Tag: debate

Defining KJV-Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

This post is from is from my newly redesigned, group KJV Only Debate blog.

KJV Onlyism is hard to define. And like any grass roots movement, there are many competing manifestations of it. As a former, self-dubbed “KJV-onlyist” I will try to carefully put forth a definition. I know I’m going to say something wrong here and won’t please everyone, but I hope the end result is helpful for those new to the debate.

Simple Definition

The KJV-only position holds that the only Bible an English speaking Christian should use is the King James Bible. While some KJV-only proponents bristle at the label viewing it as a derogatory term, most don’t hesitate to affirm it. In KJV-only circles, you cannot disavow the label. Rather, you qualify it.

Now, for study, some KJV-onlyists may allow the use of other translations. But for memorization, church preaching and teaching, and general reading, the KJV should be the only version of the Bible one uses.

Why the King James Bible?

Different KJV-onlyists will offer different answers to this question. These are some of the common arguments used by most KJV-onlyists.

The Better Text Argument — The KJV is the only widely used Bible exclusively based on the Textus Receptus Greek & Masoretic Hebrew Texts.

The Better Doctrine Argument — The differences between the KJV and other Bible versions are examined and the KJV’s readings preserve a superior doctrine and more of Jesus Christ’s divine titles.

The Conspiratorial Argument — The manuscripts that support the newer Greek text were only found recently and were found in areas like Egypt where false doctrine was prevalent.

The Historical Argument — The Reformers and Puritans used the KJV and it launched worldwide missions and the Great Awakenings.

The Better Manuscripts Argument — The manuscripts that support the text behind the KJV agree with one another closely, don’t show signs of textual corruption and represent the vast numerical superiority – 90% of the manuscripts.

The Better Translation Argument — The KJV translators were masters of English and knew Greek and Hebrew and multiple other languages far better than translators today, plus they used a literal translation technique instead of the dynamic or loose method in vogue today.

Groupings of KJV-Onlyists

I mentioned before that there are numerous manifestations of KJV-onlyism. Sometimes the different groups are treated like one entity. I want to be careful to distinguish terms and not broad-brush the entire movement by the crazy antics of Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger, for example.

Generic KJV Only Position — Most KJV Onlyists find themselves here. They haven’t thought out a more specific position, or just believe the KJV is the only Bible that should be used and leave it at that.

English is Inspired View — This view takes issue with anyone correcting the KJV English. Since the Bible seems to show translations of the OT as being treated like they were inspired, the English is treated like it is inspired. Some versions are more strict than others, but all bow to the KJV as the final authority before they would trust a lexicon or dictionary.

Double-Inspiration View — This view goes further and says the English corrects the Greek. In some sense the KJV was inspired directly by God. People with this view (and some of those in the previous view) would hold that translations of the Bible into other languages must be guided by the English of the KJV.

Pure Seed View — This idea comes from 1 Pet. 1:23-25 and basically claims that the use of the KJV is essential for people to be saved. No one can be saved from an impure seed (the NIV, for instance). Any of the first three positions above could hold to this view as well, but no one in the next three camps would.

TR Only View — This view holds the Greek and Hebrew as superior to the Greek, but also holds that they were word-perfectly preserved. The text behind the KJV usually is the text held to be the word-perfect copy of the original text. The word of God is “intact” in English, and while they would correct the sense of the KJV through scholarship and original language study, they still would not see this as any kind of overt error in the KJV. Few if any, TR-onlyists use the NKJV however.

Ecclesiastical Text — This view places greater stress on church confessions and the historic use of the Textus Receptus by the church of the Reformation period and afterward. Some in this view would hold to errors in either the TR or the KJV, and some would use the NKJV or 21st Century KJV.

Majority Text — This view should be distinguished from the previous views. Proponents of the Greek Majority Text may or may not use the KJV or NKJV. They hold to a textual theory of the superiority of the Byzantine view, but they acknowledge the merits of careful, believing scholarship and textual criticism. As the Majority Text as such didn’t exist prior to 1980, they don’t see adherence to that text as a binding matter of faith for all Christians.

King James Preferred — This view is held by some who see some weaknesses with the King James Only position, but still believe the TR is the best text we have or else use the King James primarily for traditional or other reasons.

Debating Calvinism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 118 Comments

Over the years, I’ve hosted some serious debates on many of the issues relating to Fundamentalism. I’ve had debates on various aspects of Calvinism too.

Recently in an old post on my blog, buried where few can see it, have been some comments by Greg and Don wanting to debate me on Calvinism. The insinuation was recently left that I don’t want to debate that topic or that I won’t allow a debate on it. To make such an enterprise simpler, I had asked that Greg read my explanation of the 5 points of Calvinism.

He’s done that, but I keep missing his comments because on very old posts on my blog the comment notifier doesn’t work for me (since I ported those posts over to my blog from my free wordpress.com blog). So I’m going to move that debate to this post.

In the comments, you can expect to see some interchange on that topic, and I’ll copy Greg’s most recent comment over and give my reply. We’ll see where that goes.

Rules for this comment thread are you must 1) read my explanation of the 5 points of Calvinism, and 2) try to stick to the Calvinism debate and 3) debate charitably following the spirit of my commenting policy. If you’re up to the challenge dive in. Know that I’ve been under the weather lately and have some catch up to do at work so I may not be interacting over here as regularly or quickly as I would like. But I will see all the comments and be sure to respond.

Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (part 1)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

From time to time, I get feedback from readers that they wish I hadn’t gone so far in my reforms and actually abandoned dispensationalism. They view that move as more a pendulum swing on my part or being unduly influenced by the attraction of Reformed thinkers. I admit that such tendencies are real, and we should all watch out for the tendency to be carried away by the charismatic appeal of any given leader whom we respect. But my views on dispensationalism, I hope, are informed by my careful study of Scripture.

I am less hesitant of progressive dispensationalism, and I haven’t necessarily landed when it comes to new covenant theology or covenant theology proper. But when it comes to classic dispensationalism as originally taught by Chafer and Scofield, and as further elaborated by Ryrie, Walvoord and others, I have strong reservations. Certain beliefs and tendencies of classic dispensationalism contradict Scripture in my opinion and affect one’s entire outlook on the Scriptures. For me, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 were significant in directing me away from dispensationalism. Ephesians 2 is also a pivotal passage. I’ve blogged on Romans 4, in my series Understanding the Land Promise. Today I want to start a 3 part series on Ephesians 2.

For this series, I’m going to borrow from Kenneth Gentry’s study on “Dispensationalism and Ephesians”. He shares 6 points from Ephesians that he believes contradict the foundations of dispensationalism. I am choosing the 3 that were meaningful to me, in my own journey away from dispensationalism. Don’t misunderstand me, by borrowing from his blog with its controversial name: AgainstDispensalism.com, I am not advocating a mean and spiteful view of dispensationalists. I held to classic dispensationalism for many years and I know many good people who take a generally dispensationalist approach. I’m borrowing form Gentry’s study purely because I can, and it will make it easier for me to discuss why I believe Ephesians 2 is so detrimental to dispensationalism’s claims.

Without further ado, here is the first point from Ephesians 2 which I find so important for this whole debate.

The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God’s redemptive plan.

The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book’s first edition: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” According to Ryrie: “A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.” He then states rather dogmatically: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

We must note two aspects of the matter that come undermine the system. In dispensationalism’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul’s epistle?

Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11–19:

“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “˜Uncircumcision’ by the so-called “˜Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands “” remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.”

Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:

1. Paul states that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.
2. He argues that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.
3. He reiterates the Gentiles’ former condition that has now been changed: “But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected “peace” in that he “made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.
5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made “the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.
6. He recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” This is their new experience and condition.
7. He continues by insisting that Christ “came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.
8. He states still again that “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.
9. He declares this fact once again: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
10. He insists: “but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God’s [singular] household” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
11. Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of “the [singular] whole building, being fitted together” and “are being built together” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.

Dispensationalism distinguishes Jew and Gentile permanently. Paul merges the two into one new body permanently.

I can attest that a separation between Israel and the Church was drilled into me in Bible College. It certainly is the distinguishing characteristic of classic dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalists seem to ditch that point, from what I’ve read). I don’t know how you can read Eph. 2 and come away with the idea that God didn’t break down the barriers and make of the two peoples “one new man”. If that’s what God did, then where do we see here the concept of going back to the two separate peoples again at some point? Parallel to this is Rom. 11, we see there the Gentiles are grafted into a single Olive tree from which unbelieving Israel was broken off of. At a later point Israel may be grafted back in, but they will be grafted back into the single Olive tree, there won’t be two Olive trees, one Jewish and one Gentile.

Stay tuned for part 2 of this series.

The Push for 5,000

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

I have a special mark approaching for my blog. In October, it will be 5 years of blogging. But sooner than that, I will hit the 5,000 approved comments mark.

I’ve run the full gamut of comments over the years. I’ve seen many helped, and several ticked off. I have had hundreds of people share that my story has blessed them and that they find my blog helpful. I’m grateful that sharing my thoughts like this has been a blessing for so many. I’ve also had my share of critics and debates. In the early days of my blogs, we’d run up 50 comments plus and dozens of pages of interaction on some of my posts. Occasionally I’ve had to delete some over-the-top comments, as well, and I won’t even mention all the spam (none of the deleted comments count toward the 5,000, by the way).

I appreciate those who’ve read my blog over the years, and am thankful for all this interaction. I’ve even been blessed to be able to consider many of you as my blogging friends — and meet some of you in person.

In honor of the 5,000 mark soon approaching, I thought I’d do a push for some comments and give out a prize to the person with comment #5,000. I won’t tell you how far away from the 5,000 mark I am, but it is easily attainable by comments to this post, or some of the other recent posts. I would imagine we could hit it today or tomorrow.

The prize will be your choice of one of three books I have available to give away. To enter, just leave a comment on this or any post. If your comment is #5,000 you win. Please until this contest is over, limit yourself to one comment per post with a max of 3 comments per person — to be fair to everyone. To save the expense to me, I’m going to limit the contest to residents of the U.S.A., although I must say I’ve been blessed to have faithful readers beyond the borders of America.

Here are the three books which the winner can choose from. Click on the picture for more details. Thanks again for making this blog successful, and for taking the time to drop comments. I always appreciate the interaction.

Why 1611 Makes All the Difference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Over at my team King James Only debate blog, Damien Garofalo has an excellent post up that’s well worth your time. The picture above captures the essence of it. Pre-1611 Bibles vary from the KJV as much as modern versions do. But to most KJV Onlyists, that’s okay. The modern versions are to be rejected but many pre-1611 Bibles are just fine because they are in the lineage of “Good Bibles” that eventually produced the 1611 gem, the King James Version.

Here’s a snippet from the post, but I encourage you to go read the whole thing.

…I’m not sure if this sort of view has been pointed out before, but I refer to the “Trail of Blood View of Preservation” as basically the one that I was taught in Bible college. We can also call this the “It’s There Somewhere View.” Obviously, I get the label from J. M. Carroll’s Book, The Trail of Blood, which basically serves as an end-all textbook (though it’s paper-thin) to the question of Baptist origins for many independent Baptists. The basic premise is that independent Baptists like the groups of the 20th century can be found all throughout history if you just look hard enough (and revise along the way). Heretical groups like the Cathari along with questionable groups like the Donatists and Albigenses are listed as forerunners of modern day independent Baptist churches. Though some of them may not have believed the deity of the Lord Jesus, they were opposed to the state church or even practiced anabaptism, so they were included in the lineage. When a reconsideration is brought up against this view, one is quickly reminded that the “winners write the history books” and we must “take by faith” that these groups were all Baptists.

Likewise, the Trial of Blood view of preservation does the same thing. Since the premise of this view is based on biblical passages of preservation, and the conclusion of this view is that the preserved words are in the King James Version of 1611, then logically there must be a version that is just as much the Word of God as the KJV for Christians throughout the ages. However, it doesn’t have to be mainstream. It doesn’t have to be the most widely read or known. It simple has to exist. So it’s not the Vulgate, though the majority of Christians only knew of it for 1100 years. But less popular Bibles like the Italic, Old Latin, the Peshitta, and the Waldensen Bible make the list. Because some psuedo-scholars point out possibly Byzantine readings in these older versions, the Trail of Blood adherents believe they fulfill the requirements for a pre-1611 KJV. Where was the Word of God before 1611? Why, the Italic version of course! It is mainly this view that I am calling into question in this post.

The fact is that these versions do not fully agree with the King James. And this is the double standard. How can we approve of pre-1611 Bibles even though they’re different than the KJV, but whole-heartedly reject modern versions for their differences? In all likelihood, many modern versions are closer to the KJV than any of the Bibles listed on the “good” tree. The Peshitta, for example, omitted entire books from its NT cannon. This means the NIV, ESV, NET Bible and others are closer to the KJV than the Peshitta. Yet, the Peshitta enjoys a place on the “good line of Bibles” in many a King James Only work….