I am still at unable to understand how this stated position:
Accordingly, the use of any trustworthy translation of the Scriptures is not a matter of separation for FBFI.
reconciles with the ongoing practice of the FBFI providing membership and speaking opportunities to those who openly declare that the KJ is the only acceptable English version of the Bible.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
It seems to me that the best way forward on the KJV issue is to stop making it an issue. That being said, good for the FBFI for finally coming out and saying that this is not going to be an issue for them moving forward.
If people wants to judge you over your favorite Bible version, they usually can be describes as “divisive” and “schismatic” categories. Go read the old KJV forum threads here.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
As an FBFI executive board member I have been using NASB as our main text in our church for 25 years. Books such as “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man” and “God’s Word In Our Hands” were written in large part by FBFI board members and those books were heavily advertised by the FBFI. Those books endorsed translations such as NKJV, NASB, and ESV. Also, some excellent resolutions were passed on this issue. Board members use both the Majority Text or Eclectic Text. Years ago the FBF meeting in Chicago sponsored a public debate on the text issue between Dr. Custer from BJU and representatives from the TR only camp. Custer won the debate hands down. Mark Minnick is the best spokesman from the FBFI executive board on the text issue. He knows the issue better than anyone on the board and can articulate it with grace and accuracy.
Are there still member churches in the FBFI for which this is still a point of contention? I’m glad that the FBFI has made this statement; but, before today, I assumed that it was unneeded. If there are still FBFI churches for which this is still a point of contention, what have those church’s pastors been teaching? In other words, the fact that the FBFI made this statement in 2014 is puzzling and possibly troubling.
I don’t know whether FBFI has a long history of KJVO activism, but if there is, I would have to suggest that a stronger statement might be worthwhile. Something that cautions those who would make it an issue that they need to be arguing the relative merits of the texts and concede that we don’t have the means today of proving which texts are the best, and that those who use personal attacks to “advance” their cause will be subject to church discipline for that.
But that said, it’s good to see the statement going this far. Hopefully fundamental Baptists will soon agree that the KJV is a wonderful translation, but that this does not need to exclude the NASB, ESV, NKJV, and such.
But are FBFI members who are also pastors promoting contra-Biblical and divisive textual positions? I’m fairly confident that if an FBFI member pastor had John Piper or *gasp* Tim Keller come and speak in the church he pastors, the FBFI would remove that pastor from the membership role. I assumed that the FBFI had already covered the textual “thing” several years ago. Once again, are members who teach contra-Biblical and divisive textual positions welcomed in full fellowhip?
Oh, and I hear, fairly frequently, FBFI members who are pastors refer to the churches they pastor as “FBFI churches.” The language seems to only change to being about a membership of individuals whenever questions are raised that make FBFI members uncomfortable.
Discussion
NewI am still at unable to
I am still at unable to understand how this stated position:
Accordingly, the use of any trustworthy translation of the Scriptures is not a matter of separation for FBFI.
reconciles with the ongoing practice of the FBFI providing membership and speaking opportunities to those who openly declare that the KJ is the only acceptable English version of the Bible.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
NewDoes the FBFI have a list of "trustworthy translations"?
Does the FBFI have a list of “trustworthy translations”? Don J do you know?
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewReminds me
I need to renew my magazine subscription.
Roots by the River
Jesus in Idaho Falls
NewThe FBFI is about 40 years behind on the issue
The FBFI is about 40 years behind on the issue. I’m been using the NASB since I was saved in 1969 (was only available in the NT then)
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewSeems to me
It seems to me that the best way forward on the KJV issue is to stop making it an issue. That being said, good for the FBFI for finally coming out and saying that this is not going to be an issue for them moving forward.
If people wants to judge you over your favorite Bible version, they usually can be describes as “divisive” and “schismatic” categories. Go read the old KJV forum threads here.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewSpokesman
Jim,
As an FBFI executive board member I have been using NASB as our main text in our church for 25 years. Books such as “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man” and “God’s Word In Our Hands” were written in large part by FBFI board members and those books were heavily advertised by the FBFI. Those books endorsed translations such as NKJV, NASB, and ESV. Also, some excellent resolutions were passed on this issue. Board members use both the Majority Text or Eclectic Text. Years ago the FBF meeting in Chicago sponsored a public debate on the text issue between Dr. Custer from BJU and representatives from the TR only camp. Custer won the debate hands down. Mark Minnick is the best spokesman from the FBFI executive board on the text issue. He knows the issue better than anyone on the board and can articulate it with grace and accuracy.
Pastor Mike Harding
NewFBFI Member Churches
Are there still member churches in the FBFI for which this is still a point of contention? I’m glad that the FBFI has made this statement; but, before today, I assumed that it was unneeded. If there are still FBFI churches for which this is still a point of contention, what have those church’s pastors been teaching? In other words, the fact that the FBFI made this statement in 2014 is puzzling and possibly troubling.
NewI don't know whether FBFI has
I don’t know whether FBFI has a long history of KJVO activism, but if there is, I would have to suggest that a stronger statement might be worthwhile. Something that cautions those who would make it an issue that they need to be arguing the relative merits of the texts and concede that we don’t have the means today of proving which texts are the best, and that those who use personal attacks to “advance” their cause will be subject to church discipline for that.
But that said, it’s good to see the statement going this far. Hopefully fundamental Baptists will soon agree that the KJV is a wonderful translation, but that this does not need to exclude the NASB, ESV, NKJV, and such.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewFBFI
is a fellowship of people, not churches. There are no “member churches” hence no collective “discipline” demanded from FBFI.
NewAgreed!
Pastor Mike Harding
NewWhither Whither?
Can we agree that “whither” is an out-dated word? :-)
NewShaynus
Perhaps so, but my favorite KJV phrase is “superfluity of naughtiness”!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewYes, Mark
But are FBFI members who are also pastors promoting contra-Biblical and divisive textual positions? I’m fairly confident that if an FBFI member pastor had John Piper or *gasp* Tim Keller come and speak in the church he pastors, the FBFI would remove that pastor from the membership role. I assumed that the FBFI had already covered the textual “thing” several years ago. Once again, are members who teach contra-Biblical and divisive textual positions welcomed in full fellowhip?
Oh, and I hear, fairly frequently, FBFI members who are pastors refer to the churches they pastor as “FBFI churches.” The language seems to only change to being about a membership of individuals whenever questions are raised that make FBFI members uncomfortable.
NewI have been rereading the FBFI constitution
in preparation for a regional meeting and, you know what, there is no “you must despise John Piper” section.
NewI'm guessing
that there is also not a you must despise Peter Enns section either.