This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.

[Bob T.] SI needs to allow for normal and reasonable discussion or it will continue to lose people who desire to post here. Perhaps there needs to be more real conviction to allow normal expression and stop trying to over superintend all discussions. This thread involved most all Pastors, theologians, and teaching professionals. Do they really need to have the term heresy defined for them just because some moderator or administrator doesn’t like it? Lets get some old fashioned back bone that allows discussions to proceed with expressing convictions with back bone. Again, the statements of Central faculty on this thread were much stronger than mine. This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.

I’m going to stick my head in here to try and provide a clearer understanding of who/what the mods and staff are and also explain what SI does and doesn’t allow. I’m hoping to assuage some concerns that might be prompted by this thread or other discussion.

1. SI does NOT permit people who hold to an inspired King James position to remain on this site (if we’re talking about the position that only the KJV is without error).
2. None of the admins / staff hold to a re-inspired KJV position.
3. SI HAS, in the past, asked people to leave who did hold to an inspired translation position.
4. SI does try to provide a place for serious and scholarly discussion of the KJV issue http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forums/english-bible-text-debate] in this forum .
5. Anyone who would http://sharperiron.org/writing-for-sharperiron] like to write an article for either side is welcome to do so, although I can’t guarantee it will get published - I’m in the wrong department. :) People who interact on this site, especially on this issue, should expect to be challenged.
6. SI is not trying to redefine Fundamentalism or doctrine. We are a place for orthodox Christians - both Fundamentalist and Evangelical - http://sharperiron.org/about-si] to discuss doctrine and other matters . We are not the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary] Oxford English Dictionary of Fundamentalism, and really don’t want to be. We try to be a ’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic] republic ’ in terms of this site, not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship] dictatorship that establishes all the ‘rules’ of Fundyism.
7. SI isn’t perfect. We promise that we can’t always be as consistent as we might like to be, and we can’t always please everyone - including all the mods/staff.
8. We reserve the right to modify our policies, and people who have suggestions for our policies are welcome to contact Jim or Aaron to provide their input.
9. There’s no law keeping anyone here or keeping anyone from leaving. There’s also no law keeping anyone from starting their own SI or moving to http://www.baptistboard.com/ BaptistBoards.com or the http://www.fundamentalforums.com/ FFF .
10. Mods and Admins are allowed to express opinions and interact. Otherwise, they wouldn’t enjoy their jobs as much and probably wouldn’t want to do them.
11. edit - added after posting - If anyone feels unfairly moderated - and this post is NOT an official mod. action - they have the right to complain to Aaron, Jim, or any other mod who is not directly involved.
    Personally, I’ve argued that we shouldn’t host the English Text Forum on this site, because I think it provides a platform for spreading error, and that should be easy enough to verify. However, we work as a team, and the other members of the team do not feel that way, so it stays. If it becomes a serious issue (as it was in the ‘06-‘07 years, IIRC), then we’ll revisit that.
    
    So, I hope that’s helpful. If not, please contact myself, Jim, or Aaron. I now return you to the regularly scheduled debate between Bob and Aaron. :)

Just one clarification

SI does NOT permit people who hold to an inspired King James position to remain on this site (if we’re talking about the position that only the KJV is without error).

It depends on what you mean by “inspired” here. I’ve been trying to make an important distinction here. There are at least two ways to say “the KJV is inspired.”

a. Hold that God inspired the translators

b. Hold that any translation of Scripture partakes in the quality of inspiration to the degree it is faithful to the originals, then assert that KJV is 100% faithful to the originals.

“b” is not the same as “a,” though it’s easy to confuse the two because even “b” requires special supernatural activity on God’s part to make it happen. However, “b” can be declared without any necessary risk to the orthodox doctrine of inspiration.

Yes, life would be simpler if everybody would abandon position “b” as well, but that’s not going to happen, and all the folks in that camp that know personally love the Lord, love the gospel and are serving Him to the best of their ability (as far as I can tell). It would be a waste to reject them when can we fellowship to some extent.

But I agree entirely with the rest of Jay’s post.

[Bob T] This thread should have been allowed to proceed without any remarks by Aaron or Susan as to language used. There were strong convictions expressed but within acceptable Christian conduct.

Bob, we’re just participating in the discussion. The day I can’t to that anymore, we’ll sell the site or shut it down. :) (None of that was moderating activity. Didn’t blow whistles or cite rule violations.)

[Bob T] A definition of inspiration: That process whereby God so superintended the authors of scripture so as to insure that their words chosen and written were without error and the very words He desired to be used. This gave the attribute of perfection to the original manuscripts.

In order to have a preserved word of God for the English speaking people there must be the miracle as you say. Logically, that miracle must meet the definition of inspiration.

Your definition of inspiration is solid. Note the phrase “the authors of Scripture.” This is why your next sentence does not follow. Logically, that miracle does not have to be inspiration and would very hard to attach that name to. The authors are all dead and the process of writing something is a far different thing from the process of translating it.

But the larger point that is getting lost here is that there are KJVO folks who do not believe any additional inspiration of any kind has occurred since the autographa were written.

See Thou Shalt Keep Them p.240 (they are also very particular there that “inspiration” does not apply to the men, but only to what they wrote. I’m not sure that holds water—men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit—but as far as I can tell, it’s not a big deal.)

And they are not alone by a long shot.

So, of course to those who are convinced that the texts and translations are all human efforts and all imperfect, every flavor of KJVO position is either ignorant or deceitful. And to KJVOs, every version of non-KJVO is either ignorant or deceitful. But believing in exclusive use of the KJV (which is a bit more than “preferred” implies) can have many rationales and they should not all be targeted as a heresy that fundamentalism ought to ostracize.

I have too many KJVO friends who do not fit the lump and dump to go that route.

Aaron, there are many KJVOers who deny double inspiration for a number of reasons. But their denials ring hollow when they go on to declare the KJV as the only English version of God’s Word. Therein lies the dividing line. Regardless of the denials, you cannot claim one perfect translation without some form of double inspiration in the translation work. Anyone willing to concede other translations are equally God’s word, KJVP, are people I can minister with. It seems to me that those declaring the KJV as the only uncorrupted, perfectly preserved English version of the Bible fall squarely in the heretical camp.

And I am not trying to make a statement about the KJV.

Is this not true (and because of my limitations in scholarship I may be incorrect)?

• By and large, the KJV was the Bible of old line Fundamentalists
• Back in the day of my conversion (1969) it was the Bible. Conservatives had rejected the RSV. The ASV was used by some academics. But in the pew, it was the KJV
  

For early fundamentalists, there was no real “choice”. No NIV, No NKJV, No NASB (shortly after I was saved I had a hardbound NT of the NASB … OT not completed yet)

Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’s

That tension (the resistance to change) is part of the allure of the KJV. It’s old, it’s tried, it was the version of our believing parents and grandparents.

And I may be all wet …. so feel free to help me out!

[Jim Peet] And I am not trying to make a statement about the KJV.

Is this not true (and because of my limitations in scholarship I may be incorrect)?

• By and large, the KJV was the Bible of old line Fundamentalists
• Back in the day of my conversion (1969) it was the Bible. Conservatives had rejected the RSV. The ASV was used by some academics. But in the pew, it was the KJV
  

For early fundamentalists, there was no real “choice”. No NIV, No NKJV, No NASB (shortly after I was saved I had a hardbound NT of the NASB … OT not completed yet)

Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’s

That tension (the resistance to change) is part of the allure of the KJV. It’s old, it’s tried, it was the version of our believing parents and grandparents.

And I may be all wet …. so feel free to help me out!

Actually, I think you’re right and that’s a large portion of the people who are KJVP or people who don’t understand the issue.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Aaron, there are many KJVOers who deny double inspiration for a number of reasons. But their denials ring hollow when they go on to declare the KJV as the only English version of God’s Word. Therein lies the dividing line. Regardless of the denials, you cannot claim one perfect translation without some form of double inspiration in the translation work. Anyone willing to concede other translations are equally God’s word, KJVP, are people I can minister with. It seems to me that those declaring the KJV as the only uncorrupted, perfectly preserved English version of the Bible fall squarely in the heretical camp.

Chip, you are of course, right. But it should not surprise us that an irrational denial (“No, my KJVO position does not imply a belief in double-inspiration”) would arise in defense of an irrational position.

[Bob T.] Susan, the KJVO position has to do with what the scriptures teach concerning themselves and how we today receive the truth of God and prove its reliability. It has to do with how we know the Gospel is true historically as based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have regularly preached and taught that the resurrection of Christ is the most well evidenced fact of historical antiquity based upon historiography which includes the reliability of the the thousands of manuscripts and textual analysis. All this relies on the treating of scripture as a received book with historical characteristics and the normal processes of history research. The KJVO doctrine and assertions take the scriptures away from historical analysis and attempt to establish them on a non provable event or events of divine intervention of inspiration. In so doing they remove the facts of Christianity from the arena of human history and seek to denigrate the historical evidence of textual criticism and therefore the historical foundations of Christianity. In other words the very basis of Christianity is undermined by the KJVO position. This is not a choice like clothing, media, music or blogging on a website. This involves the very doctrine of Bibliology. It involves what the Bible is, how we have received it, how and why it can be trusted, and how we know about God, Christ, and salvation through special revelation.

Brilliant, Bob! Brilliant! Peter stands up and says “Jesus rose from the dead, and you all know it’s true” to a large group of Jerusalem folk. Luke there speaks of many convincing evidences. Removing the Biblical text discussion away from historical roots has implications for epistemology that are seldom considered.

[Jeff Straub] I know a little Greek, he’s my barber. As for a little Hebrew, he runs a deli near the school.

http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/images/09_08/deadhorsebeat_2…]

I like that!

Jim Peet said:

Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’s

I like that. This may seem simplistic, but I believe it accurately accounts for a lot of things that are not part of clear Bible teaching with many fundamentalists, IMO.

Aaron’s point is also well taken:

I don’t see why a school can’t require anything it pleases as long as it’s up front about it and so students know what they’re getting into.

The bottom line, however, is that there are a lot of fundamentalists out there, perhaps closer to my views, who do not care if they are CALLED fundamentalists. We just don’t want to be called “late for dinner.” Yet, on the other hand, we want to know where people stand and we will take unpopular stands or be militant about protecting the fundamental doctrines. But the term fundamental — it means so many things, kind of like the word “worship.” You got to agree on the definitions. And that is not going to happen in a broad way. But it does here at SI, and I appreciate that!

[Chip] Regardless of the denials, you cannot claim one perfect translation without some form of double inspiration in the translation work

Yes you can. I’ve already explained how. You do have to posit something miraculous or extraordinarily providential, but that “something” does not have to be inspiration.

In fact, it can’t be inspiration without reinventing what inspiration means. By definition, inspiration is what happened when the autographa were written. It’s revelatory. It produces words where there were none before. So if someone does claim double insp., he is directly attacking the orthodox doctrine of inspiration. It doesn’t even make sense to call a miracle translation an act of inspiration. There are already words, there are no authors, nothing is revealed. Such a miracle, if it had happened, would clearly be something other than inspiration. And those who believe such a miracle did happen and use a different term for it (such as “preservation”) are wise to do so.

(Calling it “preservation” is a bad idea, too, IMO, but not a heretical one unless additional conditions are met.)

[Jim Peet] For early fundamentalists, there was no real “choice”. No NIV, No NKJV, No NASB (shortly after I was saved I had a hardbound NT of the NASB … OT not completed yet)

Textual scholarship aside, (my hypothesis goes), fundamentalists have a tough time with change. It’s like we are stuck back in the 50’s

That tension (the resistance to change) is part of the allure of the KJV. It’s old, it’s tried, it was the version of our believing parents and grandparents.

And fundamentalists like to make any traditional view sanctified with the full authority of Scripture behind it. At least that’s the tendency of some. So the KJVO position found how to connect itself to Bible preservation in a way to make the view doctrinally based.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Chip] Regardless of the denials, you cannot claim one perfect translation without some form of double inspiration in the translation work

In fact, it can’t be inspiration without reinventing what inspiration means. By definition, inspiration is what happened when the autographa were written. It’s revelatory. It produces words where there were none before.

See, I think that is exactly what is happening here. Translation is not like working a mathematical formula, there is not a one to one transfer from one side of the equation to the other. The translated words do not match up exactly with the original work. What is produced is not exactly what was there before, it is to some degree new and different. When KJVOers claim that the translators chose exactly the right and only perfect wording for the translation, they are by definition claiming reinsipiration whether they accept the term or not. Only when, as I think MIke Durning noted, they leave room for other translations with different words to be equally authoritative as the translated Word of God has the discussion moved out of the realm of heresy and back within the confines of historic orthodoxy. Reasonable, godly people can discuss and disagree about the best translation; heretics claim God’s special work to create a single perfect translation and reject all others as corrupted.

When I referenced Mike Durning’s statement, I forgot it was not in this thread. It was in the Let Minutiae Speak thread, post 27.

Inspiration is an English word used with several meanings. It can mean to just have an emotion that moves you. Some use the term regarding Shakspear. Liberal theologians use it regarding the authors of scripture but with a different meaning than conservative theologians. The conservative theological definition invloves protection from error and a superintending of the authors of scripture that involves the very words used. However, there is nothing in the definition that indicates it cannot be used of other than the authors of scripture. It may mention the author of scripture in the definition but that is application to them but not limiting the use of the term. The term is often used of the theory or process set forth by KJVO proponents in declaring the textus receptus and the Ben-Chayyim Hebrew text and then also the translated KJV. It is called re-inpiration by some opponents of the KJVO. In the book “One Bible Only,” Kregel, 2001, Ed Glenny states:

“Anyone who believes that God has preserved the NT text intact in the TR, if they wish to be consistent, must argue for inspiration of Scripture through the person who completed the edition of the TR that perfectly preserves God’s word (whatever that is).” (P.109)

Glenny further states:” What is worse they extend inspiration from the original documents (as the NT teaches in 2Timothy 3:16-17 and 2Peter 1:20-21) to the sixteenth century.” (p. 109). Glenny is a friend who was a former faculty member at Central Seminary. He has the THD from Dallas and was working on the PHD from the U. of Minn. He is recognized as a very good NT scholar. He and others in this book do use the word inspiration as a process involved in the preservation claims of the KJVO movement. Also, this book and a book I mentioned prior, “King James Onlyism, a new sect” by James D. Price both indicate that those claiming that certain Greek and Hebrew texts are without error will also only use the KJV and reject the NKJV that is translated form the very same Greek and Hebrew texts they claim are without error. They make claims for the KJV alone that makes them the same as those claiming the English translation is without error and involves re-inspiration. I stated this in a prior post.

If one does not wish to use the word “inspiration” outside of its use for original authors of Scripture then perhaps another word may be used such as ” Zippadoo” for the process that guarantees a perfect Greek and Hebrew text and a perfect translation, both reflecting the very words used by the original authors of scripture, and being without any error. This Zippadoo must be the same as that process that guaranteed the inerrancy of the original manuscripts. There it was inspiration but in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it is now Zipadoo. However, post Apostolic Zipadoo is heresy because only the Apostles had the authority to designate that which were the inspired documents reflecting the word of God. The “oracles” of God were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:1-2). All the Apostles were of necessity Jewish. The only scripture authored by a gentile are Luke and Acts. Both are inspired but written based on using a divinely guided historical method. They evidence inspiration but have no Revelation. They are inspired and infallible history. They were accepted as scripture because Paul and the other Apostles recognized them. The Apostles were those who were the foundation of the church (assembly) of Christ along with the Prophets. Christ is the cornerstone. The KJVO claim the scriptures were given to the church or churches. They missed a step. They were given to the Apostles for the church and churches.

The point of all the above is to point out the unique position and entrustment to the Jews and the Jewish Apostles. There can be no inspiration to produce inscripturation without Apostles. There can be no designating that which is the actual intended infallible word of God without the presence of Apostles to recognize and authenticate the documents or a translation. God has spoken to the church through His oracles the Scriptures. To claim that certain documents and a translation are the infallible words of God and produced in the 15th and 16th centuries is to claim not only inspiration (or Zapadoo) for men who were never called or designated by Christ himself (Apostolic requirement) and who do not qualify to be entrusted with God’s oracles as they were not Jewish. Joseph Smith claimed such authority and claimed to produce new oracles from God. Others have claimed to receive revelation and to have Oracles from God. However, non were Jewish and non were specifically with the living Christ and called by Him. They were not Apostles and have no claim of oracles. Today we can claim that we have no oracles but using the methods of historical discovery we have an overwhelming weight of evidence that enables us to say we have those oracles in a way that leaves very little in doubt and that factually makes no major doctrine or historical fact doubtful. Meanwhile the KJVO advocates claim they have the oracles in an absolutely infallible existence because Zapadoo (inspiration) has occurred even without the Apostles. They rest on the same foundation as all post Apostolic Zapadoo. They are claiming inspiration just like the actual authors of scripture but also just like Joseph Smith and others. They must logically claim Zapadoo has occurred (like inspiration) but they do not have Apostolic authority for authentication, but neither did Joseph Smith.

Now is the KJVO movement, with its claim of a perfect translation, and its claim that all other textual historical research and English translation are seriously flawed, making a claim that is heretical?

The term heretical, as used in scripture, actually has the idea of being schismatic. So in that sense they definitely are. However in the broader sense it has the idea of deviating from truth. So in a sense, we all are probably wrong with regard to some things we teach or believe and have some heresy on minor points. (that does not include me of course). :bigsmile: However, if one is deviating from Biblical truth on an essential doctrine for salvation they are definitely involved in heresy. Also, if we are involved with a teaching that may have the logical consequence of threatening an essential doctrines of Christianity then we probably should also use the word heresy. This would be a marker warning to others of serious error with possible dangerous consequences. The advocacy of an infallible text type in contrast to all others being fallible, and the advocacy of an infallible translation, in contrast to all others being fallible and flawed, are not based on the normal processes of human discovery. They are based on a hypothesis that of logical consequences that must rely on men being involved with Zapadoo (inspiration) which has the same kind of processes and outcomes as that which occurred in the inspiration of the original authors of scripture. However, there were no no Apostles present in the 16th and 17th centuries to authenticate the process. Instead the claim is based on what they believe are the promises of God with regard to preservation of His oracles and then they’re ignoring all the many facts and problems that exist historically and factually in the texts and translation themselves. This then takes the foundation of Christianity and removes it from the epistemology involving historical process and places it in the realm of magic and religious faith only. This takes how we receive and evidence the reality of God’s word out of the reality of history. The facts of Christianity are historical in nature and then have mystical application, If we receive how we receive and know the historical facts from the process of historical discovery all we have left is religious mystery received by an unprovable magic process. We become like the Eastern religions. The KJVO assertions are dangerous heresy requiring severe warning.

One may have friends who are KJVO but moderate in attitude but they should not be involved with them in ministry endeavors. There should be ministry separation. There should aslo be personal separation from the more extreme in attitude. It is the essence of separation that we have a duty to protect from all danger. There are wolves in the woods waiting and there are wolves in the flock (Acts 20: 17-33).

Suppose we accept for the sake of argument that we ought to separate from leaders/ministries on our near right that are involved in beliefs/practices that are a serious problem. Should we not do our separating with the same spirit of brotherly love and effort to appreciate the good that we extend toward those on our near left that we separate from?

IOW, why is it a very bad thing to hurl invective at the CEs but not a very bad thing to do this to the KJVOs?

Just curious.

Concur

[Aaron Blumer] Suppose we accept for the sake of argument that we ought to separate from leaders/ministries on our near right that are involved in beliefs/practices that are a serious problem. Should we not do our separating with the same spirit of brotherly love and effort to appreciate the good that we extend toward those on our near left that we separate from?

IOW, why is it a very bad thing to hurl invective at the CEs but not a very bad thing to do this to the KJVOs?

Just curious.

Aaron, as I read your post, my first thought was, “Good question.” Three possibilities popped into my head. 1) Perhaps the errors are not comparable - have to think about that one, 2) perhaps we have been beating up on the CE’s for a long time and the ultra rights have been getting away unscathed - a new target and a satisfying sense of justice, 3) perhaps it is because of the way the other side has reacted in the disagreements. By number 3 I mean I do not usually hear or think of CE’s using heated rhetoric when talking about those to their right (liberals - yes, but not the CE’s). However, the extreme right fringe is usually loud and abrasive and unrelenting in attacking those who do not accept their perfect KJV position (or other doctrinal disagreements).

Well that was fun!

Jay - Now we can all sit together and enjoy those marshmellows! Let’s not forget the hot cider! It’s fall baby!

It’s good to know at the end of the day…..it’s the end of the day! This has been great for our numbers. Next time we get a lag in readership we should just ask Kevin to write up a little “thingy” on ….. I don’t know…….maybe what is the best music for the church?

OK….for our favorite campfire song - “It only takes a spark - and some gas - to get a fire going…….”

Straight Ahead!

jt

[RPittman] Chip, you’re boxing in some folks who do not necessarily agree with your reasoning. You cannot sustain your assertion that one cannot “claim one perfect translation without some form of double inspiration in the translation work.” This is your logic based on your accepted paradigm of rationality. If I asked you to mount a Biblical defense, I think you would be at loss.

Hardly. I have no intention of rehashing 50 years of biblical KJVO rebuttal,some of which has been shared on this thread already. There are absolutely biblical grounds to reject a KJVO position, which is why NONE of the early fundamentalists or proto-fundamentalists were KJVO. It is simply unbiblical to claim a single perfect translation exists. At least those who claim a perfect TR have some biblical grounds for discussion, but then Mike’s point about multiple English translations rears its head again.

[RPittman] Undoubtedly, you don’t understand what certain KJVO’s mean by preservation. It’s not the same as “double inspiration.” It seems that you don’t understand the difference between preservation and “double inspiration”. thus erroneously concluding that “some form of double inspiration in the translation work” is unavoidable. Not true. God used the human efforts of the KJV translators to preserve his Word for English-speaking peoples. Was this an intentional and foreseen action of the translators? Not necessarily. From the preface, it is apparent that they had no foreknowledge of the future role of their translation.

I’ll bite - in what way do you suppose God superintend the translators to produce a singular, word perfect English translation that was different from the work He did through the prophets and apostles?

[RPittman] This translation, the KJV, was accepted by the Believing Church as the Word of God for four hundred years. As the practice of the Believing Church, led by the Holy Spirit, canonized Scripture, the Believing Church has adopted the KJV over all competitors as the Word of God.

Up until 1611. Now the believing church has once again recognized and adopted modern translations as the Word of God.

[RPittman] It is faithful and trustworthy. This is NOT to say that God could not raise up another translation but for the present, only the KJV is the trustworthy translation. If God did raise up another translation, how would you know?

How would you know RPittman? Why not accept the NKJV as a more modern translation of the TR for instance?

[RPittman] Now, surely you are not going to argue that all modern translations, however good or bad, are God’s Word. Then, how do you differentiate?

Of course not. We differentiate today in exactly the same way the church did in 1611.

[RPittman] God used the human efforts of the KJV translators to preserve his Word for English-speaking peoples. Was this an intentional and foreseen action of the translators? Not necessarily. From the preface, it is apparent that they had no foreknowledge of the future role of their translation. This translation, the KJV, was accepted by the Believing Church as the Word of God for four hundred years. As the practice of the Believing Church, led by the Holy Spirit, canonized Scripture, the Believing Church has adopted the KJV over all competitors as the Word of God. It is faithful and trustworthy. This is NOT to say that God could not raise up another translation but for the present, only the KJV is the trustworthy translation. If God did raise up another translation, how would you know? Now, surely you are not going to argue that all modern translations, however good or bad, are God’s Word. Then, how do you differentiate? It’s a rational process bringing Scripture under the scrutiny and judgment of human rationality and reason. It pretty much eliminates faith, the leading of the Holy Spirit, and a Divine preservation operating in history. Until you can establish and justify the validity of MV’s, then the KJV is trusted and true.

So the near-universal acclaim of the English-Speaking church established this, without any confirming revelatory word from God? This strikes me as a very dangerous, Roman-Catholic sounding position coming from a KJVO guy. This Bible is the Word of God because the church says so seems to invert authority.

But, for the sake of argument, I’d like to hear a bit about process. Let me work up to a few questions.

Sooner or later, the English language morphs enough that the KJV is no longer the Word of God in English except to the most scholarly 10% of the population. I would argue that we are already there, and those who scoff at this statement should step out of their KJVO service for a moment and sit in on a public school 8th grade class trying to read aloud. As the New Testament was written in “common” Greek, we operate on the assumption that God desires access to His Word. Thus we assume that God wants His Word in the language of the people. Arguing from your perspective, then, does it not seem reasonable to conclude that God will (if He has not already) prepare yet another translation that He will miraculously preserve? Should you not be prepared for that eventuality?

Questions, then:

What was the process by which God showed His approval of the KJV to the church, and what is the process by which God would show His approval of a new translation? Does this process take time? If so, is it possible that you have not yet discerned God’s identification of the next “authorized” translation? In the intervening gap between the Preservation of a New Translation for the English-speaking world and its recognition as such by the church, won’t some fall into the cracks? Won’t there be some who will hang onto the old too long? Won’t others leap to the new before it is recognized? The fact that there were many who did not use the KJV suggests we should ask who or which groups need to be in on this consensus? Who doesn’t matter to the process?

In your quest for certainty in the KJVO position, I believe you have merely shifted your uncertainty to a new location.

Just as you would no doubt argue that inspiration without preservation is useless, I suggest the following: God perfectly preserving the KJV as the one and only Word of God without His making a clear declaration of it as such is useless. Any process you can posit that identifies the KJV as that perfectly preserved manuscript is an area of uncertainty as large as we “modern-versionists” have to grapple with. We just hold our uncertainties at a different point in the process.

[RPittman] Wow, Aaron, you’re showing a flash of inspiration……..uh, perhaps I should say…..uh, understanding or insight here. After all of our back and forth, you do see other possibilities. Well said……………probably couldn’t have said it as well myself. Wow, Aaron, you’re showing a flash of inspiration……..uh, perhaps I should say…..uh, understanding or insight here. After all of our back and forth, you do see other possibilities. Well said……………probably couldn’t have said it as well myself.

I’ve never been among those who claim that all KJVOs are alike in their rationale, especially in the area of inspiration. I grew up with fairly frequent exposure to a form of KJVO that was very serious about orthodoxy and wouldn’t tamper w/the doctrine of inspiration for anything. It’s true that sometimes people assert views and don’t see that they come with unavoidable implications, but belief in the superiority or even perfection of the KJV is a problem for other reasons. The inspiration implications are only unavoidable/logically necessary if the perfection rationale is inspiration based. But I don’t think anybody was using that argument before Ruckman and many KJVOs ran the other way when he came on the scene and have never wanted to assoc. w/his thinking on these subjects.

But what I’m saying is really very simple: all KJVOs are not alike and you have to know the particulars of their position and the whys and wherefores before you can properly lump them in with the worst versions of that position.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Aaron, as I read your post, my first thought was, “Good question.” Three possibilities popped into my head. 1) Perhaps the errors are not comparable - have to think about that one, 2) perhaps we have been beating up on the CE’s for a long time and the ultra rights have been getting away unscathed - a new target and a satisfying sense of justice, 3) perhaps it is because of the way the other side has reacted in the disagreements. By number 3 I mean I do not usually hear or think of CE’s using heated rhetoric when talking about those to their right (liberals - yes, but not the CE’s). However, the extreme right fringe is usually loud and abrasive and unrelenting in attacking those who do not accept their perfect KJV position (or other doctrinal disagreements).

Chip, these are definitely factors.

There’s also the movement equivalent of “trouble with the in-laws.” Sometimes we are less patient with our relatives than we are with strangers or more distant relations, maybe partly because the annoyance factor is intensified by close proximity and constancy. There’s no question in my mind that many nasty (to barrow a few adjectives from Kevin Bauder, pugilistic and bellicose!) leaders and leader wannabes on the right flank of fundamentalism have made life alot harder for the kinder, gentler, wiser folks who are occupying similar but not identical places in their beliefs about the issues.

So this is all the more reason to look for good decent folks who happen to be very traditional (in the recent-history sense) but have lots of, frankly, fools speaking for them without their permission. If we can nuance people’s positions on the left, we can nuance people’s positions on the right. It’s just the charitable thing to do.

But I accept that it’s actually harder to do.

Edit: one other thing about that. We need to think about who “we” is. At SI, we have not been beating up on the CEs. And most of the beating up from the far right isn’t happening here. I’d like to see it be a place where beating up of the far right doesn’t happen either. A beating-up free zone. One can dream.

Got an email pointing out that there are six or eight places where NKJV text deviates from TR. I didn’t look them up to verify but that seems likely.

In my book that still makes NKJV a TR translation, but I can why those who believe the text underlying the KJV is word perfect (and must be, to be adequate for our use) would not find it suitable. Though I don’t believe the TR is superior, I wish the NKJV translators had stuck with it to the letter. If nothing else, it would improve the translation debate landscape we find ourselves in today.

SI HAS, in the past, asked people to leave who did hold to an inspired translation position.

This is quite concerning.

We use the NKJV, but have no problem with the KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, etc. We also believe that they are the inspired Word of God. Certainly not in the sense of “immediate inspiration” of the autographa (term used by Francis Turretin in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology), but in the practical sense of II Tim. 3:16-17—copies and translations (see Turretin as well as Edward Goodrick, Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God?). Maybe this is part of the KJVO problem—we tell people they don’t have an inspired Bible. Yikes.

Randy,

I also use the NKJV as my primary preaching translation. You are right to say there is the practical authority of 2 Tim 3 which connects our confidence from inspiration then to authority now. The problem is that the majority of these guys believe that the KJV translation is indeed inspired in the same “immediate inspiration sense” of the autographa to a different degree than the others you list (NASB, ESV, etc…..). The poison is only injested when we say the KJV is inspired in the same sense as the autographa in a way in which the NKJV, and others are not.

Good to see you here bro! Later. Straight Ahead!

jt

I continue to rejoice over the excellent statement that Central published. After reading this thread, I am in awe at the patience of Dr. Bauder and his colleagues.

To be honest I couldn’t bring myself to read the whole thing. I started skimming pretty rapidly toward the end of the first page. Most of this discussion is like fruit with no taste, like broken cisterns with no water. How came I to be here commenting, adding my own dry husks and parched dust?

My friends, this sort of discussion sharpens little. Sweeter than ever to me now is the ongoing work of the Conservative Evangelicals. Their cisterns are refreshingly full and their fruit is delightful to taste. As I wrestled with Greg Boyd, it was R. C. Sproul who lent me a hand. As I face N.T. Wright now, it is John Piper who stands alongside me. These are just two examples.

I suspect many of you are in agreement with me. But here we are, stirring the ashes.

Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.

The poison is only injested when we say the KJV is inspired in the same sense as the autographa in a way in which the NKJV, and others are not.

Thanks Joel. I agree.

Todd, it all depends on how you view the nature of sharpening. The perspectives posted here would have existed whether anyone posted them here or not. As it is, they get posted and they get answered.. sometimes not so well, sometimes well. Of course, most who come to a discussion with their minds already made up also leave it with their minds still made up. But I believe many read these who are trying sort things out or who hold to one of the “mind made up” views but not so firmly.

So when they see a good challenge, they are prompted to reflect.

You came to the thread already loving the Ethos statement. So of course, there is nothing of value in any discussion for you… except in one scenario: if you post some persuasive reasons that others who are less enthusiastic might consider.

But thanks for posting. Haven’t seen you here in quite a while.

[Todd Mitchell] I continue to rejoice over the excellent statement that Central published. After reading this thread, I am in awe at the patience of Dr. Bauder and his colleagues. … My friends, this sort of discussion sharpens little. Sweeter than ever to me now is the ongoing work of the Conservative Evangelicals. Their cisterns are refreshingly full and their fruit is delightful to taste.

The publication of the ethos statement here came about in due course after Jim Peet linked to my article which asserted that the ethos statement represents a new position within fundamentalism (my article also noted that the statement left several significant questions unanswered).

Todd’s response demonstrates, I think, that my analysis is essentially correct, especially with respect to embracing Conservative Evangelicals and seeking to find some kind of common cause with them. The subsequent thread has been sidetracked by the interminable and mostly irrelevant (to me) King James debate.

It seems to me that Todd succinctly poses the challenge the ethos statement poses for fundamentalists. Are we to eschew the red-headed step-children who in their unscholarly ignorance make such errors as KJO-ism and their kissing cousins, the manipulative revivalists, instead embracing the “refreshing cisterns” and “delightful fruit” of conservative evangelicalism or not?

In my opinion, it is impossible to maintain any kind of fundamentalist idea (let alone a movement) by making common cause with people who deny fundamentalism’s central ethos, i.e., http://www.bju.edu/academics/seminary/preachers-corner/publications/sep… the doctrine of separation . There is no way to create an ‘emerging middle’. When all the dust settles, you will emerge on the side of separatism or the side of cooperation - and find yourself entangled with all sorts of interesting ‘co-belligerents’ if you are on the ‘cooperation’ side of the question.

It appears that some have already made their choices. Time will tell which choice is best.

Don, without responding directly to what you’ve written, let me point out that I don’t represent Central. I’m pretty sure that my friends at Central would consider me a Conservative Evangelical myself. Not that I’m tickled one way or another about that label, but it’s only fair to them that I’m honest about that.

[REShanks]

The poison is only inje[c] ted when we say the KJV is inspired in the same sense as the autographa in a way in which the NKJV, and others are not.

Thanks Joel. I agree.

RE,

I’ve been having internet difficulties, so I wasn’t able to respond as quickly as I normally would have, but Joel’s statement was exactly what I meant. Thanks, Joel!

[Don Johnson] In my opinion, it is impossible to maintain any kind of fundamentalist idea (let alone a movement) by making common cause with people who deny fundamentalism’s central ethos, i.e., http://www.bju.edu/academics/seminary/preachers-corner/publications/sep… the doctrine of separation . There is no way to create an ‘emerging middle’. When all the dust settles, you will emerge on the side of separatism or the side of cooperation - and find yourself entangled with all sorts of interesting ‘co-belligerents’ if you are on the ‘cooperation’ side of the question.

It appears that some have already made their choices. Time will tell which choice is best.

I disagree with two aspects of your post.

First, separation is not the central, driving theme of the gospel, although some seem to act that way. Separation is not as important as the Gospel, just as Fundamentalism is not as important as being an orthodox Christian. The central, driving theme of the gospel is actually reconciliation between God and sinful man through the death and resurrection of Christ (Romans 5:6-11). Separation is one component that flows out of that - Christians should not act like the world (I John 2:15). We are, after all, citizens of another kingdom. That being said, separation is the ‘wall’ that keeps us from joining hands with apostates/heretics. I am nowhere commanded to be a “Fundamentalist” in Scripture - I am commanded to be faithful to the doctrines that I have received. (Romans 16:17, I Tim. 1:3, I Tim. 4:6, I Tim. 6:3-5, Titus 1:9, Titus 2:1). This is why and how I can agree that I am a Fundamentalist - because I’m convinced that this is where I ought to be as I study and understand the Bible (edited).

Secondly, we are commanded to separate from all forms of doctrinal error, including those to our right (KJV Inspiration, hyper-separation) and those on our left (ecumenism, charismaticism, etc.). Some here are rightfully pointing out errors and problems with CE’s - Piper, esp. I appreciate that, and your (“you all”, not just “you” Don) words are not going on deaf ears. The grass is greener on the other side, and I’ll be admit to wandering over to the fence and checking out their yard from time to time!

At the same time, I don’t see a burning desire from my Fundy friends to separate from the guys to the extreme right either, and that’s why I’m practically ready to give up with all ‘labels’ theologically…I don’t want to associate with the Fundys that I disagree with, but I’m not quite ready to go whole hog and jump into the CE pool as well. So instead, I’m just suspended in space and thinking all the categories are wrong.

[Todd Mitchell] Don, without responding directly to what you’ve written, let me point out that I don’t represent Central. I’m pretty sure that my friends at Central would consider me a Conservative Evangelical myself. Not that I’m tickled one way or another about that label, but it’s only fair to them that I’m honest about that.

Hi Todd,

I don’t think you speak for Central at all. But you have made decisions about associations and philosophy of ministry that have taken you out of the Fundamentalist milieu, correct? Having done so, you praise the Central document as ‘excellent’ and worthy of ‘rejoicing’. The document calls for new relationships with Conservative Evangelicals. I have maintained that this is a change for fundamentalists. Your praise and self-identification seem to confirm what I am saying.

[Jay C.]

[Don Johnson] In my opinion, it is impossible to maintain any kind of fundamentalist idea (let alone a movement) by making common cause with people who deny fundamentalism’s central ethos, i.e., http://www.bju.edu/academics/seminary/preachers-corner/publications/sep… the doctrine of separation . There is no way to create an ‘emerging middle’. When all the dust settles, you will emerge on the side of separatism or the side of cooperation - and find yourself entangled with all sorts of interesting ‘co-belligerents’ if you are on the ‘cooperation’ side of the question.

It appears that some have already made their choices. Time will tell which choice is best.

I disagree with two aspects of your post.

First, separation is not the central, driving theme of the gospel, although some seem to act that way. Separation is not as important as the Gospel, just as Fundamentalism is not as important as being an orthodox Christian.

Jay, when did I say separation was central to the gospel. Re-read what I said. I never said that. I said it is the central ethos of fundamentalism. Big difference.

[Jay C.] Secondly, we are commanded to separate from all forms of doctrinal error, including those to our right (KJV Inspiration, hyper-separation) and those on our left (ecumenism, charismaticism, etc.).

Where, exactly, are we told to separate from all forms of doctrinal error? If that were so we couldn’t have fellowship with anybody.

[Jay C.] At the same time, I don’t see a burning desire from my Fundy friends to separate from the guys to the extreme right either, and that’s why I’m practically ready to give up with all ‘labels’ theologically…I don’t want to associate with the Fundys that I disagree with, but I’m not quite ready to go whole hog and jump into the CE pool as well. So instead, I’m just suspended in space and thinking everyone is wrong.

Being suspended in space is a familiar sensation with me…

But seriously, I think you are misunderstanding some things. In the ethos statement, we are told that some ‘subvert’ the Christian faith. So…

I think it would be quite clear that Bauder et al would disagree with Roland and his King James views. Would Roland be one who is subverting the Christian faith? I don’t think so, but do you? The fact is that there are guys that would be labeled ‘hyper-fundamentalist’ by some, possibly by Bauder and co, who can’t really be said to be subverting the faith. Not at all the same way that, say, the theologians of the University of Chicago Divinity School would be (for example). So we need to be very careful in how we use these terms. I don’t agree with Roland’s views, but I am going to be very careful not to label him a subversive. A Ruckman, yes, but there are others who are certainly not in that category, though they champion the same version.

Hope that helps some. I think we have to distinguish between people we disagree with and people who are really subverting the gospel.

Hope that helps some. I think we have to distinguish between people we disagree with and people who are really subverting the gospel.

Yup, that’s the issue. I look at an “divinely reinspired King James” position and see subversion of the doctrine of Bibliology and an attack on the character of God, who couldn’t keep His own Word safe from sinful man. Most people don’t see it that way.

My point is that Independent Fundamentalism does seem to want to keep our enemies (people who do subvert) in our camp when we should be driving them out. It’s a matter of discernment.

Hey Jay,

I was thinking about our exchange over supper and came back to your last comment. Here is the thing - I do think there are some men who we would say are somewhere in the KJO camp but who are not actually subverting the gospel. They haven’t gone so far as that. But the problem with some of them is that they won’t repudiate the ‘subversive subversivists’ in their ranks. It is all well and good for me to oppose Ruckman and Ruckmanites (which I do), but I am not a KJO. So my voice here doesn’t count for much, except on a local level. But I think that some of the unsubservsive KJO or KJP men need to start breaking with them. Don’t support their conferences, don’t invite them to your meetings, don’t buy their books, don’t use their materials, don’t support them as missionaries, don’t promote their schools, what have you.

But on our part, we need to be sure that the people we mark as subversive really are so.

(I seem to be making up a lot of words in this post…)

I have been saying similar to what Jay is saying. While I am willing to cut some of the KJV preferred some slack, there are some on the far right that do need to be seperated from. Some of the stuff going on at Hyles should be for instance. Yet, we are seeing new coallitions forming with this extreme group. I am becoming more like Jay where I am getting closer to shedding all labels. I am not there yet, but I am close.

[Don Johnson] But you have made decisions about associations and philosophy of ministry that have taken you out of the Fundamentalist milieu, correct? Having done so, you praise the Central document as ‘excellent’ and worthy of ‘rejoicing’. The document calls for new relationships with Conservative Evangelicals. I have maintained that this is a change for fundamentalists. Your praise and self-identification seem to confirm what I am saying.

Here is your “aha moment”

1. Todd declares himself C/E
2. Therefore he has “made decisions about associations and philosophy of ministry” that you regard as not-Fundamentalist
3. He praises Central’s statement
4. And therefore it confirms your assertion that Bauder’s statement is “a change for fundamentalists”
   It breaks down on several points. But primarily on point # 2. Has he indeed “made these decisions.”? Seems like he is guilty until he proves himself innocent. Perhaps he is so disillusioned with fundamentalism that he denies identification with the label.
   
   Let’s work your argument the other way
   
   
   1. I declare myself a fundamentalist
   2. But have I “made decisions about associations and philosophy of ministry” that you regard as Fundamentalist? Let’s say for argument’s sake that i have (I am in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church that is a member of a Fundamentalist Baptist Association. So for now let’s say I am)
   3. I praise Central’s statement
   4. And therefore it denies your assertion that Bauder’s statement is “a change for fundamentalists”
      Suggestion: Wouldn’t it be better to evaluate Todd based on his own doctrinal statement or t http://www.firstbaptistgranitefalls.org/doctrine.php] he doctrinal statement of his church instead of a label?
      
      I’m not much of a grocery shopper (a delegated task in our home!) but I have been in the grocery store. I know there are brand names and generic products. Take “corn” (real popular here in Minnesota and can be purchased at farmer’s markets around the state right now. My hypothesis is that there is “brand named” corn and “non-brand named” corn. Kathee recently brought home some non-brand named ears. It actually tasted a little fresher than the canned variety. Is it possible that we have become so brand conscious (label obsessive) that we miss what is real?
      
      Let’s say that Todd has chosen to eschew identification with fundamentalism. (I don’t know his mind so I will not speculate. But I know of others who reject the term because of Hyles / Schaap / Ron Comfort / etc. I am close to being one of them. I do know that they claim the label and would not claim me!) You could say that fundamentalism is hardly monolithic and the term is broad enough to encapsulate beliefs and practices as broad as the above mentioned as well as you. If that is true would this not also be true; C/E is hardly monolithic and the term is broad enough to encapsulate beliefs and practices as broad as Todd and others who might identify with the term. By the way, I really doubt that it you and Todd were to compare and contrast your doctrinal statements that there woud be much difference.

Hi Jim

Well, I suppose I’d have to say that I might be reading something into Todd’s comments that come from past blogging over the last few years. I agree that what you have to go on from his comments is pretty sketchy.

As for doctrinal statements, I think you know that isn’t the issue, right?

@ Roger:

I don’t know how I am all that entangled with the Hyles crowd. I am not sure how much more I could separate from them than I already am. We’ve talked about this before, and you have said something to the effect that I need to be tougher on those guys who are on “my side”, or something to that effect. Fair enough… but I don’t think the Hyles crowd are really on my side, as far as I know. I don’t recommend their schools, I don’t go to their conferences, etc.

Since we had that conversation about being harder on ‘my side’, I have been waiting for someone on ‘my side’ to have a scandal. So far no luck.

Don’t support their conferences, don’t invite them to your meetings, don’t buy their books, don’t use their materials, don’t support them as missionaries, don’t promote their schools,

Is this what we mean when we call for separation from a person or ministry with which we do not have a personal relationship or are not involved in ourselves?

Hi Susan

I have been thinking about this lately. What else could it mean? We aren’t in denominations anymore (most fundamentalists anyway), there are no disciplinary structures. So what is separation for us? Voting with our feet. We don’t support works where we disagree on significant points. That’s also why separation isn’t monolithic in application, we may believe the same principles but not apply them evenly or consistently.

But basically, it is at the points where we might intersect, or cooperate, that separation will occur if it must. Most of our lives and ministries are run entirely separate from one another anyway - even two likeminded churches in the same town don’t have that much cooperation happening between them. Day to day they are separate independent entities. But when they have a conference, youth rally, guest speaker… then they might intersect. And then they have to decide if they will or not.

Does that make sense?