Tag: argument

“Perspectives on Israel and the Church: Four Views” edited by Chad O. Brand

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Perspectives on Israel and the Church: Four ViewsBook Details:
• Editor: Chad O. Brand
• Authors: Chad O. Brand, Tom Pratt Jr., Robert L. Reymond, Robert L. Saucy and Robert L. Thomas
• Publisher: B & H Academic (2015)
• Format: softcover
• Page Count: 317
• ISBN#: 9780805445268
• List Price: $29.99
• Rating: Highly Recommended

Blurbs:
“The issue of the relation of Israel and the Church is crucial in New Testament interpretation for soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Perspectives on Israel and the Church affords scholarly, well-articulated accounts of how traditional covenantal, progressive covenantal, traditional dispensational, and progressive dispensational theologies address these crucial issues from their distinctive perspectives.”
—Steve W. Lemke, provost, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

“Arguably no greater hermeneutical issue faces us today in biblical theology than the relationship between Israel and the Church in accordance with the redemptive plan and promises of God. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a better understanding of all sides of this subject.”
—Terry L. Wilder, professor and Wesley Harrison Chair of New Testament, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Publisher’s Description:
The relationship between Israel and the Church is one of the most debated issues in the history of theology. Some hold the view that there is almost seamless continuity between Israel and the Church, while others believe there is very little continuity. Additional perspectives lie between these two. This debate has contributed to the formation of denominations and produced a variety of political views about the state of Israel.

To advance the conversation, Perspectives on Israel and the Church brings together respected theologians representing four positions:

  • the Traditional covenantal view by Robert L. Reymond
  • the Traditional dispensational view by Robert L. Thomas
  • the Progressive dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy
  • the Progressive covenantal view by Chad Brand and Tom Pratt Jr.

Overview:
Perhaps there is no issue which more clearly divides conservative Evangelicals, than the question of the relationship between Israel and the Church. Subsumed beneath that overriding concern are the intramural debates over soteriology (Calvinism, Arminianism or “neither”), eschatology (premillennial or amillennial and pre-trib or post-trib), and ecclesiology (paedobaptism or credobaptism). These questions are not minor. The baptism question divides the Protestant church into denominations. The millennial question bars the entry into parachurch organizations, mission boards and educational institutions. Yet most agree that people from all perspectives on this issue take the Bible seriously: this is a Christian debate, separating fellow believers.

In the last hundred years, the larger question over Israel and the Church has turned from a covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate into a more nuanced and many-sided affair. Dispensationalism has matured, and progressive dispensationalism presents a new understanding of the question which is both true to its dispensational roots and yet distinct at the same time. And in recent years, new covenant theology has arisen and is often referred to by the term “progressive covenantalism.” This refinement and change is not a bad thing. As the views have interacted with each other, people have tried to modify and clarify their understanding of Scripture. Such has been the history of the Church down through the ages. And while some look at the newer positions as an abandonment of principles, others may see a hopeful realignment that results in a greater unity across all the positions. Indeed it seems that progressive dispensationalism has become a primary view in the academy that is viewed with mutual respect by covenantal views.

A new book from Broadman and Holman offers a restatement of the four dominant positions today, and includes an interaction between them. Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views brings together three of the most proficient authors for their positions, along with a team of authors for the newer progressive covenantal view. This book presents the debate in a calm and safe environment and allows some of the foremost representatives of the positions to advocate their approach.

Covenantal Theology:
Robert L. Reymond’s chapter on covenantal theology is sharp and clear. He makes a point that modern softenings of dispensationalism still remain somewhat unclear as to the nature of saving faith for Old Testament saints. Throughout his chapter and in his responses, he does a great job unpacking his view and addressing the important points in other positions. He sees both progressive dispensationalism, and progressive covenantalism (as presented in this book) as still too close to dispensationalism and its pre-tribulational, pre-millennial position. His is a strictly amillennial position that sees Revelation as a cyclical book with the millennium being another description of the church age. He does not stress too much the three covenants of classic covenantal theology (coventant of grace, of redemption, and of works), instead he focuses more on the biblical covenants in an approach similar to that of O. Palmer Robertson. He also does not shy away from the term “replacement theology” but proudly uses that description of his position (p. 49).

Traditional Dispensationalism:
Robert L. Thomas’s chapter on traditional dispensationalism presents the dispensationalism I learned with clarity. This is Ryrie’s position which has sometimes been described as “modified” as opposed to “classical.” Thomas doesn’t agree necessarily with the “modified” descriptor, however. Thomas explains that the kingdom was offered and then rejected in Christ’s ministry, and presents a case against taking the NT use of the OT as a guide for how we should interpret Scripture. He also emphasizes how the OT promises are not cancelled by the NT. In his treatment of the land promise, however, he doesn’t deal with the conditionality in the OT associated with it (for instance Deuteronomy’s exhortations to faithfulness so that they would inherit the land, and even how passages like Ps. 37:9, 11 should be understood). He also doesn’t address Rom. 4:13 and how the “land” is expanded to the “world.” He makes a big deal too about no clear-cut use of the term “Israel” for the Church (although so many other Jewish terms and descriptions are used for the Church).

Of note is Thomas’s interaction with Saucy’s chapter on progressive dispensationalism. He takes issue with Saucy’s allowance for the NT use of the OT to shape his understanding of the OT passages. Thomas notes:

By allowing NT passages to provide meaning for the OT, one is doing the same as other nondispensational systems… Saucy’s statement, “proper interpretation begins with the Old Testament,” should be refined to read, “proper interpretation of the Old Testament begins and ends with the Old Testament before going to the New Testament.” (p. 218)

He also is not happy with Saucy’s refusal to defend a pre-tribulational rapture.

Progressive Dispensationalism:
Robert Saucy does a good job explaining progressive dispensationalism. Many reared in traditional dispensationalism, like me, have later rejected that system and now find themselves leaning toward covenant theology but without a good understanding of later developments in dispensationalism. This chapter offers a helpful explanation for those unfamiliar with this position.

Saucy painstakingly lays down hermeneutical principles undergirding his position. He ultimately agrees with an “already, not yet” approach to prophecy but emphasizes the “partial” nature of many of the begun-to-be fulfilled prophecies. Salvation is not just provided through Israel and her Messiah, it is “channeled through” Israel:

From Isaac, the descendants of Abraham are traced by physical descent through Jacob and his sons until the Seed, Jesus Christ, appears and the Gentiles are included in him. It is therefore impossible to ignore this physical dimension and identify Abraham’s seed merely as anyone of faith…. Thus, on the basis of the promise to Abraham, Israel is an ethnic people who constitute a nation among nations that bears a unique relationship to God — a nation created by God in fulfillment of his salvation promise. (p. 166-167)

So even though salvation extends to the Gentiles, they are not “spiritual Jews” or “conceived as part of Israel” (p. 184). Eph. 2 does not speak to Gentiles joining Israel in the covenant people of God. Instead both are part of a new humanity, but each are still distinct (p. 191). He again emphasizes that the Church is never called Israel (yet it is called the “real circumcision”…). So there is a unity in the people of God now as both Israel and the Church are together the “eschatological people of God” (p. 190). Yet, there is still a role for political Israel to play in a future millennium to totally fulfill historic promises. Saucy’s conclusion explains it best:

Rather than detracting from the spiritual unity of God’s saving program present in the church, the fulfillment of Israel’s role as a particular nation, in which God is yet to display his glory, will expand the present spiritual salvation to bring about that holistic salvation of individual and society promised by the prophets, in which all people are united in their diversity as the one people of God. (p. 208)

Progressive Covenantalism:
Chad Brand and Tom Pratt, in their chapter on progressive covenantalism intriguingly point to the debate over the new perspective on Paul as a way forward in this debate. There is a debate over whether personal salvation was primarily in view in Romans or the wider work of God for the people Israel and indeed all of creation. The answer is yes: both are in view. And that is how they approach the question of Israel vs. the Gentile church. There is a corporate and personal element in this question. Who are the people of God and what are their place in salvation history? “Israel” and the “Church” are terms separating out a “dichotomy” where there really seems to be a unity, a oneness to the people of God throughout the Old and New Testaments (p. 233-237). Supporting points for this include:

  1. The oneness of God demands one people.
  2. The people of God are his by divine election and spiritual birth.
  3. The people of God arise from the supporting root of historic Israel.
  4. The marker of the people is the internal presence of the Holy Spirit.
  5. The people of God are the body of Christ.

This approach avoids the rigid “replacement theology” that is directly advocated by Reymond. Instead it interprets the true people of God through all ages as representative of true believers today. This presentation actually struck me as less directly baptistic than the new covenant theology position of Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry presented in Kingdom through Covenant (Crossway, 2012). (The authors of this volume mention that Wellum and Gentry’s work was released after their book was all but finished, yet they are in substantial agreement with that position, see p. 12.) Emphasizing the experience of the Spirit in the true people of God has the drawback of downplaying the church ordinance of baptism, which seems odd since new covenant theology typically corrects covenant theology on the very question of baptism.

Brand and Pratt go out of their way to renounce a “replacement theology” position:

…we conclude that the idea of “replacement” of Israel by “the church” with a resultant “church age” is not only a misnomer but a misreading of the history of salvation as well. Richard Bauckham remarks, in commenting on Rev 7:4, that the picture there presented “indicates not so much the replacement of the national people of God as the abolition of its national limits.” In Goldswothy’s characterization, it is the glorious result of the mission to the Gentiles carried out by the saved remnant of ethnic Israelites. Therefore, the current stage is more adequately denominated the age of transformation or new creation, for “in Messiah” nothing matters but “new creation” (Gal 6:15), which for Paul and others has already begun, though it has not yet been consummated. (p. 257)

Brand and Pratt go on to explore how the NT really does refer to the church as “Israel” (or by terms referring to Israel). In this section I was intrigued by their explanation of how Luke in Acts doesn’t use the term “church” for the new people of God until after Stephen first roots the term’s meaning in the OT assembly of God’s people. They then conclude with an explanation of their post-tribulational, premillennial view. They concede that reading Revelation in a roughly chronological order is not necessary to their conclusion (premillennialism), but they don’t seem to go out of their way to allow for variations of progressive covenantalism that are not premillennial. Perhaps they are at pains to keep their position tenable for institutions that require premillennialism, I cannot say; but I found their advocacy of premillennialism confusing and contradictory. Kingdom through Covenant‘s presentation of progressive covenantalism lacked any premillennial hints, and also majored on the land promise (and Israel’s identity herself) as typological in nature, and that was extremely persuasive. So the progressive covenantalism offered in this book seems a step lower than what Wellum and Gentry offer. The position as a whole is still young, and this book will certainly help those trying to understand that position.

Recommendation:
I highly recommend this book for those seeking to sort out their own position on how the Old and New Testaments should be read in light of each other. Even if you have “landed” on one perspective in this debate, this book will both challenge and sharpen you. With the possible exception of the progressive covenantal view, the book presents a top-notch explanation for each of the major views. The arguments are well-reasoned, and Scriptural discussion abounds. Footnotes point the way to further reading on important questions, and the end result is a useful and accessible manual on the nature of this debate at present. The book will reward careful study and offer help to some who are confused. It was a joy to work my way through it and I trust it will benefit both student and teacher alike.

About the Authors:
Chad O. Brand has served as a pastor and has taught theology and church history for more than twenty years at three Baptist colleges and seminaries.

Tom Pratt Jr. is president of Eagle Rock Ministries and is a Bible teacher, preacher, and freelance writer.

Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013) was professor of Theology emeritus at Knox Theological Seminary.

Robert L. Saucy is distinguished professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

Robert L. Thomas is professor of New Testament emeritus at The Masters Seminary.

Where to Buy:
• Amazon
• ChristianBook.com
• direct from B & H Academic

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by B & H Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

“40 Questions About Creation and Evolution” by Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

40 Questions about Creation and EvolutionBook Details:
• Authors: Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker
• Publisher: Kregel Academic (2015)
• Format: softcover
• Page Count: 432
• ISBN#: 9780825429415
• List Price: $23.99
• Rating: Must Read

Review:
Of the many contemporary debates pushing and pulling on the Church today, the Creation and Evolution debate is perhaps the most alarming. The New Atheists like Richard Dawkins try to lump any Bible believer in with the crackpots and loonies, while some of the most high-profile creationists spare no punches as they condemn the vast majority of Evangelicalism for any of a number of compromises on this question. For folks in the pew, the situation is tense: Science continues to raise large questions, and the Church often seems to provide few answers. Many of our youth are pressured to abandon the faith as they encounter new arguments against creation. With at least four major views in Evangelicalism, there is not a strong unified position to lean upon. Most books on the topic defend their particular view and often take aim directly on other sectors of Christianity. These books do more to perpetuate the polarized nature of the debate than provide a clear way forward. And meanwhile it seems that the scientific consensus only continues to become an even larger stumbling-block to Christian faith.

In this context, a variety of new attempts to integrate science and faith have been proposed. Yet for conservative Christians this only raises new questions. How far is too far? What are the limits of integrating faith and science? How important is the age of the earth? Are all forms of evolution out-of-bounds for Christians? What about the Flood – must it be universal? Could animal death have preceded the Fall? What are we to think about Adam and Eve?

These questions and more are addressed in an important new book from Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker, professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution (Kregel, 2015) charts a course through the debate, raising the right questions and providing many answers. A big burden behind this book is just to survey the positions that are being adopted by Evangelical leaders today. The authors carefully lay out the evidence (good and bad) for each of these positions. Keathley approaches the matter from a young-earth creationist (YEC) perspective, and Rooker adopts an old-earth (OEC) view, but each author takes pains to speak charitably of the other positions and honestly about the difficulties of his own view. Their irenic candor and careful grappling with the major positions makes this book a joy to read.

Overview
Each chapter functions as a stand-alone treatment of a particular question. These questions are loosely arranged by topic. The first two parts focus on the doctrine of Creation in general (and its role in Scripture), and then in particular about the exegetical details in Gen. 1-2. Following this is a section on the Days of Creation. Here the following positions are examined:

  • The Gap theory
  • The Day-Age theory
  • The Framework theory
  • The Temple Inauguration theory
  • The Historical Creationism theory (or Promised Land theory)
  • The Twenty-Four Hour theory

Following this is a section on the age of the Earth. Here the genealogies and the arguments for and against an old earth are examined. In addition, the question of distant starlight gets special treatment. Included here is an examination of the mature creation argument. The next section focuses on the Fall and the Flood. The image of God and the idea of Original Sin are fleshed out here. The final section focuses on evolution and intelligent design. A history of Darwinism is provided along with its key supporting arguments. Challenges to evolution are also presented (often from atheistic scientists who still hold to common descent). The question of theistic evolution is also addressed. Finally discussion of the “fine-tuning argument” highlights the special place our Earth holds in the universe.

Highlights
This book is over 400 pages long, so I only have time to point out some highlights.

Careful Analysis of the Debate: I was struck by the careful analysis of why Evangelicals disagree so much on this issue. Concordism and non-concordism are addressed, and so is the matter of presuppositions. The authors stress that old-earth creationists (OEC) share many of the same presuppositions as young-earth creationists (YEC), they do not share the view that a YEC interpretation of Gen. 1-11 is the “only interpretation available to the Bible-believing Christian” (p. 20). YEC adherents really do often hold this as a presupposition and so their position is basically fideism: “if one’s presuppositions are unassailable, then his approach has shifted from presuppositionalism to fideism” (p. 21). OEC proponents allow more room for empiricism, which “allows experience and evidence to have a significant role in the formation of one’s position” (p. 21). This philosophical difference lies beneath the OEC vs. YEC debate and recognizing this can help in understanding the mindset of each alternate view.

Helpful Discussion of Each Major View: The discussions of each view are extremely helpful. Careful arguments are presented for each view, and then answered. The authors show how most scholars have good reasons to reject the Gap theory today, but they point out the fascinating history of this position (which dates back to the seventeenth century). By the mid-twentieth century, Bernhard Ramm could say that the gap theory was “the standard interpretation throughout Fundamentalism” (p. 112). The Day-Age theory is dismissed as treating “Genesis 1 as though its purpose is to provide a detailed, scientifically verifiable model of cosmic origins,” which hardly seems in keeping with “its ancient context” (p. 126). The Framework theory doesn’t have “a single theological truth” dependent on its unique reading of the text (p. 134). The authors have an uneasy assessment of the Temple Inauguration theory. They seem to revel in the connections between Eden and the Temple, but think Walton’s particular view says too much without enough explicit textual warrant. I note the odd argument that it makes “more biblical sense” that the Israelites believed “God lived in heaven both before and after the creation week” (p. 145). This prevents us from seeing creation as God’s need for a physical habitat to rest in. But didn’t God create heaven in the creation week? The authors seem intrigued by John Sailhamer’s Historical Creation theory. They raise objections but imagine others finding satisfactory answers to them. The Twenty-Four Hour theory certainly is more clearly defended, but strong objections are also raised. A mediating view is also presented that may well be Rooker’s own view: that the 24 hour days are to be seen as literally 24-hour days, but used metaphorically in the text. This whole section is worth the price of the book – the debate is laid out and dispassionately treated in a clear manner that provides directions for further study in a variety of directions.

Excellent on the Age of the Earth: I also appreciated the discussion of the age of the earth. The authors point out that the young-earth/flood geology position has only recently become the predominant Evangelical view. Prior to The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961), there had been over a hundred years of Evangelical Christians who held to an old earth. Some discussions of the history of the YEC position devolve into an all-out mockery of the YEC position. This book is honest about the history (and the large role played by George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist and geologist), but does not smear the YEC position with “guilt-by-association.” The major arguments put forth in Whitcomb and Morris’ book continue to be widely repeated today, but many of them have been forsaken by modern YEC proponents: the water-vapor canopy, a “small universe” (to allow for distant starlight), the Fall causing the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and even the human and dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River (p. 196). The scientific arguments for a young earth are actually quite tenuous. On the flip side, the scientific arguments for an old earth seem quite strong. Having studied this issue in some depth previously, I still found new arguments and considerations presented here. The authors also quote YEC authors who are also honest about the weakness of the scientific evidence. As an example, John Morris (Henry Morris’ son and successor) has admitted “he knows of no scientist who has embraced a young earth on the basis of the empirical evidence alone” (p. 198). The Biblical case for a young earth, in contrast, is quite strong. Even though the genealogies in Scripture are by no means air-tight nor intended to be strictly chronological, “we still have the impression… that not an enormous amount of time has passed since the beginning of creation” (p. 176). The authors conclude on this matter: “The conclusion must be that, though a cursory reading of Scripture would seem to indicate a recent creation, the preponderance of empirical evidence seems to indicate otherwise” (p. 224).

Conservative yet Open on the Effects of the Fall: The book does draw hard and fast lines, and one of them is the historicity of Adam and Eve. This is ultimately a matter of “biblical authority” (p. 242), and it becomes a “litmus test” for Christians who would want to advocate some evolutionary position (p. 378). The question of the Fall and its impact is perhaps the most important question that divides the OEC and YEC views. They see the Fall as the historical moment of Original Sin, yet animal death before the Fall and the Fall’s impact on the natural creation are more open to reconsideration. The “notion of animal death existing prior to Adam’s fall does not appear to be, theologically speaking, an insurmountable problem” (p. 261). On the Fall’s impact on creation: “YEC proponents seem to be dogmatic about a position which, upon closer examination, appears to be more speculative than they have been willing to admit” (p. 269-270).

Critical of Evolution: As an eager reader of the book, I was challenged by this section, perhaps the most. The discussion on evolution will not encourage any simplistic acceptance of evolution. The authors’ introduce many of the problems to the standard Darwinian model that have been raised of late. Intelligent design is also carefully explained. More space could be given to scientific responses to these new challenges, perhaps, but the section does a good job pointing out the questions which still surround the mechanics of evolution. As for Christians wanting to embrace some sort of evolutionary model (not based on naturalistic Darwinian assumptions), the authors present three essential points that must be maintained:

  • The uniqueness of the human race to possess and reflect the divine image.
  • The unity of the human race.
  • The historicity of the original couple and their disobedience. (p. 378)

Assessment
This book will prove to be helpful for those who want to survey the state of this debate in Evangelicalism today. The authors don’t sugarcoat the controversy and are at times painfully honest. They bring a wealth of research together, surveying the historical background to the controversy and marshal an impressive array of scientific arguments for and against each major position. Some may not appreciate how certain positions are embraced tentatively. Yet others will see this as a strength. Some will fault the authors for going too far, others will scoff at some of the attention drawn to what they consider obscure arguments for a young earth. The book will challenge those pushing the envelope and vying for unflinching acceptance of evolution in all its forms. It will also challenge those who pick and choose among the scientific studies – cherry picking anything that supports their YEC position and ignoring the rest. Above all, the book brings us back to the Bible and the text itself – what exactly does it affirm and how should that shape our consideration of these questions.

Ultimately this book calls for greater unity and charity in this debate. It is precisely here that this book is most needed. YEC proponents too often come across as abrasive, and their arguments seem to lack “tentativeness” or humility. OEC apologists can easily get caught up in the intramural debate and continue the caustic harsh tone. All of this is not only off-putting, but unhelpful. This book presents an alternative and a possible step forward. I trust it will make a contribution toward more light and less heat on this perennially thorny issue. I highly recommend it.

About the Authors:
Kenneth D. Keathley (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is professor of theology and director of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was previously professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Keathley is also the author of Salvation and Soverignty: A Molinist Approach.

Mark F. Rooker (PhD, Brandeis University) is professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has previously taught at Moscow Theological Seminary, Criswell College, And Dallas Theological Seminary. Rooker is Author of several books on Old Testament and Hebrew language topics.

Where to Buy:
• Amazon
• ChristianBook.com
• direct from Kregel

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

Sunday Evening Services: Helpful or Not Helpful?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

smallchurch“I Want to Be More than a Sunday-Go-To-Meeting-Christian,” says an old-time song. For many, that means we take pride in attending church every time the doors are open. Some church traditions have a mid-week service and others have a Sunday evening service, with many having both. These, of course, are in addition to the Sunday School hour and the Sunday morning worship service.

But in Evangelicalism lately, more and more churches are abandoning the Sunday evening service. Is this a move toward a “lite” version of Christianity? Are such churches compromising or lowering their standards?

Most of the time the answer is clearly no. There are a variety of reasons for abandoning the Sunday evening service. And one reason is that the tradition of a Sunday night service is relatively new. The notion of a Sunday evening service dates to the revivalist days of the 1800s where this service would often be evangelistic in nature – and an early draw was the modern innovation of gas lamps or even electric lighting. But this is not entirely a new idea. Earlier, in both the Reformed and Puritan traditions, there were often second services held in the afternoon (when it was still light). The second service was often for catechism, and spending the day at church helped prevent people from profaning the Sabbath.

There is nothing wrong with additional church services, but we must remember that the very notion of a church service is not possible in some scenarios where the church is persecuted. Certainly the custom of the Church has had to change over the years. It appears that an evening service was the only one possible when slaves were members in NT times (and they had to work 7 days a week). Culture and regional preferences resulted in a variety of traditions over the centuries. The Bible doesn’t mandate specific meeting times, other than an emphasis on meeting on the Lord’s Day. We should not be hesitant to adapt to the culture we find ourselves in. Our age is so busy, that packing in an extra service on the Lord’s Day usually doesn’t lead to a more restful and worshipful reality. More services might be better, but must all worship and study be done in a formal church gathering? In many churches, the faithful are worn out from all the service they render for the church and don’t have enough energy left to get much out of the final service of the day. It seems the more active a church is, the more services it requires of its members–and the more obligated and stretched these members feel.

Many consevative churches eschew the evening service to make small groups easier to schedule. It isn’t about avoiding church so much as encouraging more effective ministry and fellowship. Other churches don’t want to ask too much of people preferring their members to focus on the primary message and enjoy rest and fellowship with their families.

An extra service may weigh down the congregation. It can become a measuring stick to see who is performing well. My legalistic heart and background probably clouds my perception, but I find such demands burdensome and have a hard time resisting the urge to measure up every chance I can. Worship should be about the Lord, not about us checking off boxes or jumping through hoops. Personally, I enjoy the freedom of an extra night with family – and more time to think on the things I’ve heard and studied. Every other Sunday afternoon we host a small group in our home. We can do this much more easily without the extra burden of another service.

I’m spurred to share my thoughts on this in light of a recent article from a Fundamental Baptist leader, Paul Chappel. His article is not intended to offend, but it is almost impossible not to read between the lines and see what he really thinks of churches that don’t have a Sunday evening service. Another pastor recently shared a response that was charitably written and helpful. Reading the two posts back to back can give a fuller picture and provide a helpful contrast in evaluating this topic.

Don’t get me wrong, Sunday evening services can be wonderful. There is nothing wrong with churches choosing to meet regularly in this way. But neither is there anything wrong with churches choosing to drop such a service. May we view people on both sides of this question with respect and love. May God bless us as we seek to follow Him more closely, in our families and our churches.

Here are the posts for your further consideration and I welcome any comments below.

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.