Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism

It does make sense, thanks for explaining that some more. I was wondering in particular about buying books, because IMO buying and reading books doesn’t constitute ‘support’ necessarily- but recommending them would- that would be where I drew that line. I’m an enthusiastic gleaner, and I read and buy everything I can get my hands on. I would agree that cooperating with and investing in a person or ministry would constitute a problem if that ministry differed significantly in an important area… I think some of the problem is where folks draw the lines of what is and isn’t subversive enough to be damaging.

[Don Johnson] 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?

Yup, it does.

So am I inconsistent, then, if I read and recommend Piper books even though I disagree with what he says or with decisions that he’s made about who to put on his speaking platform? Some people would say no…I should avoid him entirely. If you say “Yes”, then welcome to the Young Fundys club.

Again, there’s the rub :).

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…

It would seem, then, that would ultimately lead to a comprehensive series of meetings, an over-encompassing publishing house to produce books and materials, and a structure to commission or approve schools.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried that? :-)

[Greg Linscott]

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…

It would seem, then, that would ultimately lead to a comprehensive series of meetings, an over-encompassing publishing house to produce books and materials, and a structure to commission or approve schools.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried that? :-)

[Susan R] I think some of the problem is where folks draw the lines of what is and isn’t subversive enough to be damaging.

The reality of it is that separation is something that is difficult to define without specifics, because every situation has different particulars that make the best way to handle it unique to that situation. Even though it has become almost a cliche, I can understand and even support the ‘together for the gospel’ idea in spite of how militant and dogmatic and separatist-ic I am about my own sincerely held beliefs- which, btw, would probably place me well within the Red Zone on the IFB Chart-O-Rama.

[Susan R] It does make sense, thanks for explaining that some more. I was wondering in particular about buying books, because IMO buying and reading books doesn’t constitute ‘support’ necessarily- but recommending them would- that would be where I drew that line.

Yes, I guess I did say ‘buying books’, didn’t I. Well, I suppose I have bought some books of people I disagree with and wouldn’t support or cooperate with in some way. MacArthur and Dever, for example. I have had reasons to buy some Piper and Mahaney, but I only buy them used… that way no royalties go to them or their organizations.

But I wasn’t really thinking of them when I was doing my riff that included “don’t buy their books”. I was thinking about the extremists on the right as I recall the context of the conversation at that point. So… In order to make my break with them I would make it at the points in which our ministries might intersect. That would mean I might refuse to attend or support conferences where they were involved, refuse to support their ministries by purchasing material from them, including books, consider whether to support missionaries/mission boards connected to them, etc.

It should be noted that these are examples, different circumstances may call for different measures. In a loose fellowship dominated by independents, as fundamentalism is, how else can we really distance ourselves from those whose ministry we consider to be unacceptable?

In a loose fellowship dominated by independents, as fundamentalism is, how else can we really distance ourselves from those whose ministry we consider to be unacceptable?

That strikes me as a tad ironic coming from a member in good standing of the BJU Alumni Association… :D

Hey, sorry to interrupt but I think this is the longest thread since SI upgraded to the “3.0” software.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy110.gif

Don,

My comment wasn’t directed to you. It was in general about the recent conference. I know it might seem like I am on a mission with this, but I really am not. I just think it was wrong and hypocritical.

Hey - thanks for the question. I appreciate your zest my brother. It’s fun to be around people that have passion. You have passion! I used to have passion before I became middle age. Now I’m boaring. My oldest told me recently I was his favorite “nerd,” but he didn’t mean that in a disrespectful kind of a way. :)

This will be a quick and matter-of-fact answer to your question. I take all 7 editions of the KJV as being preserved copies of God’s Inspired Word - even though there are thousands of differences between the variants - that is just between the different “editions” of the KJV. That would include the first edition that included the Catholic Church Apocrapha - of course I don’t believe the Apocrapha has authority. That would include the second printing they called the “Wicked Bible” - “Thou shalt commit adultry” (oops). That would include the edition of the KJV the Mormon church uses today. That would include the 4th or 5th edition that survives today in several forms - Oxford, Old Scofield, New Scofield, Camb., etc…….It doesn’t bother me at all that we have thousands of variants between the thousands of mansc of Greek, Hebrew, and “scads” of other translations such as coptic, Latin, Syriac, etc…..I’ve studied over the years various variants in scores of books from both testiments and they amount to nothing by way of doctrine, the gospel or even the minor details of where Scripture impacts history, science, archeology, anthropology and such. About the only “real” discussion of interest might be questions like, “OK - was he leaning on his bed or his staff?” I have no doubt that each mansc and each transl I hold in my hand have copying errors because of man’s imperfections - Yet on the other hand, at a near miraculous level, we have close to 97% agreement amongst the mans and trans. All serious copies of God’s Word have a level of preserved authority that traces it’s source back to the inspired, God-breathed written revelation that is “The Word.” So….when I stand up in the pulpit of SVBC and preach from the NKJV or the NIV or the NASB or the ESV or when I try once in a blue moon to come up with my own translation from the Greek or Hebrew text….I am confident that I carry the same authority that was given by God to the original recepients of the text. It is just as authoritative today as it was then…..even with a copier error or two in a specific chapter. My position has been “the position” of orthodox believers for 2 mill. This idea that you have to have one perfect trans per each lang is new and outside the strain of the Scriptures teaching about itself. I mean all you have to do is note that the LXX quotes of the OT in the NT are often a little different than the OT Hebrew quotes of those same passages. Are you going to band Jesus because he violated OT Scriptures by quoting from a less than accurate LXX? I hope not! BTW - I have no doubt that after the original giving of an epistle, there was no doubt copying errors within the first few “copies” of the original. That in no way, shape or form undermines it’s source or authority.

I don’t think I’ve said anything here that different than what the other guys have said. But you asked me - so there you go. Smarter guys can help you more out there.

Hey Pittman brother dude - the name is just “Joel.” No one seriously calls me “Dr. Tetreau.” I mean I have 1 - but my Dad has 2 - so everyone calls him Dr. Tetreau. I’m just Joel.

Later bro!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dear RPittman,

Thanks for taking the time for your lengthy response. Now I find I must respond to your response, but lengthy quotes in quotes in quotes will just get confusing, so, text only.

You defined a process by which God has “certified” the KJV to mankind as His chosen preserved Bible for today. I raised questions about this process, asking you to define how it worked. That does not make me a rationalist. Over and over you return to the accusation that I am using a rationalistic model, and that you cannot go where I go in this discussion. But my questions do not mean I am a rationalist. They mean that if the process God used works the way you claim it works, it should be explainable. Humans would have to be able to perceive that it is true for the “certification” to work. If God gives a sign, it must be recognizable as a sign distinct from the background events of history, or it won’t signify anything.

I am not a rationalist, but I’m hardly a mystic either. I see reason in Scripture. Thus I have learned to expect reasoned behavior from our God.

My apologies if you took offense at the “Roman-Catholic sounding” crack. I did not intend to produce guilt by association. Rather, I was interjecting what I consider an important point, without fully developing it. One of our problems is that the Roman Catholic church sets the authority of “mother church” up as a final arbiter, regardless of what God has clearly defined. This is something we firmly reject. Your process does something similar: the weight of church history now defines something that the Bible does not. NO PASSAGE indicates that any translation will receive special attention as a preserved text over and above all others, relegating all others to the scrap heap. In fact, the juxtaposition of such passages as II Tim. 3:16-17 with verse 15 would lead us to believe quite the opposite: that any responsibly handled copy or translation can rightly be called Scripture. Now you say that a historical oddity (the fact that many English-speaking Bible believers accepted the King James Version for 400 years) equals the voice of God about that issue. You might as well say that the weight of believers in recent decades saying the rapture was to be soon made it certain.

You indicate that you would rather trust the Holy Spirit leading the believing church than to trust a group of academics. But I’m not certain that the Holy Spirit leading was the primary driving force in the preference of the KJV over so many years. For many years, it was the only credible English translation other than reaching further back into English Translation history. The first few English translations that made themselves available with broad marketing were fatally flawed; witness the RSV’s handling of Isaiah 7:14, that brought sweeping rejection to what was otherwise a high-quality translation. It could not survive that translation choice given the current warfare between liberalism and conservatism in theology. Most believers trusted the KJV because it was the only one on the shelf that had any credibility in their churches. This is not an invalid choice, but it’s hardly the same as if there were 4 translations and every believer had felt drawn to the KJV.

In answer to my comments that the evolution of the English language drives us toward a new English translation, and that, given your belief system, it would eventually drive the Lord toward one as well, you say we could educate the 90% that cannot read the KJV well. I agree. My reaction, after reading Ryken’s newest work on English Translation, was that people with such strong affinity for the KJV as he demonstrates had better be prepared to open Sunday Schools in the classic sense – one where reading is taught. You KJVO guys had better get started. If your public schools are like the ones here, the people you are trying to reach can barely read modern English, much less the KJV.

But when you question my hypothesis that God would want the Bible in the language of the people you accuse me of “making assumptions beyond basic presuppositions”, presumably based on “rationalistic Modernism”. Your justification for these statements is this: “Because God didn’t tell us, this assumption has no Biblical backing although it is a somewhat reasonable hypothesis (i.e. educated guess).” OK. But what about your presumption that the weight of choice by believing churches over 400 years equals God’s choice of one translation over all others? I see no Biblical backing for that either. Show me a verse that says anything like “Verily, ye will know the only right copies and the only right translations, because I will reveal it in the hearts of all of you over time.” No Scripture even indicates that there will ever be a single translation preferred by God. You have reasoned it out, to support your view.

You say “To be forced to depend on the support and approval of conservative scholarship, reduces Scripture to the lowest common denominator of human effort.”

I don’t believe that’s the process. The genius of God in preservation of His Word is seen in the fact that we have so many manuscripts to sift through.

Let’s say that you wanted to write something to be preserved for the ages. How would you guarantee it lasting throughout human history? God works through humans with His Word’s transmission, so there must be a lasting human process. Carved in stone? Stone wears. Carved in metal plates? They tarnish. Carved in precious metal plates? They would be stolen and melted for their intrinsic metal value. What does our Lord do? He creates a process by which thousands of copies are made (maybe millions; who knows how many were made that we never found). The only reason scholars are the ones leading the discussion is because the majority of Christians never learned Greek or Hebrew. If we all knew these languages, and were all extremely motivated, every one of us could be working through the issues together.

You probably have already noted that my statement about the juxtaposition of such passages as II Tim. 3:16-17 with verse 15 acknowledges your statement that “If inspiration is not retained by the Scriptures at hand, then their status is not any more than any other human book.” You are, of course, correct. I will not rehash the other posts on this thread that are trying to more tightly define Inspiration in response to your perfectly valid point. But you have not provided any passages that link Preservation and Inspiration in the way that you claim they are linked. While there are those who deny Preservation, I am not one of them. But this does not mean that I believe Preservation works as you describe it. In fact, Bob Hayton’s concurrent article on “Let the Minutiae Speak” and the thread following it call the kind of Preservation you posit into question (along with many other well thought out articles and papers).

OK. That’s enough for now. Looking forward to your reply.

Mike D

Mike, you have the patience of Job. You have been saying what I did not have the patience to spell out

[Greg Linscott]

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…

It would seem, then, that would ultimately lead to a comprehensive series of meetings, an over-encompassing publishing house to produce books and materials, and a structure to commission or approve schools.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried that? :-)

But then what happens when they publish something you don’t like or think is right? ;)

The Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions and the GARBC come to mind as organizations which have tried to impliment Greg’s suggestion.

[Jay C.]

[Greg Linscott]

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…

It would seem, then, that would ultimately lead to a comprehensive series of meetings, an over-encompassing publishing house to produce books and materials, and a structure to commission or approve schools.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried that? :-)

But then what happens when they publish something you don’t like or think is right? ;)

There are others as well- and that’s not mentioning more Presbyterian brethren and their polity.

That’s also why I thought Don’s comment (as a BJU alumnus) somewhat ironic. BJU has obviously found a niche where they can serve a wider range- perhaps not as wide as some have in mind, but certainly bridging a lot of issue people think are important at the church level. Where would BJUP be if everyone applied that philosophy- not to mention BJUP being selective with who they would sell to?

Now it is even a longer thread.

Now it is even longer yet! When will it ever stop.

Why?

[Mike Durning] But my questions do not mean I am a rationalist.

Mike, Roland’s definition of rationalism/rationalistic might be tripping you up a bit. As he uses it, it means “using valid reasoning to arrive at conclusions in situations where I prefer a non-reasoning approach.” That’s not a direct quote or an attempt to assign motives. It’s an observation based on a good bit of interaction. I can’t see how any other conclusion is possible.

As a specific case, whenever reasoning leads to conclusions contrary to a divinely preserved, word perfect KJV, that reasoning is de facto “rationalistic.” Makes no difference at all whether the premises are factual and the logic is solid.

So, in the context of the present discussion, you’ll save yourself and Roland a lot of time by just saying “As you mean the term, yes, I am rationalistic.” (Unfortunately, I’ve been really slow learning this, myself, and could have saved myself a lot of going in circles in some previous threads!)

Of course, admitting to being “rationalistic” in that sense means that, to him, you’re admitting you’re wrong. But it’s OK. Those who don’t think reasoning is something you can use selectively (when you agree with where it leads), will find your argument worth thinking about, even if it is “rationalistic.”

[Greg Linscott]

[Greg Linscott] It would seem, then, that would ultimately lead to a comprehensive series of meetings, an over-encompassing publishing house to produce books and materials, and a structure to commission or approve schools.

There are others as well- and that’s not mentioning more Presbyterian brethren and their polity.

That’s also why I thought Don’s comment (as a BJU alumnus) somewhat ironic. BJU has obviously found a niche where they can serve a wider range- perhaps not as wide as some have in mind, but certainly bridging a lot of issue people think are important at the church level. Where would BJUP be if everyone applied that philosophy- not to mention BJUP being selective with who they would sell to?

Greg, I joined your comments for a bit of context…

In many ways the reason it is difficult to have a concise one size fits all definition of fundamentalism or of fundamentalist separatism is the fact that fundamentalism has largely opted to become a loose coalition of independents. Most fundamentalists have no confidence in the staying power of denominationalism, having been burned too many times by seemingly inevitable decay.

If we were in some kind of denomination, appeals could be made to denominational courts and disciplinary procedures when error creeps in. But in a coalition of independents, such is impossible (except perhaps the court of public opinion, if you can get enough people to listen to you).

The actions of some independents have no connection with the actions of other independents, except where they intersect. Bible Colleges / Universities / Seminaries, Mission Boards, Camp Ministries, Publishing Houses - these are the places where we may find ourselves in some sort of common cause with other independents, either by active involvement or more of a passive support. The strength of this system is that independents are usually not inextricably linked with these institutions / cooperative efforts and can quickly disentangle themselves if they deem them to be too compromised or in error. The weakness is that we are subject to the risk of being a lonely voice shouting in the wind if we withdraw, or we will be reduced to a renewed effort to reinvent the wheel - yet another Bible college, ministry, what have you. Denominations don’t have this last risk so much - for all its faults, the SBC Cooperative Program is a magnificent missionary fund-raising tool. Independents don’t think denominationalism’s benefits are worth the risk, however.

Since we only are in real contact with other independents when our ministries might intersect (see above), my point is that the only real effective way we can separate from other independents when they are in error is to withdraw our support or cooperation at those levels or in those ministries where we have some kind of common cause.

You may think that BJU has created a sort of denominational presence. I don’t think it is anywhere as tight as that - but be that as it may, I am fully prepared to cut my ties with BJU if circumstances warrant.

You ask, where would BJUP be if everyone applied that philosophy?

Well, where do you think I learned the philosophy?

And to answer your question directly, if enough people decided that BJU had drifted outside the fundamentalist orbit, they would have to develop a market outside of fundamentalism pretty quickly or they would collapse. I don’t think they are anywhere close to that point right now, but lots of people are watching to see where they will go in the current controversies.

I hope this is coherent, I am trying to be brief. I plan to write something more detailed on my own blog at some point, where I have no worries about length!

You think that BJUP screens their clientèle so only Fundamentalist schools buy their School textbooks? That only separated churches are allowed to utilize Changed Into His Image? That Journey Forth isn’t any kind of effort to appeal to a clientèle that might be put off by “Bob Jones University Press”? That churches or choirs who prefer a traditional sound but fail to adhere to Biblical Christianity would be discouraged from even knowing who Dan Forrest was, much less using his music? Why on earth would they allow decidedly Evangelical Christianity Today to http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/bestoflists/2010/sacredmusic1… publish a review of their latest recording?

But by your reasoning, we’d better start printing our own Bibles even, lest we fund the Evangelicals buy sending our money to Crossway, Thomas Nelson, and Zondervan, who I’m sure have very few Fundamentalists in their employ.

(Please tell me I’m exaggerating here)

Hi Greg

I think we are talking about two different things. I am not at all talking about BJU controlling who uses their stuff or who they sell to. Not at all.

I am talking about me as an individual deciding how I will conduct my ministry. The questions that gave rise to these considerations were challenges to me about separating from errant fundamentalists (specifically and especially KJOs). To all intents and purposes, I am separate from many of them. However, we do intersect at some points. For example, we hosted a Crown College ministry team a couple of years ago. I would probably be willing to do so again (as things currently stand), but depending on how things play out over time, I might come to the place where I can’t lend my support to them in any way, which would preclude such contacts.

So… you seem to be thinking about this from the other direction, which is irrelevant to my point, as far as I can see.

I think that is the point here, though. Others who are not Fundamentalists intersect with BJUP in some areas. We as Fundamentalists intersect with some Evangelicals in areas as well. Boycotting their books, etc seems to me a bit extreme.

Hi Greg

While non-Fundamentalists do intersect with BJUP, they do so as consumers, not cooperators or collaborators, correct? I mean, generally speaking BJUP is known as a publishing house for fundamentalist produced works. Fundamentalists would tend to support BJUP for that reason. If that were to change, of if BJU itself were to change direction away from Fundamentalism (me genoito), Fundamentalist support would drop off.

[Greg Linscott] Boycotting their books, etc seems to me a bit extreme.

First response:

Greg, don’t you know me well enough by now to know that I AM a bit extreme?

Second response:

Well, in some cases, I don’t choose to lend a hand to a ministry that is damaging the Church of Jesus Christ. Will my refusal to support them affect said ministries? Probably not. But I do make choices about who I will support and who I won’t. And that sometimes means I won’t buy someone’s books, at least not new.

I mean, generally speaking BJUP is known as a publishing house for fundamentalist produced works.

I’m not sure that’s as evident to all of their K-12 textbooks clientèle.

Well, in some cases, I don’t choose to lend a hand to a ministry that is damaging the Church of Jesus Christ.

So, as a Baptist, wouldn’t that preclude supporting BJU, whose ministries encompass those whose practices defy Biblical teaching on baptism, let’s say?

BTW- I am not arguing that we should not support BJU. I am suggesting that support in areas that we can collaborate on seems acceptable, even if we may actually be more precise in our own application. And how far do you take this? Would you boycott Bible study software if it included books from those with whom you shared significant differences? Do you avoid eating at Chik-Fil-A because your purchase might inadvertently make its way to the SBC Cooperative Program (S. Truett Cathy being a member of an SBC church)? How far do we take this?

[Aaron Blumer]

[Mike Durning] But my questions do not mean I am a rationalist.

Mike, Roland’s definition of rationalism/rationalistic might be tripping you up a bit. As he uses it, it means “using valid reasoning to arrive at conclusions in situations where I prefer a non-reasoning approach.” That’s not a direct quote or an attempt to assign motives. It’s an observation based on a good bit of interaction. I can’t see how any other conclusion is possible.

As a specific case, whenever reasoning leads to conclusions contrary to a divinely preserved, word perfect KJV, that reasoning is de facto “rationalistic.” Makes no difference at all whether the premises are factual and the logic is solid.

So, in the context of the present discussion, you’ll save yourself and Roland a lot of time by just saying “As you mean the term, yes, I am rationalistic.” (Unfortunately, I’ve been really slow learning this, myself, and could have saved myself a lot of going in circles in some previous threads!)

Of course, admitting to being “rationalistic” in that sense means that, to him, you’re admitting you’re wrong. But it’s OK. Those who don’t think reasoning is something you can use selectively (when you agree with where it leads), will find your argument worth thinking about, even if it is “rationalistic.”

Aaron, thanks for the perspective. I am writing not so much for RPittman but to make sure that any readers aren’t tantalized by his logic without thinking it through. The “logic of faith” and the sheer certainty of the KJVO position can be very tantalizing for those who are intimidated by just how muddy the facts of our more eclectic position are. I’ve seen more than a few grabbed by his thinking for years until they manage to work their way out. As for Roland, it’s not quite so big a deal as I’m making it. After all, I’m certain he knows Jesus and loves Him. In the end, Jesus will correct us both in Heaven.

[Greg Linscott]

Well, in some cases, I don’t choose to lend a hand to a ministry that is damaging the Church of Jesus Christ.

So, as a Baptist, wouldn’t that preclude supporting BJU, whose ministries encompass those whose practices defy Biblical teaching on baptism, let’s say?

When did Baptist doctrine become a fundamental?

[Greg Linscott] BTW- I am not arguing that we should not support BJU. I am suggesting that support in areas that we can collaborate on seems acceptable, even if we may actually be more precise in our own application. And how far do you take this? Would you boycott Bible study software if it included books from those with whom you shared significant differences? Do you avoid eating at Chik-Fil-A because your purchase might inadvertently make its way to the SBC Cooperative Program (S. Truett Cathy being a member of an SBC church)? How far do we take this?

Both of these examples are not ecclesiastical - they are private corporations. I could decide to boycott some corporations for various reasons (as some boycott Disney) but that takes us entirely out of the realm of ecclesiastical separation.

[Don Johnson] [

When did Baptist doctrine become a fundamental?

So only transgressions of “fundamentals” are “damaging to the Church of Jesus Christ”?

I could decide to boycott some corporations for various reasons (as some boycott Disney) but that takes us entirely out of the realm of ecclesiastical separation.

But to follow your reasoning, an author gets similar royalties when his book is included in Bible study software as he does when it is published in book form.

Dear RPittman,

Having read your reply, I think Aaron has caught you.

Read what Aaron says carefully. Then read your replies to me carefully. Then tell me you are not using (or asking others to use) reason and logic selectively.

In your most recent post, you reject all my attempts at reason, then demand that I establish, prove, and give evidence for my position.

Aaron’s point stands out so plainly in your most recent reply to me that it almost makes me wonder if you are not joking with me now — providing a parody rather than a position. I know that sounds insulting, but I honestly don’t intend it as such. Look to your motives, my friend. I suspect you are being blinded by your desire to grasp a position that is just beyond your grasp.

For the record, have you read the Apostle Paul? The entire structure of every one of his Epistles proves that reason is welcome in the Spiritual realm to provide proof for things.

I will reply at length in the days ahead, but just wanted to point that out to you.

Mike D

I have rejected scientific rationalism as a method of knowing truth. I am skeptical of the so-called factual premises and solid logic. Modernism, IMHO, is fatally flawed and impotent but some have not come to that realization and continue debating in that paradigm. The problem is the inconsistency. On the one hand, Fundamentalist are using the methods of Modernism to establish their doctrine and beliefs meanwhile rejecting the Modernist position whenever it is in obvious conflict with Scripture. For example, every miracle is irrational and is not to be believed by the Modernist methods.

If this is true, then I don’t see how you can avoid getting into an re-inspired translation position. You can’t have any other position that would allow for the merging of all of these disparate manuscript copies without some kind of logical/modernistic process for reconciliation…so it seems that you have to wind up with either a specific MSS text type being inspired (and having to deal with differences in the manuscripts) OR argue for a supernatural re-inspiration of a specific translation.

Maybe that’s the inconsistency that you’re talking about a little later on, but I still don’t see how you can avoid that iceberg.

[RPittman] I prefer to think of my position as a “reasonable faith.” Let’s say that it’s reason guided by faith.

Over and over I see the faith, but not the reason. You are certain that your version of preservation is not reinspiration, but you admit you have no idea what inspiration was. You are adamant that the church authoritatively recognized the KJV as God’s Word, but you admit you do not know how that happened. The list goes on and on. Seems like a whole lot of faith (read that personal assumption) without any basis; this is not my idea of biblical faith at all.

Gentlemen.

If one claims faith in something that is apart from any reason or rational thought but by faith they become an existential believer such as Soren Kierkegaard. Some today call the old existentialism post modernism. To accept something by faith indicates an object of faith since faith is not an entity in and of itself. To accept a writing by faith as perfect indicates necessary rational thought about the object such as its subject matter, manner of presentation, and definitions of words used. We cannot postulate that language and communication is possible without rational thought being possible. Humans have language based upon the ability to function rationally as created in God’s likeness and image. Faith cannot exist as emanating from man toward an object of faith without the exercise of rationalism. What we have a problem with is not the existence of rational thought by man but “rationalism” or “modernism” that excludes that which is contrary to their over extended rationalistic worldview. Several years ago Pat Boone (a Charismatic stated we must leave our Brains behind to have true faith. Sound somewhat familiar?

There is no faith without rational acceptance of reality. The object our faith in Christianity does not come apart from rationalism. Jesus was historical and real. We read of Him in writings of rational communication using words of human language, and we know of those writings through the human process of finding, determining legitimacy, reading and gathering like documents and classifying. The very few manuscripts behind the later labelled TR were admittedly gathered by rationalism. They were admittedly evaluated as sources and then put into the English language by reasoned thought that included following the kings instructions. We have such terrible mis translations such as church, Bishop, Deacon, and Baptize because they rationalistically followed the Kings instruction of not violating the Bishops Bible. Without simple clear ability to think rationally there could be no translation.

The KJV can be no legitimate object of faith without distinction of it as being different from other versions. Such a recognition is the excersize of normal human thought which is rational. To then accept one versions and reject others does not become a thought or action that suddenly jumps to faith apart from rational thinking. It is faith in an object considered as valid and used by reading which are normal simple rational processes that humans can do but animals cannot.

If a person claims to be able to act apart from reason or rationalistic thought they are claiming to be able to be human without having the image and likeness of God. Such a claim is so ridiculous and apart from both reason and faith. They cannot have faith as they cannot have an object of faith.

Many KJVO advocates may deny any form of re inspiration but they cannot deny miracle that sets apart the KJV from all other versions. The only discussion remaining is whether the miracle or miracles must have characteristics that are similar to or the same as that inspiration that occurred with the original authors. If one properly defines the phenomena of inspiration as that which guaranteed inerrancy yet without dictatorship, except for Revelation, than the miracle or miracles that, hypothetically gives and English version that in and of itself is inerrant in contrast to errant other translations, has had post Apostolic inspiration and authority without the presence of the Apostles. If they deny miracle and see preservation as a protected process that produces an outcome of inerrancy by human process, then they see providence as continuing divine intervention that has the constant similarities of inspiration. Thus it is constant inspiration.

All theories set forth by KJVO advocates must involve 16th and 17th century inspiration regardless of their many denials. Anytime a KJVO advocate advances arguments based on faith against all rationalism they are either extremely ignorant of truth, or unable to think normally, or using constructed pseudo intellectual arguments that appear to indicate their willingness to deceive in order to maintain their doctrine.

The KJVO doctrine usually involves pride and actions of arrogance based on a desire to get a handle on a position whereby they can demean the position of many others thus giving their ministry unique authority in contrast to the alleged faithlessness of others. Thus the accusations of other translations being new age or influenced by those unfaithful, and others who differ being in the grip of rationalism or post modernism.

I am in the Antelope Valley of So. CA. where WCBC, Paul Chappell, and Lancaster Baptist are. I have regular encounters with the KJVO and various arguments set forth. Believe me, they all have the essential same position no matter the various claims. Scholars who have written on this have all come to the same conclusions. SI needs to be better at recognizing the implications involved in the various KJVO arguments and the application of their ban from SI.

The arguments set forth on this thread by a KJVO advocate are of such a nature as to not warrant direct reply. If Fundamentalism means anything that is different from broader Evangelicalism, then it must recognize major errors that are a danger and warrant separation.

This thread has gone so long partly because of one KJVO advocate and his obviously ridiculous arguments. On this thread and on other previous threads he has set forth the KJVO position with obvious implications of re-inpiration. He then denies re-inspiration based on arguments that are not definitive and merely cloud the issues. They also do not make any real sense. They are words without meaning. His intolerance is not tolerance. His persistence is not passion but rather obsession that is schismatic.

[Greg Linscott]

[Don Johnson] I could decide to boycott some corporations for various reasons (as some boycott Disney) but that takes us entirely out of the realm of ecclesiastical separation.

But to follow your reasoning, an author gets similar royalties when his book is included in Bible study software as he does when it is published in book form.

Perhaps, but I don’t buy books I don’t like there either… so??

[RPittman] Chip, what can I say? You evidently don’t know what I’m saying. I never “admit[ed] [I had] no idea what inspiration was.”

Actually, that is exactly what you said. Now, maybe you meant something else, but here are your words:

[RPittman] I don’t even know how God superintended the Apostles and other writers of Scripture except that the Holy Spirit lifted them up above their human failings.

You continue to talk in circles throughout this discussion. We are accused of having no proof for our position, but you promote your position by blind faith.

To quote you, “Either you cannot or will not understand my position. Then, there’s no point in our continued conversation.” (I keep thinking I am done arguing in circles, but then another outlandish statement sucks me back in)

OK. I’m done with this one. Thanks everyone. Have fun.

Mike Durning

Perhaps, but I don’t buy books I don’t like there either… so??

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most packages these days ship with automatically bundled selections? I looked at the list with the various Logos inclusions, which include an offering from John MacArthur, the ESV (which has many prominent evangelicals associated with it), and even the Roman Catholic and Lutheran lectionaries…

As far as the other scenario you did not address- I am assuming, as a Baptist, you would strongly encourage believers to follow the Lord in baptism, while discouraging sprinkling of infants. Yet from what I can see here, you would support a Fundamentalist Presbyterian with a book purchase in a way you would not a conservative Evangelical Baptist. I’m not sure why the points of intersection might not be somewhat comparable, at least when it comes to purchasing books. If an Evangelical Baptist author produces, say, a helpful resource on Baptism, what would prevent you from purchasing and benefiting from it in a way you might similarly purchase and benefit from a commentary by Michael Barrett? There are things about each man you would neither endorse or agree with- your fellowship would be limited. I just don’t see how supporting BJUP or Ambassador Emerald or SermonAudio.com wouldn’t diminish or negate a Biblical stand on Baptism while purchasing a book by an Evangelical author pains your conscience.

[RPittman] The problem is that Aaron has almost totally misconstrued my most basic argument. He doesn’t seem knowledgeable of the Post-Modern arguments underlying much of my criticism of Modernism.

Actually I’m quite aware of several of them. They simply have nothing to do with the questions at hand, since nobody here is employing any Modernism.

Reason is not an invention of Modernism. It’s been around since folks first learned to come in out of the rain. Modernism involves the idea that we can reason our way to all that is true and that only what we can reason our way to is true. Usually it includes a commitment to materialism (matter is all that is real) and naturalism (there is no causation outside of the natural world) before even beginning the work of reasoning.

On the other hand, Christian thought has always held that the invisible God is the most real thing there is and that what we can observe is just a tiny corner of what is real. What we can reason our way to is more expansive but still woefully inadequate. So we rely heavily on the invisible God to reveal truth to us.

With those convictions as a starting point, miracles are not illogical or irrational in the least. In fact, it’s irrational not to believe in them.

With God’s revelation in our hands in the form of Scripture, we use reason to understand it and draw conclusions from it. Using it (Scripture) as a standard, we use reason to evaluate ideas and reject them if they are not supportable. This has never been and never will be “rationalistic” or “modernistic.”

[Greg Linscott]

Perhaps, but I don’t buy books I don’t like there either… so??

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most packages these days ship with automatically bundled selections? I looked at the list with the various Logos inclusions, which include an offering from John MacArthur, the ESV (which has many prominent evangelicals associated with it), and even the Roman Catholic and Lutheran lectionaries…

Well, any decisions about this are somewhat of a judgement call. I am not sure what all the Logos packages support, but I can’t imagine the basic packages include all that much royalties for the original publishers. And do royalties still apply to things like lectionaries? Don’t know. I’m not overly concerned with it.

But I have to say, I still think you are missing my basic point that started this line of discussion. I wasn’t talking about separation from evangelicals or worse when it came to ‘book buying’, but separation from professed fundamentalists who are committing significant errors that demand breaking contact with them.

[Greg Linscott] As far as the other scenario you did not address- I am assuming, as a Baptist, you would strongly encourage believers to follow the Lord in baptism, while discouraging sprinkling of infants. Yet from what I can see here, you would support a Fundamentalist Presbyterian with a book purchase in a way you would not a conservative Evangelical Baptist. I’m not sure why the points of intersection might not be somewhat comparable, at least when it comes to purchasing books. If an Evangelical Baptist author produces, say, a helpful resource on Baptism, what would prevent you from purchasing and benefiting from it in a way you might similarly purchase and benefit from a commentary by Michael Barrett? There are things about each man you would neither endorse or agree with- your fellowship would be limited. I just don’t see how supporting BJUP or Ambassador Emerald or SermonAudio.com wouldn’t diminish or negate a Biblical stand on Baptism while purchasing a book by an Evangelical author pains your conscience.

Yeah, but Barrett is a personal friend, so that trumps everything.

Well, again, I don’t think you are getting what I am trying to say. I already admitted earlier that book buying (of the items on my list, way back on the thread) is probably not the best example or most crucial area of keeping one’s distance. There are some guys I have decided to just not support at all if I can help it. I think there errors are so egregious, I won’t support them. That is my individual decision, it isn’t that I condemn someone else who chooses to purchase their materials. (But I am suspicious of those who are so devoted to certain authors that their copies of these guys books are more dog-eared than their Bibles.)

If your position is:

My position is that our understanding of God’s Word is through faith and reason guided by the Holy Spirit. Reason alone is inadequate.

Then what exactly DO you believe? That God re-inspired one translation? That God re-inspired through one text family? You seem to be arguing for a direct re-inspiration, and I don’t think you believe that.

The question of whether reason alone is sufficient isn’t really all that relevant unless one makes the Holy Spirit factor something unexplainable and mystical. What I mean is, since language functions through reason, even minds aided by the Spirit will be aided in the use of reason not aided in some way that transcends or bypasses reason. If the latter occurs, there is no longer any real relationship with the text. Some kind of direct revelation is going on. So any meaningful claim to be basing a conclusion on Scripture is one that a person can demonstrate by explaining to others how he has reasoned.

There is no other way to use language.

You asked what my “paradigm” is. It would be the one I already described in my last post:

[Aaron B.] With God’s revelation in our hands in the form of Scripture, we use reason to understand it and draw conclusions from it. Using it (Scripture) as a standard, we use reason to evaluate ideas and reject them if they are not supportable. This has never been and never will be “rationalistic” or “modernistic.”

Later you asked…

[RPittman] Well, please explain how the orthodox theologians at Princeton differed in their methods from the Modernists. How do your methods of scholarship and reasoning differ from secular scholars.

Already explained this also. There are not multiple kinds of reason. When a child reasons that a barking animal is probably a dog he is doing the same thing that an orthodox theologian does when he reasons from Scripture and the same thing Jesus does when He reasons from common sense (about the folly of building on sand rather than building on a rock, for example). The difference between the “methods” of orthodox theologians and Modernists are the things I mentioned in my previous post—things like prior commitments to materialism and naturalism. They do not reason differently, they reason from different premises and within different constraints.

Reason is reason no matter whether you’re Solomon or Descartes or the toddler next door.

The rest of your post… what can I say to all that? In some cases, you’re questioning the meaning of statements I simply do not know how to make more clear. In other cases, you are going in directions that might be interesting talk about some time but aren’t especially relevant to the discussion.

It all boils down to the question “Is a biblical position one that we can supported by reasoning from Scripture or not?”

I submit that any use of Scripture that involves the Spirit allegedly bypassing or contradicting valid reasoning from Scripture is not a use of Scripture at all. The Scriptures are nothing more than some kind of point of departure in that scenario.

No, words mean things, and the Spirit does not take them and give them meaning in a way that reverses the very nature of words. There would be no point in giving us words in the first place if their meaning is not derived according to the ordinary reasoning of language.

I appreciated the overall tone of the statement that was posted, but I have a question. In the statement it was said about “New Image Fundamentalism”

“We also reject the “new-image Fundamentalism” that absorbs the current culture, producing a worldly worship and a pragmatic ministry. These self-professed fundamentalists often follow the latest trends in ministry, disparage theological labels such as Baptist, and aggressively criticize any version of Fundamentalism not following their ministry style.”

And about conservative evangelicals it said,

“On the other hand, these positions do not exhaust the evangelical options. Conservative evangelicals have reacted against the current erosion of evangelicalism by refocusing attention upon the gospel, including its importance as a boundary for Christian fellowship. These conservative evangelicals have become important spokespersons against current denials of the gospel, and they have also spoken out against trends that remove the gospel from its place of power in transforming lives (e.g., the church growth and church marketing movements).”

Contasting these two statements, it seems that there is friendlier attitude toward conservative evangelicals than to what are called “new image fundamentalists.” To tell the truth, I am new to this website. (I have lived and worked overseas as a missionary most of my adult life, and some of these terms are a bit new to me.) I have always found myself most comfortable either among the most conservative evangelicals or the most (if I may use the oxymoron) “liberal” fundamentalists. But I was curious as to why your attitude toward one seems friendlier than to the other, since technically I guess the conservative evangelicals would be further to the left of your position?

Thank you,

Doug

DA… there’s a post somewhere where Kevin explained more specifically who these folks are. Trying to find it. I think it’s earlier in this thread.

Edit: OK, here it is… (#68)

http://sharperiron.org/comment/17539#comment-17539

And several posts earlier, Bob Haydon posted several links to some writing by Jeff Straub on the subject (Dr Straub is also Central faculty)

http://sharperiron.org/comment/17498#comment-17498

(comment #53)

But I’m not sure Straub’s discussion is using the term in the same way.

;) Thanks friend!