Tag: History

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.

An Accurate Assessment of Christian Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

I came across an excellent article written by Steve Whigham, a graduate of BJU (apparently) and former administrater/faculty member of Northland International University, now working for World Magazine. [HT: Sharper Iron] His thoughts come with the recent controversy at Northland where the university board fired and then subsequently re-hired Matt Olson as president. Steve points out what others have mentioned, that the controversy was precipitated primarily by Northland’s change in its music. Whether or not that charge (that music is what the controversy at Northland is most about) is correct, Whigham’s rehashing of the history of fundamentalism is worth reading. I have excerpted some of the good parts here, but encourage you to read the whole thing.

This brouhaha about Northland has served to remind me of my reasons for not being a part of the fundamentalist movement. As Whigham points out, the original fundamentalists, historic fundamentalism if you will, prized certain fundamental points of doctrine as worth unifying around and defending. The fundamentalist movement today is prizing doctrines that are not truly fundamental — such as one musical style over another, and unifying around and defending these sub-fundamental doctrines. This is something I don’t see as healthy or helpful. Some of the sub-fundamentals that are being prized may well be good and grand in themselves. But the essence of what fundamentalism entails — prioritizing and defending cardinal truths of the gospel — this essence is lost when something less than the gospel becomes the main thing. I tried to say something to this effect years ago in my post, “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”

Here is the except from Whigham’s article, which you should bookmark as a helpful summary of the history and problem of today’s Christian fundamentalism.

In the late 1960’s and following, Fundamentalism mobilized its arsenal to a new battle front: sheltering the Christian faith from the worldly influences of an American culture run amok. Drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll were the targets… As it relates to practical Christian living, for many fundamentalists the mantra became, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” So, many preachers began to wage campaigns against certain “worldly” behaviors and drew bold lines between the world and the fundamentalist norm. Women’s dress (skirts only, and must cover the knee) must be modest, “mixed” bathing (allowing girls and boys to swim together at the beach or pool) should not be allowed in order to protect each other from youthful lusts, men’s hair length (shouldn’t be over the ear), listening to rock music, smoking, holding hands for unmarried couples, and a host more, became not only expected behaviors within Fundamentalism, but was also touted as clear biblical mandates….

By the end of the 1980’s, the fight against modernism and German higher
criticism appeared to be over, but the fighting spirit of the movement continued… The battle lines were no longer being fought over the core doctrines of the faith (as was true in the early years) but rather over acceptable behaviors for a fundamentalist. The battles were no longer waged over theology, but over practical Christian living.

Today, there’s a new generation rising up within Fundamentalism which has little to no connection to the historical roots of the movement. These young millennials see a community led by perpetually angry leaders obsessed and divided over issues that have little to do with the more important expressions of Christian doctrine. What they perceive instead is a movement that is more about arbitrary command and control tactics to subdue behavior than about Christ’s core intentions for mankind. It’s a battle that appears to them as having shifted away from morals to mores. Many younger members of fundamentalist communities are no longer seeing “the Fundamentalist Cause” as worth fighting for and are choosing to leave the community for less rancorous pastures. What Fundamentalism is currently experiencing is, with a few exceptions, a decline in church attendance, a drop in fundamentalist school enrollment, and even a sharp reduction in the number of fundamentalist pastors and missionaries being sent out.

Fundamentalism is shrinking quickly and losing its next generation. As Fundamentalism shrinks, the remaining voices in the movement are becoming more shrill. In their sermons and blogposts you can sense the desperation….

In the beginning, the issues Fundamentalism chose to rally around united a community. They united because: (1) the issues were authentic fundamentals and (2) unity was still valued as a vital doctrine of the faith. By today’s use of slash-and-burn rhetoric against anyone with a different take on a point of Christian liberty, unity has been devalued. In order to protect the enclave, Christ’s call for unity has been stripped of all its moral weight. Currently, the issues most “surviving fundamentalists” are now opting to rally around divide rather than unite. And as long as their current fields of battle remain the same, I cannot see the end of the shrinking anytime soon….

Quotes to Note 35: Calvin’s Encouragement to a Backslider

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I just finished Renée of France (Bitsize Biographies) by Simonetta Carr (Evangelical Press, 2013). Renée was a duchess in the realm of Ferrara, a small country in what is today known as Italy. A long-time supporter of the Reformation, Renée had met John Calvin and corresponded with him throughout his life. In 1554, she was pressured to publicly rejoin the Catholic church, which she did after much resistance. In 1555, not knowing the certainty of what Renée had done, but fearing that she had capitulated temporarily to the pressure, John Calvin wrote a letter exhorting Renée not to allow her sinful “backsliding” to keep her down permanently. Calvin’s advice to Renée is pertinent to all of us who are “prone to wander.”

Besides, Madame, since our good God is always ready to receive us in his grace and, when we fall, holds out his hand that our falls may not be fatal, I entreat you to regain strength. If, through your weakness, the enemy has gotten this one time the better hand over you, may he not have the final victory, but may he know that those whom God has lifted again are doubly strengthened against any struggle.

Renée afterward returned to the Reformed faith, remaining faithful until death. May you be blessed by Calvin’s encouragement and continue to “press on” each day!

Calvin on Christ’s Death and Resurrection

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Christ is Risen! Happy Easter everyone. I encourage us all to spend some time contemplating Christ’s death and resurrection today.

The following excerpt is from Coffee with Calvin by Donald K. McKim (Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), a book of devotional thoughts excerpted from Calvin’s Institutes.

Christ’s Death and Resurrection

Therefore, we divide the substance of our salvation between Christ’s death and resurrection as follows: through the death, sin was wiped out and death extinguished; through his resurrection righteousness was restored and life raised up, so that — thanks to his resurrection — his death manifested its power and efficacy in us. (Institutes 2.16.13)

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ go together. Jesus’ resurrection follows his death in the Gospels. Jesus’ death is the necessary prelude to his resurrection. Theologically, each is important for salvation to occur.

Calvin indicates ways the death and resurrection of Christ are key for believers. Through Jesus’ death, sin is obliterated and the power of death is broken. Somehow, through the death of Jesus, God forgives our sin and wipes away its power to hold us in its clutches. The ultimate result of sin — death — is snuffed out by the death of Christ. Jesus underwent death and through his death the power of death over us is taken away. This is why the cross is so central in Christianity. In the cross of Christ we find that sin’s power is wiped out and death’s power is extinguished.

The death of Christ has these effects because of Christ’s resurrection. God raised Jesus from the dead so that Christ’s death can have its sin-forgiving, death-defeating power. The resurrection established God’s power in Christ over the powers of sin and evil, restoring righteousness for the world and raising Christ to new life so that from now on, new life for believers can be real. This is the celebration of Easter and all days when the resurrection of Christ is remembered. “Thanks to his resurrection,” says Calvin, Christ’s death works its power in us. Sin is forgiven; death is conquered. This is the glad news of salvaion. (Kindle loc. 684-693)

You can pick up a copy of Coffee with Calvin at the following online retailers: Christianbook.com and Amazon.com.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the Westminster John Knox Press. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

John Dickerson on the Fragmentation of Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The Great Evangelical Recession by John S DickersonIn my recent review of John Dickerson’s new book The Great Evangelical Recession, I was not able to spend as much time as I would have liked on Dickerson’s thoughts regarding the “fragmentation of evangelicalism.” This dis-unity of evangelicalism is indeed a problem, but there are a host of competing views as to what is the exact nature of this problem!

In his book, I found Dickerson’s emphasis on this point to be superb. He boldly calls the church to draw a clear line as to who is in and who is out of the evangelical movement, particularly with regard to the abandonment of penal substitution and inerrancy (p. 157). With regard to these positions, Dickerson says, “I believe it’s time we graciously call such revisions what they are: non-evangelical” (p. 157). Yet at the same time, he labors to point out how we need to be less divisive on the non-essential matters such as politics and some of our doctrinal differences. He lauds Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga and Carl F.H. Henry as men who “parsed a difficult trail between theological liberalism on the left and belligerent reactionism on the right” (p. 219). “True evangelicalism,” he says, “is uncompromising on the essentials and unconditionally gracious on the non-essentials” (p. 161).

In a recent interview of the author by Trevin Wax, Dickerson elaborates again on his vision for evangelical unity. The exchange below is reflective very much of my own views, at this point. I guess I could consider myself a “true evangelical” (if we want another label to be thrown around)! I remain conservative in theology but see the need to be welcoming and gracious (to a point) in how I hold to my various theological and cultural positions. I am interested in my readers’ thoughts on this topic and their assessment of Dickerson’s view as well. So read the excerpt below and let me know what you think.

Trevin Wax: What role does the fragmentation of evangelicalism into distinct tribes and camps play in the “recession” you believe is on the horizon? What can Christians do to combat this tendency toward fragmentation?

John Dickerson: In the book I get to spend two chapters – Dividing and Uniting – on these questions. This is one of my favorite topics, because Jesus spoke so often of the unity of His true believers (see John 17:20-23 in particular).

The power of diverse churches working together was, in my estimate, the greatest strength of American evangelicalism during the 20th Century. And yes, the “fragmentation” of the “movement” plays a huge role in the present decline of American evangelicalism.

Humanly speaking, it will take a miracle to combat fragmentation in the 21st Century. Presently, I see evangelicals falling into the same three positions they took during the early 20th Century, in the Fundamentalists vs. Liberalism debates.

I see more evangelicals separating and defining themselves by who they oppose. This is really a new manifestation of Fundamentalism. Simultaneously, other so-called “evangelicals” are getting soft on Scripture and atonement. They are essentially reincarnations of the old theological liberals who sabotaged the mainline denominations. History demonstrates that those extreme oppositional and capitulating views both fail Christ and the Church over time.

Back in the 1940′s and 50′s, Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga and Carl F.H. Henry, cut an intentional path between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. They avoided the militant negativity on one hand, and they avoided the spongy pluralism on the other. These men cast vision for an evangelical movement truly defined by both grace and truth. My heart, my real passion is for a new generation to step in where Graham, Ockenga and Henry once did, to rally evangelical believers around Christ again.

I pray regularly that God will lift up a new generation of Spirit-led 21st Century Evangelical leaders who will clean that old path between the two extremes—the path that is uncompromising on doctrine and Scripture, but also gracious, loving and ultimately focused outward, toward the world we are called to reach.

This was my driving passion in writing this book, to perhaps be a small voice in a bigger conversation toward evangelical unity in the 21st Century. It is a passionate prayer of mine that God raises up leaders like this for our generation – to lead souls and organizations down this road of uncompromising Grace and Truth. Biblical unity is more important than ever—but it’s also more challenging than ever.

Trevin Wax: What can Christians do to combat this tendency toward fragmentation?

John Dickerson: The book really digs into this, but here are a few passing thoughts.

  • We have to stop tearing each other down, period.
  • We have to actually believe Jesus’ words in John 17:23, when He prayed “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:23). According to Jesus, unity is a guaranteed apologetic for His followers. Because Jesus took this seriously, we’d better start taking it seriously.
  • We do have to graciously clarify non-evangelical departures from the atonement and the infallibility of Scripture, and part company when non-evangelical doctrines are held.
  • We have to start local—by praying with and caring for other pastors and leaders in our proximity.
  • We have to start praying for the Kingdom, beyond our own congregation and brand. At Cornerstone in Prescott, we often pray—by name—for other evangelical congregations in our city. We do this during our Sunday worship, as we pray that God’s Kingdom would truly come and His will would be done in our community.
  • We must unite around Christ Himself as the Head of the Church—and around His simple Gospel message of salvation by faith alone in His work on the cross alone.
  • We must maintain Scriptural authority as an essential in the unifying creeds. As the nursery song says, we only know how much Jesus loves me, because “the Bible tells me so.”

Pick up a copy of this book at Christianbook.com, Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or direct from Baker.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Baker Books. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.