Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

“The New Calvinism Considered: A Personal and Pastoral Assessment” by Jeremy Walker

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The New Calvinism Considered by Jeremy WalkerBook Details:
  • Author: Jeremy Walker
  • Category: Church & Ministry
  • Book Publisher: Evangelical Press (2013)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 128
  • ISBN#: 9780852349687
  • List Price: $11.18
  • Rating: Highly Recommended

Review:
The resurgence of Calvinism in the English speaking world in the last few decades has recently attracted a lot of attention. Christianity Today devoted an issue to the “Young, Restless, [and] Reformed” movement, and Time magazine dubbed the “new Calvinism” as one of the top ten ideas changing the world in 2009. And like any movement it has its detractors. Liberals inside and out of evangelicalism, are alarmed by its bold stand for complementarian (as in, non-egalitarian and anti-feminist) family values. Theological progressives deplore its “barbaric” insistence on penal, substitutionary (and by nature, blood-y) atonement. Mainstream evangelicals — charismatics, Baptists and non-denominationalists alike — are suspicious of the movement’s unabashed celebration of Calvinism. Groups who are more similar to the new Calvinism often decry the movement the loudest. The Reformed (with a capital “R”) are tempted to begrudge or belittle this movement: they were real Calvinists all along (and don’t see any need for a resurgence) and by nature, they are suspicious of anything not grounded in a several-hundred year-old Church confession or creed. Fundamentalists and those of their ilk, see a real threat in this movement: it can’t be easily pinned down and there is too much variety and not enough healthy separation from error.

New Calvinism is not exactly new anymore. And like any movement, it isn’t perfect. There are blind-spots, foibles and let-downs. Yet no one can deny the infusion of spiritual life that has accompanied this wide-ranging return to the Reformation. New and revitalized churches, a no-holds-barred approach to evangelism and mission, and a passionate advocacy of theology (and truth) are hallmarks of the movement. Even if you have quibbles with where some land on any number of doctrinal or practical issues, you should appreciate that by and large, the heart of this movement is one that yearns for God’s glory, that prizes a gospel of Grace, revels in the freedoms won by the cross of Christ, and both reveres Scripture and listens to the moving of the Spirit.

While the “new Calvinism” as it is often called, is mostly an American phenomenon, its influence is spreading to the United Kingdom and beyond. And it is from England that a new critique and thoughtful evaluation of new Calvinism has come. Jeremy Walker, a young pastor who contributes to the influential Reformation21 blog, has written a short examination of the movement: The New Calvinism Considered: A Personal and Pastoral Assessment (Evangelical Press, 2013).

This work is the first book-length critique of new Calvinism I have read, although throughout its pages Walker refers to countless internet discussions where critiques first surfaced. Having lived online through my blog, and interacting with some and reading others of the discussions first-hand, I can appreciate much that Walker is saying that some readers may miss. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The book attempts first to characterize and classify the movement of new Calvinism. This in itself is a chore, I’m sure. And after he helps readers have a better sense of what he is talking about, he begins by pointing out several good qualities and positive effects of the movement. He then rounds out the book with cautions, concerns and his concluding counsel.

At the onset, Walker lays out his motives and the nature of his critique – a personal and pastoral assessment. He understands that he won’t be able to avoid generalizations, but does a good job underlining the fact that there is a broad spectrum in this movement and that not every critique will be valid for all. That being said, we must still evaluate how successful he is in his attempts to fairly characterize the movement. In describing new Calvinism, I felt that Walker’s Britishness hampered his ability to clearly assess and comprehend the movement. He acknowledges as much when he claims “I have something of an outside perspective on those [American] aspects of it” (pg. 11). This is evident as he points out the movement’s tendency to lift up individuals as standard-bearers to rally around – a very American trait which is as common among most of new Calvinism’s American critics as it is in new Calvinism itself. For every critic who singles out someone like John Piper as being a personality around which people “fawn” and hang on his every word, there is an equal part of adulation for someone like John MacArthur and his ability both as a teacher and as one who points out the flaws in parts of the new Calvinism movement. Another example where Walker misjudges the movement is in his criticism’s of the movement’s pragmatism and commercialism. It could be argued that a significant portion of the movement has made great strides in pulling themselves and their churches away from the pragmatism-driven American Church circus of the 80’s and 90’s. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren aren’t new Calvinists, and it is their influence among others, that has propelled a market-driven approach filled with business practices that John Piper has so eloquently decried in his book Brothers, We are Not Professionals. The Together for the Gospel conference can look big, staged and pragmatic from afar, but in comparison to some of the over-the-top, marketing-focused, gimmicky Church growth conferences that abound in America, it is really quite tame.

Of necessity, Walker points out concrete example after example to illustrate his concerns. And while they do help gain a sense of where he is coming from, they can also blunt his critique when the example doesn’t quite fit, or the context of an incident is missed in his use of it. Several times he singles out Mark Driscoll as an someone who embodies his particular critique. I don’t know many new Calvinists who are total Driscoll fan-boys. Many of us have concerns with some of his ministerial choices and don’t hold him as a true bell-ringer for this movement. Another problem with his examples is that at times it feels like he is rehashing blog-wars in a book to expand their influence. Often the blog-wars are dirty and statements and events are blown out of proportion to make a point, and this book suffers from the same problem at times. John Piper is taken to task for inviting Douglas Wilson and Rick Warren at different times to his Desiring God National Conference. Yet the nature of such conferences and the way they are handled at Desiring God, is a forum for discussion more than a blanket endorsement of the speakers. And while, Walker admits that the new Calvinism is not a denomination or a Church, he laments that no official action is taken for errors or misjudgments like this. The Gospel Coalition’s lack of [enough] action in the case of the Elephant Room incident where James McDonald and Mark Driscoll invited T.D. Jakes and treated him like a brother in Christ (not directly challenging him on his anti-trinitarianism and prosperity gospel teachings) is a case in point. The Coalition can’t really act, and respects the privacy of its inner workings. Not long after the incident both Driscoll and McDonald stepped down from official positions with TGC. And TGC’s leaders, Tim Keller and Don Carson drafted a statement about the matter explaining their actions taken. This isn’t enough for Walker, and it wasn’t enough for many bloggers either. But it is some action, and it is short of an official churchly action precisely because TGC is not a church.

As an appreciative member of the “Young, Restless, Reformed” movement (although the middle descriptor doesn’t exactly fit, I think), I cannot but speak in defense as I have above. But let me stress, there is much in this book that is worthy of your time. He does point out some important issues, and we do ignore thoughtful critique of our movement at our own peril. He points out the openness to the charismatic gifts and a looser, more open view of culture as areas of concern. Both areas are places where one can easily drift along in the movement unthinkingly following the ethos of others. Each item warrants thoughtful and personal study of the Scriptures and we ignore this to our peril. His other most poignant critique hits hard on the area of sanctification and holiness. In new Calvinism’s zeal for the gospel of grace, he fears we run hard to the opposite error: antinomianism. Having been freed from legalism, we tend to view laws of any kind as the problem, rather than our hard hearts. He makes the intriguing parallel that while many profess to be recovering Pharisees, almost no one admits to being the “recovering tax collector” (pg. 79). He is worthy of quoting on this point:

Again, let me point out that legalism is the pursuit of obedience with the intention of earning acceptance or merit and not the pursuit of obedience in accordance with God’s law as one redeemed by grace….

My fear is that this view will become very attractive to people who want the privileges and benefits and eased conscience of a Christian profession without the demand for holiness being pressed into their hearts resulting in the vigorous pursuit of godliness. Clearly this is not the intention of the new Calvinists by and large… But my concern is that this teaching may create an atmosphere in which liberty is made a cloak for license. (pg. 82-83)

Walker challenges his readers to just “be Calvinists” (pg. 107). He wants them to stay true to God’s Word no matter what movements swirl around them. His call is right even if some of his criticisms are ill-founded or off-base. We do need to be careful to pursue godliness. We should be wary of the deceitful pull of ecumenism and the dangers of an arrogant triumphalism that some are seeing as a byproduct of new Calvinism. We serve Christ not the latest fad. I do have confidence that much that has been gained through the rise of new Calvinism is not mere chaff to be blown around with the winds of change. I have seen lives transformed as they discover the gospel of Grace and the doctrines of Grace through the writings and ministry of many of the new Calvinist leaders. I trust that while I became a Calvinist through this new movement, that I will remain true to the Word of God and “be a Calvinist” no matter what happens as seasons come and go.

Walker’s admonition to his audience of people not quite sure what to do with new Calvinism can be equally applied to those of us who are tempted to bristle at any criticism of our movement:

We are not called, first and foremost, to spend all our time worrying about other shepherds, but more to give ourselves to following the Great Shepherd in our convictions and actions. We must look first to ourselves in this regard and ensure that our doctrine and our practice marry, that we manifest degrees of heat and of light that are coordinate with and complementary to one another. We neither know all we should, nor do all that we know, and it is in the equal march of faith and life, knowing and doing, telling and showing, that we gain the platform that will enable us to serve our friends who differ from us in other respects. (pg. 107-108)

This kind of thoughtful reflection and eloquence of speech characterize this work. Walker is bold and forthright but he aims to be fair and charitable. His message deserves to be read widely, and his conclusion heeded by all on every side of this. May we all be found faithful, and my the Lord’s work continue, come what may.

About the author

Jeremy Walker was born to godly parents and was converted to Christ during his teenage years. he serves as a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church, Crawley, and is married to Alissa, with whom he enjoys the blessing of three children. He has authored several books and blogs at Reformation21 and The Wanderer.

Where to Buy:
  • Amazon.com
  • Christianbook.com
  • Direct from Evangelical Press

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Evangelical Press. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Concluding Thoughts on The Strange Fire Conference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I don’t really want to say much more on the Strange Fire Conference. I have already said my piece. But I’m compelled to just add a bit more to my original post.

1) The Strange Fire Conference did include some nuance.

I’m happy to concede that there was some nuance and admission that not all charismatics are of the devil. This insider’s summary of the conference puts the best spin possible on it, and I am happy that there is some nuance evident.

2) But Strange Fire also overstated the problem.

The build up to the conference bills it as dealing with the charismatic movement as a whole, and numerous quotes from the conference itself seem to make that same case. It was claimed that 90% of the charismatic movement held to a health/wealth prosperity gospel. And in MacArthur’s last session he said the charismatic movement is made up mostly of unbelievers. Earlier he claimed the movement had contributed nothing good in terms of worship or theology – nothing that came from the movement itself.

This can be nothing but broad brushing. And while many have decried cessationists in similarly broad strokes on the rebound, it is clear that a mischaracterization of the movement was perpetuated through the conference. Proof enough of that is the fact that I have yet to see a charismatic who did not perceive the conference as a slap in the face and who did not see this conference as attacking the movement as a whole.

3) Generalizations are tricky things.

I understand how difficult it is to criticize a movement, as I often have had to backtrack and clarify my own critiques of fundamentalism. The shoe doesn’t fit everybody, and the movement is bigger than you think – once you learn more of it. The same goes for critiquing charismaticism. The charismatic movement is bigger than Benny Hinn. There are rank and file charismatic believers who eschew the prosperity gospel, who avoid the anti-trinitarianism of some sectors of the movement, and who are faithful to the gospel. I contend that this group of churches and believers are largely not Reformed – so they are not just a small wing represented by the C.J. Mahaneys, Wayne Grudems, and Sam Storms of the world. They are a big group who make up the majority of charismaticism, at least in America. Now it can sure seem that most charismatics are heretical. Equally so, it can seem that most cessationists are jerks. But neither of these perceptions are the truth.

4) Controversy is not necessarily bad.

It is right to stand up for truth. Controversy cannot be entirely wrong. But a consistent controversialist should be ignored, and rightly so. Can it be that MacArthur has more fundamentalist in him than we thought? Is controversy being peddled for its own sake? I don’t really think so. I give him the benefit of the doubt. The problems the conference addressed are real and clear. And he has consistently spoken out against them over the years. Just because he is bringing the ugly wing of charismaticism to light, shouldn’t make him the enemy.

5) Are “Bashing” conferences helpful?

Do we need more “bashing” conferences? Baptist blogger Dave Miller explores that question in a helpful post. (As an aside, his reaction to the conference was perhaps the most helpful I’ve read.) How helpful is a conference really going to be when it claims most of what it addresses are the antics of unbelievers? Would it have been better to include Reformed Charismatics, who could add weight to the critique of pentecostalism run wild? Would John Piper or Sam Storms add more to the expose of the Word of Faith problem? Solidarity across party lines for the sake of truth would sure seem more convincing and may lead to less wagon-circling and more soul-searching.

6) What’s a charismatic to do?

With this conference, was there any pathway given for the one who has seen miraculous gifts manifest in their church experience? Are they supposed to assume such an experience was necessarily strange fire and doubt their salvation? Should they have a crisis of faith? God can be God — that seems to have been stressed in the conference: but what do we call it when God acts in such a bold way? It seems an emphasis on discernment and a more measured approach could prove more helpful than a wholesale dismissal of anything remotely charismatic in flavor.

7) I long for unity and dream for a convergence.

This whole debacle leads me longing for more tangible unity in the body of Christ. Yes I realize it is lofty to type such words. I don’t want to claim too much for me and my position. I just think there are many who would agree with me, that unity is something we can desire. Even admitting one side is right and one is wrong, still I wish for more unity – isn’t that biblical?

I will go beyond just wishing for this, and recommend a book – it’s what I do best around here. I would recommend that my cessationist friends (and most of my friends are cessationist) pick up a copy of Sam Storms’ Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist. In that book he tries to show how both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The church needs the doctrinal clarity and Scriptural knowledge of the cessationist and the emotional realism and simple love of the charismatic. Each side can learn from the other and a biblical convergence is possible.

May God bring about such a day and encourage each party to appreciate the other in a sincere attempt to understand and appreciate what they bring to the body of Christ as a whole!

Why I’m Concerned over the Strange Fire Conference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 30 Comments

From afar, I have loosely followed the Strange Fire conference. This conference was hosted by John MacArthur and dealt with the charismatic movement. MacArthur is increasingly concerned about the impact of charismaticism worldwide.

Tim Challies has posted summaries of each of the main sessions from this conference. And I have scanned through several of them and followed the reaction to this event online.

Why would I be concerned about this conference? I am not charismatic so wouldn’t I be praising the work of MacArthur in exposing the errors of the prosperity gospel and charismatic excesses? I would if that was what this conference was about. But MacArthur and the other speakers go beyond combating charismatic excess to dismissing all charismatics as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Adrian Warnock, a reformed charismatic pastor and blogger who I have followed for years, was understandably concerned that MacArthur was saying that even reformed charismatics are not genuine believers. In MacArthur’s final address, he dealt with seven criticisms of the conference and does not back down. He claims most of the charismatic movement is outside the body of Christ. Quoting from Challies’ summary: “this is a movement made up largely of non-Christians that lacks accountability.”

Warnock’s reaction to this is understandable:

So, there you have it, I am a part of a movement which according to MacArthur is worse than liberalism, and… has nothing good to offer the church, oh and “most” of us are not even Christians.

To be very clear, I have no problem with other Christians holding to a different posisition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit than I do. I do also recognise… there are many different possible positions. MacArthur seems to have missed all these nuances and simply wants to reject all charismatic thinking as heretical.

My primary concern is the divisive spirit and tone that permeates this conference. If you read Warnock’s post you can understand my concern. Let me be clear, however. I do not endorse the prosperity gospel, nor the over-the-top actions of self-appointed Pentecostal TV preachers and evangelists. Most of them are frauds and do serious damage to the cause of Christ, in America and especially in third world countries where they prey on the hopes of the poor. But it is one thing to join with careful charismatic brothers and denounce error, and quite another to write off an entire branch of the body of Christ and exclude them from grace because they differ with your interpretation of Scripture.

This charismatic issue, and the question of whether the miraculous gifts continue today, is important. It does have an effect on how one will do church, and I can understand how it makes it hard for cessationists to yoke up with continuationists in ministry. But just like we shouldn’t assume that all non-Baptists are not saved, neither should we assume that everyone taking a different position on this issue is necessarily possessed by a demon.

Since I have waded out into this realm of controversy, let me offer two posts for your perusal that get at the heart of the controversy. Tom Pennington provided a biblical defense of cessationism at the Strange Fire conference – see Challie’s summary of that session. Andrew Wilson provided a biblical response and defense of continuationism (that the gifts continue). For my part, I think the case by Wilson is stronger than that given by Pennington.

I am all for protecting the church from spiritual abuse in the name of “the Spirit told me you should…”. Prophecy and words of knowledge have great potential for harm. But I cannot read 1 Cor. 14 and other places in the NT and not give the charismatics some benefit of the doubt. There is something being talked about and advocated there that differs from the church practice of many cessationists today. Furthermore, I look down the corridors of history and see numerous examples of revivals accompanied by unexplained spiritual experiences. I see missionaries talking of miraculous manifestations of God’s power in dark lands. And I see the history of the saints, with exaggerated tales, but tales, nonetheless of miracles being pivotal in the advance of the Church. And then I read Acts 2’s quotation of Joel 2 as being fulfilled in the church age and I cannot but be open to the Spirit moving in miraculous ways among the church today. For more on this, I would recommend John Piper’s sermon series on this topic.

So I remain open and cautious in my stance toward the miraculous gifts. I lift Scripture up as sufficient. I don’t need experiences to bolster my faith – but experiences have bolstered my faith. We need to be careful to try the spirits and test the prophets, yes. But we cannot and should not quench the Spirit. I can do no better than to conclude with the words of Paul in 1 Thess. 5:19-21.

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

Audio Interview: Leaving the Extremes of Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton

duddingI wanted to call your attention to a 3 part audio interview of Will Dudding (pictured to the right). The interview centers on his story of leaving the extremes of Fundamentalism. Kevin Thompson is interviewing Will on his new podcast, Gospel Points.

Will Dudding is the pastor of Mission Peak Baptist Church in Fremont, CA. He also blogs at Reforming Baptist. Part one is available (click here) and sets the stage. Will’s personal story is going to be the focus of part two which should went live today. Stay tuned to Kevin’s blog on Friday for the third part of this interview.

If you can’t wait for the rest of Will’s interview, you can listen to my interview (also done by Kevin Thompson on his “Understanding Our Times” podcast) on the subject “Fundamentalism and Reformed Theology.” Links to that interview and a few others are available on my media page.

Mining the Archives: The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published March 17, 2006.

This post is long but covers this issue well. I have taken the liberty of slightly editing the original post and shortening it here for the re-post.

The main point of  the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism — Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg — can be summarized as follows.

  1. God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
  2. God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
  3. God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)

Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology [editor’s note: the idea that the Bible does not teach that there is a “universal church” but that God works through local churches only], and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.

The proponents of KJV-onlyism seem to  have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.

The third point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism, and is what I intend to focus the rest of this post on. This point at first glance, appears to give authentication to the KJV-only position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.

The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.

  1. That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
  2. That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
  3. That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
  4. That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
  5. That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.

In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. [Editor’s note: I would now add that the political climate of England during and after its civil war was a boon to the KJV since the Geneva Bible’s notes were considered treasonous.] Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).

I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now some would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.

With regard to assumption 3, some might counter that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.

Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?

The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!

In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.

I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this, but most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.