Tag: Theology

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

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

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

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

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

Reading “A Puritan Theology” Together

~ Bob Hayton

puritantheologyOver at SharperIron, we just posted Craig Hurst’s review of A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life by Joel Beeke and Mark Jones. This looks like a great resource for plumbing the depths of Puritan theology.
Tim Challies of Challies.com, has just started a read along of the last section of this book which focuses on practical theology, the “so what?” of systematic theology, if you will. For the next eight weeks you can read one chapter a week with Tim Challies and read an interview of Dr. Beeke about that chapter.

Go over to Challies.com to check out this week’s post. The book is available at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com or Christianbook.com or your local Christian bookstore.

Singing Theologically: Modern Hymns and the Atonement

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Several years ago I highlighted the advent of the “Modern Hymn.” Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, along with others, have revived and reinvented the hymn for our generation. The most well known modern hymn, is perhaps one of the best: “In Christ Alone.” This song ranks up there with other greats and is as widely sung and loved today as “Amazing Grace.”

Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, recently highlighted the refusal of the authors of “In Christ Alone,” to allow it to be slightly edited and thus included in a new Presbyterian (PCUSA) hymnal. George lauds that decision, since the proposed edit would take out the idea of Christ bearing God’s wrath for sin. Here is the proposed edit:

From: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the wrath of God was satisfied.”

To: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the love of God was magnified.”

George’s article, “No Squishy Love” was shared and discussed online and in print so much, that he has followed it up with a part 2, today. One of the places where his first article was discussed was Sharper Iron; and this most conservative of online evangelical blogs, was not even immune from those who argued against the idea that Jesus bore God’s wrath for sin. Truthfully the orthodox idea of Jesus bearing the punishment of our sin on the cross is facing hard times today.

The follow up piece by Dr. George, doesn’t back down from defending the satisfaction theory of the atonement, and it includes more historical insight on the question. In the piece, George also highlights another hymn with theological substance, “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us,” by Stuart Townend.

For my part, we should be glad that modern hymns are not as substance-less as some of the praise songs of the last few decades. Unadulterated joy and songs of intense emotion are needed, yes. But the didactic value of theologically rich hymns, which both move and instruct, is untold. May a new generation of hymn-writers pick up the mantle of Isaac Watts and continue to give the church faithful hymns for the next generation.

Reformation Gems 6: Henry Airay on Confidence Only in Christ

~ Bob Hayton

Reformation Commentary on Scripture Series: Volume 11 (Philippians, Colossians)Reformation Gems are excerpts from selections contained in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, a new commentary series from IVP which gathers the best Reformation-era comments on the text together all in one set. The volumes in this commentary series resurrect long-forgotten voices from the Reformation age and in so doing they recover the piety and vivacity of that era. I hope that by sharing some excerpts from this series, I will edify my readers and promote this important commentary series.
 _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ 

Today’s selection comes from the latest volume in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series: Volume XI (Philippians, Colossians). Henry Airay, was the author of “one of the seventeenth century’s most prominent commentaries on the book of Philippians in English” (p. xlix). In commenting on Phil. 3:4-6, Airay zeroes in on the importance of placing one’s confidence in nothing but Christ.

Here is the excerpt from Airay’s work originally published in 1613 (with key sentences bolded for emphasis):

Confidence in Nothing but Christ.

Henry Airay: Let this, then, teach us not to have confidence in any outward thing whatsoever without Christ. You are baptized; it is well: so was Simon Magus (Acts 8:13). [You partake of] the Lord’s Table; it is well: so, no doubt, did Judas. He who eats and drinks worthily is made one with Christ, and Christ with him. But “he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks his own damnation” (1 Cor. 11:29). You are born of holy and godly parents; it is well: so were Ishmael and Esau. “They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom. 9:8). You are of a holy profession; it is well: so was Demas. Holiness of profession does not commend to God, but a heart purified by faith which works through love. You distribute to the poor and do many good things; it is well: so did the Pharisees, and the young man in the Gospel (Mt 19:20). “Though I feed the poor with all my goods, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor 13:3). In a word, there is nothing under heaven without Christ that does profit us, so that we should rejoice or have confidence in it. (pg. 75, words in brackets added in an attempt to capture the flow of Airay’s thought)

About the Reformation-era author: Henry Airay (c. 1560-1616). English Puritan professor and pastor. He was especially noted for his preaching, a blend of hostility toward Catholicism and articulate exposition of English Calvinism. He was promoted to provost of Queen’s College Oxford (1598) and then to vice chancellor of the university in 1606. He disputed with William Laud concerning Laud’s putative Catholicization of the Church of England, particularly over the practice of genuflection, which Airay vehemently opposed. He also opposed fellow Puritans who wished to separate from the Church of England. His lectures on Philippians were his only work published during his lifetime. (pg. 264)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XI (Galatians, Ephesians) at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon, Christianbook.com, or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

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

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.