False Accusations against the KJV.

Recently I unexpectedly found myself in the midst of a King James Version discussion with several college to young adult age people. I have pounded the subject out many times both in writing and verbally and have no desire to continue doing so, BUT the issue keeps resurfacing and is very important, so alas I do find myself in the battle often and rightly so.

There were some interesting arguments made against the King James Version that I found concerning, not only because I disagree with them, but because they are circulated in error (be that malicious intent or simple ignorance, the cause is irrelevant as the effect is the same.)

Here are the main arguments against the KJV per the discussion I was involved in.

1. “If you are for the KJV you are a heretical KJV-only person and hold to the 1611.” 

2. “The KJV is too hard to understand for the average 21st century American.” 

3. “The KJV’s language (thees and thous) is outdated.”  

4. “The KJV  English is Shakespearean.”

5. “The KJV mistranslated the Greek on many occasions and is therefore inferior to other versions.” 

I wish I could say I had never heard these accusations, but they are unfortunately par for the course. I may be accused of being a tad cynical, but I submit these arguments to be petty, ignorant and false. I don’t mean to insinuate the arguer is stupid or evil, they are most likely sincere but greatly misinformed or uniformed. Ignorance per se is not a malicious term for an uninformed person. Please understand I am not attempting to berate or degrade someone who uses such arguments. I am sincerely a bit disappointed with the professor or “cemetery” that taught them the arguments.

Here is my hopefully gentle and gently perceived response to the arguments:

1. Such a statement is quite unfair and makes a severe polarization. It is quite possible to be pro-KJV without holding to a KJVO position. The difference in the positions is vast and distinct. To sweep them into a singular position is ignorant and deceiving. Sadly it is a regularly employed tactic used by the Wescott / Hort camp most notably in the epic Wescott Hort manifesto “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man“: that book was the most influential and distorting work of our lifetime.

2. The KJV is rated on a 5th or 6th grade reading level, depending on the child’s pre-education grasp of vocabulary. Great works are never thrown out due to the reader’s lack of education or skill. This is either a testament to the United States’ ever declining literacy rate and the failure of the Public Education System. How can the KJV be considered faulty based on men’s failure to read?

3. The language, specifically “Thees and Thous” are specific pronouns lost in modern vernacular. To erase them is to lose great portions of meaning and specificity.

4. William Shakespeare had no influence on the KJV and preferred the Geneva Bible. The English in the KJV is actually called Elizabethan English and is classified by English  scholars and experts as MODERN ENGLISH. That is quite a shock to most, but 100 percent true.

5. (This one rubs raw a personal peeve of mine.) There are two Greek texts. Sadly, most Bible students are taught that the KJV mistranslated the Greek in many places. Such is the teaching of Doctrines classes in most Christian universities; BJU is certainly no exception. However, propagators of this error fail to mention the existence of two very different texts: The liberal, heritically influenced, unreliable and man-made text known as the Critical Text or as the Wescott Hort camp refers to as “the Alexandrian Text” and the providentially preserved, accurate, trusted, proven text, the Byzantine Text, or as the WH camp hates to call it, the Received Text or Textus Receptus.

So in light of that rarely mentioned fact, the KJV does not line up with the Wescott Hort / Critical Text; and thank the LORD! It instead lines up perfectly with the Textus Receptus. So in stead of admitting the KJV lines up with the TR, Wescott Hort supporters say the KJV mistranslates the Greek (their beloved Critical Text.) I do not make accusations lightly but that is deceptive and a lie. Now many who repeat those false teachings have no idea what they are truly saying so I give them benefit of the doubt and am careful not to throw accusations around at them, but Bible teachers and scholars and cemetery professors should know better and at least be fair and tell the whole story.

My conclusion is simple: No attempt of man nor spirit to destroy the authenticity and divine preservation of the KJV will ever succeed. It is the best available translation for the English-speaking people and has stood the test of time, accuracy and men’s vain attempts to undermine the Scriptures and pervert the Word of God.

Fundamentalist Conservatives: Stop Apologizing For Being One

It’s amazing how few churches and “Bible Belt” fundamentalists truly are conservative. Of course the term “conservative” is a comparative term, so please allow me to define it.

When I say fundamentalist conservative, I mean what some might consider “old fashioned” but not quite. There are several key aspects to conservative fundamentalism.

I mean someone who holds to a high view of scripture–meaning they believe in not only inspiration but preservation. Many would say they take this view, but limit it to the original manuscripts. This is double talk. We know none of the originals still exist; therefore the preserved copies allegedly no longer exist and all existing copies and bible translations are by de facto unpreserved. This view is descended from apostate liberals such as the English clergymen Wescott and Hort and has been propagated sadly by many fundamentalists  and religious institutions.

The propaganda is so vast yet so wrong and frankly ludicrous. It is a direct attack on the authority of scripture, the person of Christ and I believe Satan’s  greatest assault on the church from within. This war of truth is rampant, overwhelming and waged by religious elites who use  dishonest and deceitful tactics. It highly resembles political mudslinging. (for more on this topic, see David Sorenson’s “Touch Not The Unclean Thing.”)

Another characteristic of a fundamentalist conservative is they take the proverbial high ground towards religious worship. The Scriptures are clear and emphatic that God is to be worshipped in a reverent way that places the focus on Him and not us; it does not resemble the style and methods of the world, but is sacred and reserved for God.

Of all the issues in this discussion, this is the most heated and most sensitive among younger believers. Music is important in worship, but is nowhere near the importance of preaching; but those on the fundamentalist left love to bring music up to the level of preaching or even above it.

As if that flawed idea wasn’t enough, the music of choice is decreasingly that of hymns, but CCM and the emerging power house of Sovereign Grace Music (SGM). Besides their obvious imitation of worldly styles and blasphemous “worship,” I have real difficulty understanding how a fundamentalist could advocate using music of a new evangelical – charismatic organization which attempts to use worldly styles to market their product. It’s absolutely impossible for me to reconcile such a dichotomy. Simply ignoring the issue of SGM is not enough; there is an increasing number of churches and organizations that refuse to name SGM and stand against it. This is weakness and perceived as consent.

The younger generation cries out for that style. And sadly, some of the older generation are all too ready and willing to give it to them. No wonder students come out running to SGM and CCM. The Old Testament shows time and time again where the younger, foolish generation demands the old generation to give in to their whims and fancies toward worldliness. The older generation needs to step up and do the hard, but right thing and hold firm to the ancient landmarks. As a young man, I plead that they would choose the latter over giving in to foolish young people, who historically have been attracted to the world. Wisdom must prevail over whims; principle must trump preference.

Music is a sensitive issue that permeates deep into our person–and is therefore a natural weak spot. Music is often. Trojan horse by which liberalism can sneak in so deeply it is almost impossible to root out.

I have said this in the past and will again reaffirm that once people give in to the modern bible version lie, music is next.

The final issue could also be considered the underlying issue of conservative fundamentalism: separation. If fundamentalists get this one right, it is very likely they will get the rest right. If we understand that biblical separation is mandated and is clearly explained, we would not have to with Wescott, Hort or SGM.

The number one complaint, or as I call it–cop out–is this: “we need to have more love and less focus on externals.” This is such a lame attempt towards liberalism. We know God looks on the heart, but He also commands external obedience and separation.

The funny thing, at least to me, is the people crying loudest are ones who should just admit they are liberals and new evangelicals. Why pretend to be a fundamentalist? Just save yourself the grief and leave the camp. Quit playing games and pick your side. People like that will jump all over me for saying this, but at least I am openly a fundamentalist conservative. Don’t play the liberal game of pretending and being a chameleon.

In closing, we need to do three things:

1. Acknowledge the battle exists and is here to stay.

2. Understand the liberals vastly outnumber the conservatives and will use every lame excuse and tactic imaginable and that we are fighting those who truly don’t believe our current bible is inerrant and preserved. (Why should we be surprised at anything they believe and push?)

3. Boldly draw the line between liberal and conservative and stand. Call liberals out for who they are and quit the chameleon games. The first thing they will say is “we are being divisive and causing division in the church.”

I end with this: such a charge is a lie and ludicrous. Such was the charge Ahab made to Elijah. Ahab accused Elijah of troubling Israel. Elijah pointed out correctly and without playing the word game that Ahab was the one trolling Israel because he had departed from the Word of God, His commandments and led the people in a way of worship that replaced God and offended Him.

So there it is. We as fundamental conservatives must stop apologizing for being conservative and stop tiptoeing around liberal fundamentalists and call them out on what they are and what they are pushing.

What I Believe: A Series-based Doctrinal Statement (Part II)

About Scripture

God has spoken to His creation (man) through His holy word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that every single word of Scripture was breathed out by God, though penned by human authors and was verbally, plenarilly inspired without error. The Scriptures also say that it is completely without error and has been preserved inerrant. The Scriptures are the words of God, not men. He preserved each word, not mere concepts as erroneously taught in many religious institutions.

God has providentially preserved the original words of Greek into the English language through the Textus Receptus and NOT through the heretical and apostate work of men such as Wescott and Hort and their Critical Text used in popular translations such as the NIV and the NASB (Alexandrian Text.) While a King James Only position is erroneous, because the only two translations from the Textus Receptus are the KJV and the NKJV, the best English translation has been and still is the King James (Authorized) Version. I believe the KJV is God’s preserved choice for the English-speaking people.

Sadly, textual critics and opponents of the Received Text attempt to slander and defame the intelligence and scholarship of the TR crowd by accusing them of being King James Only–which states that the KJV can be used to correct the original manuscripts. This is an obviously flawed position, but it is used as a brand to rid the TR crowd from credibility.

Also sadly, most proponents of the Critical Text (of course it is no longer referred to as such) or the Alexandrian text do not realize that Bible translations come from either the CT or the TR.

So I conclude with this confident proclamation that in the Authorized Version, we have the entire, inerrant, preserved Word of God! Hallelujah! Let us never doubt or question the promises of God in the eternal preservation of His precious Word, and let us resign ourselves to defend it against all foes.    I quote the Psalmist: “If the foundations be removed, what can the righteous do?”

The Textus Receptus is backed by Scriptural promises of inerrancy, preservation and eternal endurance and by history. It is the text that was accepted by the Church without question until the 1800′s when the modern methods of textual criticism and humanism introduced the Alexandrian text–mainly produced by the English apostates Wescott and Hort.

To ignore the overwhelming evidence for the authority and authenticity of the Textus Receptus and the apostate and humanistic Critical Text would be to ignore historical facts, Scriptural truths and to enter very dangerous ground.

Touch Not the Unclean Thing: by David Sorenson

 

 

I would like to whole-heartedly endorse and strongly recommend this excellent, scholarly, yet easy to understand book on the King James Version controversy. It is an answer to the controversial “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man” book. It is not with a hostile spirit Sorenson writes, but with a humble, search for truth.

Sorenson has done the Christian community a great service by making the technical issue easy for even the most unskilled theologian to fully grasp. He simplifies terms and gives a clear picture of the issue that keeps the reader from losing focus.

He shows from the very words of Scripture that the Bible is the inerrant, verbally inspired Word of God. He refutes the liberal, modern concept that God gave the Bible writers concepts and allowed them to insert their own wording and that not every single original word survived, but only the concept. The Bible says every single word, even the smallest marks will be preserved for eternity.

He shows the two groups of Greek texts, the Critical (Alexandrian) Text and the Received (Textus Receptus) Text. He also shows that the CT was scientifically engineered by apostates and liberals, while the TR was historically preserved by God-fearing believers and the Biblical principle of preservation.

In short, the only two Bible translations from the TR are the King James Version and the NKJV. All other (modern) versions are based on the CT. This should concern us.

The book IS NOT preaching a KJV ONLY position. It is preaching a Textus Receptus position.

May God bless the message and may the truth be known.

I hope you can get a hold of the book soon. KW

 

http://www.amazon.com/Touch-Not-Unclean-Thing-Separation/dp/0971138400/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314837673&sr=8-1

Interesting Article On Dr. Bob Jones Sr. and the KJV

I have waited for over 7 years to write this article and to even discuss this issue in such detail in a public setting. I am not angry, hurt maybe, but not malicious or seeking “blog revenge.” That is not my attitude or motive. I believe this is a much needed contribution to the Authorized Version issue and that I have just as much right as any U.S. citizen, guaranteed freedom of speech, to make my experience and view known. I want this article to be taken in slowly and calmly. I want you to think and hard.

I am not here to prove the historical and textual superiority of the King James Version over all other English translations. Greater and much older men have done this much better than I could hope to. (I have a page full of such works at my blog homepage. “Authorized Version Resources.“) I am interested in observing the history of the University’s position on the version issue and honestly presenting a case that their statement and their practice are not unified.

The King James Version controversy is not brand new to Fundamentalism, but it is not historically that old either. The issue is quite pertinent to you and I as believers who claim to believe the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Therefore this article is a profitable use of our reading time.

No true Christian doubts or denies the inspiration of the Bible. It is an impossible conflict for a believer. However, there are many who, regardless of their arguments otherwise, who have great exception with the preservation of the Bible. These two bold font words are separate terms entirely.

Please examine the article for its presentation of facts and chronology. I thought this was an interesting article and believe it worth a read.

I urge you to carefully read it and come to your own conclusions, as any historian or seeker of truth should do.

KW

This is an article from http://www.fmh-child.org/BJU.html .

Bob Jones University:
Leveled By An Earthquake?

“Lord God if this school out here [Bob Jones University] ever compromises, send an earthquake and shake these buildings into powder and dust. Don’t ever let it stand here and encumber the earth and curse it by robbing people of faith in the Word of God. Hear us in this prayer and keep us doing all the things we pray in the precious Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. (How Shall Ye Believe? – Bob Jones, Sr.)

http://www.fmh-child.org/audio/How_Shall_Ye_Believe_short.mp3
- Send An Earthquake -
(Download MP3)

***************************

Bob Jones, Sr. (1883–1968), an evangelist and contemporary of Billy Sunday, established Bob Jones College in 1927 near Panama City, Florida. In 1933 the college was moved to Cleveland, Tennessee, and finally to its present location in Greenville, South Carolina in 1947 where it became Bob Jones University (BJU).

Bob Jones University, a non-denominational Protestant university, is the largest private liberal arts university in the state of South Carolina. It has the reputation of being one of the most conservative religious schools in the United States.

In fact Bob Jones University requires the King James Version Bible (KJV) to be used in its services and classrooms, but it does not hold to the belief that the KJV is the only acceptable English translation of God’s Holy Word (AKA “King James Only”). BJU has taken the position that the KJV is a substantially accurate translation, but only the original manuscripts of the Bible written in Hebrew and Greek are infallible and inerrant.

Bob Jones, Jr., who served as BJU president from 1947 to 1971, called the “King James Only” position a “heresy” and “in a very definite sense, a blasphemy.”

So, that’s what “Jr.” had to say on the “King James Only” subject. But what did his dad (Bob Jones, Sr.) have to say asbout it?

Well, in order to answer that question let’s start off with an excerpt from one of Bob Jones, Sr.’s radio program messages entitled “How Shall Ye Believe”:

Now we are facing great peril more dangerous, more serious, than we’ve ever known. Now Bob Jones University has taken it’s stand for the Bible. That’s the fight today: the Word of God! That’s the battleground right now. Is the Bible the Word of God? It’s essential that every man believes that the Bible is the Word of God if he’s going to be a Christian. Bob Jones University says ‘yes’ and no man is a Christian that doesn’t believe it. He can talk as pious as he pleases. If he tears out the first leaf of the Bible, Jesus said, if you don’t believe earthly things how do you believe heavenly things. When you convince a young fellow that the Bible is wrong in any particulate, you’ve sold his soul down the river and you’ve sent him out on a career in this world that’s hopeless and dark.
Now listen. You put in your Bible a little statement: “Whatever this Bible says is so!” Write it in your Bible there. Put it on the filing. Underscore it for your children. You’ll be saved. A lot of these fellows are half-baked; they just don’t know. They know how to run an organization, but they just don’t know what the Word of God teaches. And you can’t know until you approach it with a spiritual understanding. Then if you believe what’s said about the heavenly things you’ll believe what’s said about the earthly things.
Oh Lord God help us in this day when so much disturbance, and people so upset all over the world, and all this agitation, and people don’t know where they are.No line of demarcation between folks that believe the Bible and folks that don’t believe the Bible. People say, “I believe this” or “I believe that” and “You don’t have to believe that”, and we’re trampling on the Word of God that’s forever settled in Heaven. Lord God keep Bob Jones University true. May we never surrender. Let what come may come. Lord God if this school out here ever compromises, send an earthquake and shake these buildings into powder and dust. Don’t ever let it stand here and encumber the earth and curse it by robbing people of faith in the Word of God. Hear us in this prayer and keep us doing all the things we pray in the precious Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. (How Shall Ye Believe?)

http://www.fmh-child.org/audio/How_Shall_Ye_Believe.mp3
- How Shall Ye Believe -
(Download MP3)

So did you get the point of his message? Bob Jones, Sr. believed and preached that in order for anyone to become a real Christian they must believe “whatever the Bible says is so!” And as it applied to the religious institutions of higher learning such as BJU, Bob Jones Sr. adamantly proclaimed, “When you convince a young fellow that the Bible is wrong in any particulate, you’ve sold his soul down the river”… as in down the river to Hell! In fact we can pretty much sum up what Bob Jones, Sr. was preaching through the following Words of Jesus:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15 KJV)

Now with that in mind, it shouldn’t be too awful hard to understand why Bob Jones, Sr. prayed his prayer of sudden destruction on BJU if it ever taught anything other than “whatever the Bible says is so!” – “Lord God if this school out here ever compromises, send an earthquake and shake these buildings into powder and dust.”

But moving right along, the following excerpt from Bob Jones, Sr.’s radio program message “What The Bible Say’s Is So” will help us to understand the position he took on Bible translations other than the KJV:

The Bible is a true accurate Book. Now I have most of the translations in my library, and I’ve checked them, and I’ve never checked one translation against another where there was any difference when it comes to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They’re always as clear as day. Now there may be some kinds of little shade of meaning that might come out of the east, a little shade of meaning that might come out of the west that might not be exactly the same, see. Maybe a little different shade of meaning. But all the fundamental truths of the Bible are just as clear as day. Now what does the Bible say about that? The Bible says that “For ever thy word is settled in heaven.” Now that’s what God said. And God Almighty says in this Book if you take anything away from it He will take something away from you. If you add to it you’ll get some of the curses added to you. You better not tamper with that Bible. Woe be to the man that tampers with the Bible. The Bible claims to have come to us in the Words not which human wisdom teaches but which Divine Wisdom teaches. The very Words themselves, in the original language, are inspired – they’re chosen by the Holy Ghost. Now let’s get that clear, and there can’t be any misunderstanding.(What The Bible Say’s Is So)

http://www.fmh-child.org/audio/What_The_Bible_Says_Intro.mp3 - What The Bible Says (Intro) - (Download MP3)

http://www.fmh-child.org/audio/What_The_Bible_Says.mp3 - What The Bible Says - (Download MP3)

According to “What The Bible Says Is So”, Bob Jones, Sr. believed that the various Bible translations were “accurate translations” from the original languages when it came to the “fundamentals of Christian faith”. However, we learn something entirely different from his radio program message “We Speak That We Do Know”:

These translators of the revised Bible that we have, left out ‘only begotten’ in John 3:16. That’s the Devil’s blow with the deity of Christ. That’s the Devil’s method of striking the deity of the Son of God. So He is the “only begotten” Son of God. (We Speak That We Do Know)

So what happened? Bob Jones, Sr. had a change of heart! He discovered that not all Bible translations were accurate translations when it came to the “fundamentals of Christian faith”. I mean, after all, Jesus being the only “begotten” Son of God is one of the major “fundamentals of Christian faith”:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten (G3439) Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 KJV)

Only Begotten (G3439) [mon-og-en-ace] – From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: – only (begotten, child). (Strong’s Hebrew And Greek Dictionary)

When translated correctly, the Greek word “monogenes” (G3439) means “only begotten” or “only born”. Jesus was the second Person of the Godhead in Heaven – “the Word” – before He became “Flesh” on earth. Jesus was the only Son of God born/begotten through a Virgin Birth in order to take away the sin of the world:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of theonly begotten (G3439) of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-3, 14 KJV)

Jesus is God who became Man – the Messiah – in order to save a lost and dying world from the everlasting fires of Hell! However, many of the modern Bible translations have “revised” this doctrinal truth by deleting just one word – “begotten”. As Bob Jones, Sr. so accurately described it: “the Devil’s blow with the deity of Christ”! In fact here’s how just a few of them did it:

World English Bible (1901)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Hebrew Names Version (Modification of Word English Bible)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Weymouth New Testament (©1912)
“For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.”

Revised Standard Version (©1952)
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Bible in Basic English (©1965)
“For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life.”

Worldwide English (©1969)
“God loved the world so very, very much that he gave his only Son. Because he did that, everyone who believes in him will not lose his life, but will live for ever.”

New International Version (©1984)
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Good News Bible (©1992)
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.”

God’s Word (©1995)
“God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.”

New International Reader’s Version (©1996)
“God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

Holman Christian Study Bible (©1999)
“For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”

Today’s New International Version (©2001)
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

English Standard Version (©2001)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Message (©2002)
“This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.”

New Century Version (©2006)
“God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but have eternal life.”

New Living Translation (©2007)
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”

International Standard Version (©2008)
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.”

And with that in mind, it’s now time to uncover some of the details of this “revised” Bible that Bob Jones, Sr. so adamantly opposed. Because you see the “Revised Version” of 1881 was the first official attempt to update (pervert) the “(Authorized) King James Version Bible” in a major way… but there were many others to follow! In fact there were actually six (6) “revised” translations “begotten/born” from that original 1981 abomination called the “Revised Version”:

“Revised Version” And It’s Derivatives

Abbreviation	Name	Date
RV	(British) Revised Version	1881-1885
ASV	American Standard Version	1901
RSV	Revised Standard Version	1952
NASB	New American Standard Bible	1971, 1995
NRSV	New Revised Standard Version	1989
ESV	English Standard Version	2001
WEB	World English Bible	In progress

So which one was it? Which one of those “revised” Bibles did Bob Jones, Sr. discover to be the blasphemous mis-translation of God’s Holy Word?

Well, the facts are as follows:

1.) Bob Jones, Sr. recorded his radio program messages from 1927 until 1962. The message “We Speak That We Do Know”, in which he criticized the “revised” Bible, was one of those radio program messages. Because of the time limitations, the “revised” Bible had to be the “RV”, “ASV”, or “RSV”.

2.) The “Revised Version” and the “American Standard Version” both included “begotten” in their translation of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (RV) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (ASV)

3.) The “Revised Standard Version” of 1952 did not include “begotten” in it’s translation of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (RSV)

4.) Following the 1952 publication of the“Revised Standard Version”, large numbers of fundamentalists and evangelicals accused the translators of deliberately tampering with the Scriptures in order to deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. This “RSV” controversy helped reignite the “King James Only” movement within the Independent Baptist and Pentecostal churches. The “King James Only” movement was initially formed in protest to the “RV” and “ASV” publications, but remained low-key due to the versions’ lack of popularity.

So with those four (4) facts in mind, it is abundantly obvious that Bob Jones, Sr. joined hands with his “fundamental/evangelical” Brothers in Christ to protest the “Revised Standard Version” and it’s demonic ability to “convince a young fellow that the Bible is wrong in any particulate”.

But that’s only the beginning! There’s much more to this story! And the following from “Wikipedia” will help us get started:

The Revised Version (or English Revised Version) of the Bible is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version of 1611. It was the first and remains the only officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Bible. The work was entrusted to over 50 scholars from various denominations in Britain. American scholars were invited to cooperate, by correspondence. The New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1895. The best known of the translation committee members were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort…

You see it was “in the beginning” of these “revised” Bibles that the infamous team of “Westcott and Hort” were involved – infecting God’s Holy Word with their deadly satanic spirit. In fact what better proof of their evil spirit than a few verses from the 1881 “Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament” from which so many perverted versions of God’s Holy Word have been created. And in order to make this as simple as possible, we’ll use the “Texus Receptus Greek New Testament” from which the King James Version of the Bible was translated as a comparison (note: the red text in the “Texus Receptus Greek New Testament” denotes the Greek text that’s missing in the “Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament”):

Now for all those who don’t read Greek, the following is what the comparison looks like in English (note: the red text in the “KJV” denotes the text that’s missing in the “RV”, “ASV”, “RSV”, “NASB”, “NRSV”, “ESV”, and “WEB” [the last three are not shown for brevity]):

John 16:16

King James Version: A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

Revised Version: A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me. 

American Standard Version: A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me. 

Revised Standard Version: “A little while, and you will see me no more; again a little while, and you will see me.” 

New American Standard Bible: “A little while, and you will no longer see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me.”

Ephesians 3:9

King James Version: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Revised Version: and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which from all ages hath been hid in God who created all things; 

American Standard Version: and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; 

Revised Standard Version: and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 

New American Standard Bible: and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

1 John 5:6-8

King James Version: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Revised Version: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

American Standard Version: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Revised Standard Version: This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

New American Standard Bible: This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. ”:

So, with that in mind, let’s get back to what Bob Jones, Sr. had to say about those “other translations”:

The Bible is a true accurate Book. Now I have most of the translations in my library, and I’ve checked them, and I’ve never checked one translation against another where there was any difference when it comes to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. (What The Bible Say’s Is So)

That was what Bob Jones, Sr. had to say on the “other Bible translations” until he read the “Revised Standard Version” with it’s mis-translation of the Greek word “monogenes” (G3439) in John 3:16:

These translators of the revised Bible that we have, left out ‘only begotten’ in John 3:16. That’s the Devil’s blow with the deity of Christ. That’s the Devil’s method of striking the deity of the Son of God. (We Speak That We Do Know)

Now the Greek word “monogenes” was included in the “Westcott-Hort Grrek New Testament”… however, it was mis-translated in the “Revised Standard Version” in order to take away from the deity of Christ. So, if Bob Jones, Sr. got up in arms about the missing “begotten” word in the “Revised Standard Version”, what do you think he had to say about all the missing “Words of God” in John 16:16, Ephesians 3:9, and 1 John 5:6-8 that substantiate the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost)?

Well, it’s quite obvious that Bob Jones, Sr. would have never endorsed the “Westcott-Hort Grrek New Testament” as being “God’s Word” from the “original manuscripts”. No way! But yet we find the following truth about BJU from their pre 1986 publication “Position of the Bible Department of Bob Jones University on the Scripture”:

The dominating concern for all Bible-related courses, from English Bible to Theology and Ethics, in Bob Jones University is what the Bible teaches. This is of paramount importance to us because we believe in the verbal inspiration and absolute inerrancy of the Bible. We believe, as Fundamentalists have always believed, that this inspiration refers to the original manuscripts. “The record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Peter, or Paul as the case may be and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever” (The Fundamentals, “Inspiration of the Bible,” p. 127).
When we teach the content of the Bible, we naturally study a passage in the Greek Testament. To aid the students in understanding that passage, we will take to class the King James Bible, which often gives an exact rendering of the Greek. Sometimes we will consult some other conservative translation, such as the American Standard Version of 1901 or the New American Standard Bible (not the liberal R[evised] S[tandard] V[ersion]), which at times gives the most accurate rendering of the Greek… Because we believe in the inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, it is important that we have a Greek Testament that will be as close to the readings of the original as possible. Through the carelessness of scribes who copied manuscripts, many varying readings have crept into them. But God in His providence has preserved for us the original reading through the large number of manuscripts in existence that witness to the text of the New Testament. Today there are two Greek texts available. One is the Received Text, edited by [a] Roman Catholic scholar, Erasmus, in the sixteenth century and based on manuscripts of the late Middle Ages. It is often called the “Byzantine” or the “majority text.” The other is the Greek Testament, edited by Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century and based upon the manuscripts of the fourth century, usually called the “Alexandrian text.” The King James Version was based upon the “Received Text”; the American Standard Version was based upon the text of Westcott and Hort. We do not believe that either of these texts is “liberal” or “conservative.” (Read the entire positional statement.)

Amazing… wouldn’t you say? For Bob Jones University to consider the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible to be “conservative translations” and the Revised Standard Version to be a “liberal translation” is nothing but outright “heresy” to say the least! They are all “revised” Bibles – products of “Westcott and Hort” – and nothing less that an “abomination” in the Eyes of God! But yet the following “Statement about Bible Translations” is what you’ll find on the BJU Web site as of the 29th of October 2010:

[http://www.bju.edu/welcome/who-we-are/translation-position.php] (this is still the University’s position as of 02/06/2012.) 

So, what’s going on? Who was the scallywag that propped open the Bob Jones University back door and allowed Satan to come in with his perverted Bibles?

Well, it all goes back to Bob Jones, Jr. who took the reins from Bob Jones, Sr. and served as the BJU president from 1947 to 1971. I mean, after all, it was “Jr.” who called the “King James Only” position a “heresy” and “in a very definite sense, a blasphemy.”

And with all that in mind, the following question needs to be asked:

“When will the Lord God Almighty answer Bob Jones, Sr.’s prayer? When will He send that earthquake to shake the Bob Jones University buildings into powder and dust?”

Position of the Bible Department of Bob Jones University on the Scripture

- Bob Jones University Bible Department – Stewart Custer, Marshall Neal -
[http://www.wholesomewords.org/bjubible.html]

The dominating concern for all Bible-related courses, from English Bible to Theology and Ethics, in Bob Jones University is what the Bible teaches. This is of paramount importance to us because we believe in the verbal inspiration and absolute inerrancy of the Bible. We believe, as Fundamentalists have always believed, that this inspiration refers to the original manuscripts. “The record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Peter, or Paul as the case may be and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever” (The Fundamentals, “Inspiration of the Bible,” p. 127).

When we teach the content of the Bible, we naturally study a passage in the Greek Testament. To aid the students in understanding that passage, we will take to class the King James Bible, which often gives an exact rendering of the Greek. Sometimes we will consult some other conservative translation, such as the American Standard Version of 1901 or the New American Standard Bible (not the liberal R[evised] S[tandard] V[ersion]), which at times gives the most accurate rendering of the Greek. We are always trying to help the students grasp the exact meaning of the original Greek text. There are a few passages in which the delicate shades of meaning in the Greek are missed by all English translations, in which cases we must explain from the Greek text itself those fine shades of meaning. We would not use a liberal paraphrase in class except as an illustration of a mistranslation, which we would at once correct by a true translation. We have no sympathy with any version of the Bible that is not faithful to the Greek text.

Because we believe in the inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, it is important that we have a Greek Testament that will be as close to the readings of the original as possible. Through the carelessness of scribes who copied manuscripts, many varying readings have crept into them. But God in His providence has preserved for us the original reading through the large number of manuscripts in existence that witness to the text of the New Testament. Today there are two Greek texts available. One is the Received Text, edited by [a] Roman Catholic scholar, Erasmus, in the sixteenth century and based on manuscripts of the late Middle Ages. It is often called the “Byzantine” or the “majority text.” The other is the Greek Testament, edited by Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century and based upon the manuscripts of the fourth century, usually called the “Alexandrian text.” The King James Version was based upon the “Received Text”; the American Standard Version was based upon the text of Westcott and Hort. We do not believe that either of these texts is “liberal” or “conservative.” Not only Erasmus but also Westcott and Hort were seeking to present a close copy of the original text. We are interested in which one is closer to the original text of the New Testament.

Because (1) the Alexandrian manuscripts are much older and closer to the time the originals were written, (2) a careful comparison of these manuscripts with those of the Middle Ages has convinced us that a more accurate and careful job of copying was done by the Alexandrian scribes, and (3) Erasmus had to work in haste and with limited resources, it is our conviction that these Alexandrian manuscripts, which were not known to Erasmus, are, as a rule, the more accurate manuscripts to follow. Therefore, along with the great majority of conservative scholars, we believe that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the text based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages.

The portion of the New Testament that has any substantial variation between the various manuscripts is only about one word in a thousand. These variations in no way change the teaching of the New Testament on any doctrine. Therefore, we consider this not an issue of modernism versus conservatism but a matter of individual judgment on the part of Fundamental Christians. Christians should be free to choose and use either of these texts and still work together in harmony to teach and preach the Word of God to those who are without it.

Source: Bob Jones University. “Position of the Bible Department of Bob Jones University on the Scripture” (mimeograph). Office of the President, no date. Printed in Standing Without Apology: The History of Bob Jones University by Daniel L. Turner. Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, c1997. Appendix D., p. 322-323.In addition, “…both the Chancellor and the President issued statements to clarify the school’s position.” p. 244. And “in keeping with the University’s commitment to balance, it is interesting to note that among the Bob Jones University graduate school Bible faculty, there are some who hold to the superiority of the Majority Text and others who hold to the Westcott and Hort Alexandrian Text. None of the Bible faculty accepts the Textus Receptus of Erasmus as superior to either the Majority or Alexandrian texts.” p. 245.

Although no date is given for the above document, it was published by “The Flaming Torch” in 1985, indicating that it was written in 1985 or before. This document was also included as an attachment to a letter written by Thurmon Wisdom, dated October 4, 1989. ”:

END OF ARTICLE

As I noted in a parenthetical in the article, the University’s position has not changed since 1927. May I ask why so many churches, Christian leaders and institutions raised concerns at BJU and its Bible faculty over the Authorized Version issue? Well, any decent reading over the issue will clarify that many have and still believe BJU is favoring other versions and even chaffing at the KJV. However, please note that BJU maintains there campus translation is the Authorized KJV.

I am a History graduate from BJU, but started in Bible and then Pastoral Studies. I spent  months in Bible classes and preacher boys’ sessions. Not to mention all the chapels, fall, spring and summer I sat through. I came into BJU having heard all about the past clashes with Pensacola and pro KJV groups. I honestly thought it was not a huge issue and I would not encounter it while a student. Not so. From my first Doctrines class, I was confronted by the reality that the issue was very much alive and was a one-sided one.

I was surprised to hear that in the Freshman English classes, the students were not even allowed to write about the issue for a paper topic. I understand not wanting students to argue with the University about rules and policies through a paper, but even mentioning the issue? that BJU says they support? I was disturbed. Banning an issue is certainly no solution. There is one thing in this life that I have never allowed a teacher, preacher or anyone for that matter to teach me, and that is to stop thinking. When you stop thinking, you are finished as an individual. When you let others think for you, you may soon end up in a state of blindly following someone or something, or worse. Their “banning” the subject made me think harder on it, and be more alert in Bible classes.

In Doctrines, I was exposed to the reality that the University Bible Department is not as enthusiastic about the KJV as their web statement suggests. In fact, I found that the students are encouraged to read the commentaries of Wescott and Hort. And that the KJV is not as reliable and accurate as we were taught at home and in church. The push for Wescott and Hort’s Alexandrian text was obvious, as was the slander and criticism against the KJV.

It seems every time the opportunity presented itself, someone, whether a teacher or preacher, slants were made against the KJV and the undertone was, “it would be so much easier if we could just use another version.”

By the time I graduated, I was completely out of patience with it, but am not one to cause strife. I kept it mostly to myself, having only a small number of friends who cared or much less agreed. I had to sit in class, chapel or whatever and sadly give in to the reality that years of having that pounded into them, most students have swallowed it or simply–as is the case with most–do care to study the issue out for themselves.

So after all this writing and reading, why would BJU maintain that their class room and chapel standard are the KJV, whiles simultaneously slamming it every chance presented? This is common knowledge, not really a bombshell of news by any means. But again, WHY? Why the discrepancy in statement and practice?

I can’t answer that. All I can do is review the facts and allow you to reach your own conclusion.

1. BJU originally did not have the position on Bible versions they do now.

2. Sometime between Bob Sr.’s death and Bob Jr.s role as president, there was a change in philosophy.

3. The statement on Bible Versions and what actually happens are not the same.

Regardless of the reason for the differences in policy and practice, does it really matter anymore? The reality is that those of us who hold a Textus Receptus position–a term I have found many college students do not even understand–are fighting an uphill battle outnumbered 10-1. Churches in Greenville, the belt buckle of the proverbial ”Bible Belt” have gradually switched to new versions and many more would love to do so, only holding back due to the large majority of elderly church members who would never allow it.

What are we to do? Pray. Pray that God would spare this generation by raising up men and women to search the truth for themselves and stand firmly and not follow the crowd. Majorities often rule, but following the majority is historically a dangerous game. Oh well, many reading this are already against me.

I honestly prefer not to write about things like this. I love peace and quite and can’t handle stress very well. It is very tempting just to hold in my beliefs and play dead. But I believe we are bound to our conscience and to the testament of Scripture and history to fight for the truth. Opposition is sure to come, but that is alright.  We ought not seek opposition and be as gracious as possible, but we must stand for the truth. God expects no less.

I hope this article sheds some light and stimulates some thought. It has been something I’ve wanted to talk about for a long time, but have held in. I hope you will think on it at least.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Willis

Not So Clear After All

Read this entire article before continuing on to my remarks.

March 5, 2010

Let’s Get Clear On This
Kevin T. Bauder

A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.

Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.

The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist. . . Why are you promoting this sort of thing?

While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer? . . . I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.

These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.

This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.

Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Both mainstream ecumenicals and Left-leaning evangelicals would like to classify these individuals as Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not perceive themselves as Fundamentalists. Most Fundamentalists also recognize some differences. While there are similarities between them, enough differences remain that Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals ought to be distinguished from each other.

What are those differences? Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.

Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy. They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

Upcoming young leaders are uncertain about the future of Fundamentalism and about their future with it. And no wonder. One Fundamentalist college recently advertized that it does not teach Greek to theology majors. Why? Because the school has an “absolute conviction that the King James Bible is God’s perfect, preserved Word for the English Speaking World.” Contrast that school’s approach with D. A. Carson’s essays in his upcoming book, Collected Writings on Scripture. If young leaders are forced to choose between these two approaches, I have no doubt which choice they will make.

More and more Fundamentalists are coming to the same conclusion. They are not entering into full cooperation with conservative evangelicals, but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Quiet conversations have been occurring between some Fundamentalist leaders and some conservative evangelical leaders for several years. One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.

These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

Even such mild and narrow recognition, however, provokes panic from the Fundamentalist opponents of conservative evangelicals. Like the two critics at the beginning of this essay, these opponents express concern that any level of involvement with conservative evangelicals will constitute a blanket endorsement of their errors. These Fundamentalist critics, however, are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

________________________________

Comments From Ken Willis

This article was brought to my attention by a classmate who like it and endorsed on facebook; about one week later, a dear ministry friend sent me a link to the same article expressing his heart-brokenness over it. The stark contrast in opinions left me no choice but to closely examine it for myself.

First of all, I would like to preface this response / review with the fact that I have serious concerns with Bauder’s article and seriously question those feel the same way. I will admit that he does make some valid points–which I will address.

“These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.”
I believe Bauder has made a fatal flaw in saying that generally Fundamentalists view Christians in only two divisions. There are many labels that we as Fundamentalists have to wade through in the true Christian church. I’m afraid this statement was serving his purposes, but not actuality’s.

_____________________________
Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Many of these names listed should cause immediate red flags and concerns; Piper, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney, Sproul, and even MacArthur–these men are known for having mostly doctrinally sound content, yet they associate and walk with apostates and liberals. Some of these very men are Charismatic or liberal in theology.

The “Together For The Gospel Coalition”, or TG4 is a perfect example of compromise under the banner of rallying around the Gospel. The Gospel is used as an excuse to join hands with those who are Charismatic, liberal and those who willingly associate and work with apostates.

I seriously am concerned over the assertion–a very bold and presumptuous claim–that Conservative Evangelicals actually defend the Gospel. The Gospel is more than Christ dying on the Cross; it is the life of holiness and separation one lives as a result of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. The Gospel is not simply Christ’s sacrifice, but is the lifestyle that follows a true convert.

_____________________________
Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

They should agree to denounce them, mark them and separate from them as Scripture teaches. This indecisiveness is part of the problem.

_______________________________
Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

I must admit that this point is one that Bauder is correct on. Fundamentalists need to get off the KJV debate and focus on the depth of Scripture and doctrinal issues. I am a profound lover of the KJV, but to preach that it is the only acceptable version is neither correct or wise. It is a safe, trusted, proven version, yet we must remember that it is God’s Word preserved. To assert that the KJV is the only version God can use is lie–not to mention an abominable logical fallacy. However, I will agree that we as Fundamentalists need preachers who dig deeper and expound the great doctrines of Scripture. If we knew our doctrines better, we would solve many of our problems with shallowness.

_________________________________
In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

The Conservative Evangelicals may have promoted the core of the Gospel–Christ’s death on the Cross for salvation. They leave off the application(s) of the Gospel. Calvinists in particular, preach the Gospel in part, but fail to make Scriptural application to the listener. If Conservative Evangelicals went all the way with the Gospel, I would have no quarrel, yet the fact remains that they do not and have not.

_______________

They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

Hopefully so. Piper is a neo-evangelical, charismatic, neo-Calvinistic leader with drastic effectiveness on his listeners. He is one who preaches the half-Gospel as I have described above. His Calvinistic doctrines are extra-Biblical and are descendant from Calvin–who got them from Augustine, who in turn got them from the Roman Catholic Church–and therefore should be preached against and silenced as much as possible.

_______________________
Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

This is unfortunately true, but perhaps not in the way Bauder meant it. Fundamentalists do lack men and is increasing in the lack of men who will defend the whole Gospel. We need more men who will preach the message of salvation and in correlation, preach the holiness and separation that follows the conversion of a sinner’s heart.

_____________________
Many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

This is another point that I agree with. KJV onlyism is a fallacy and a lie; arrogance and egotism is wrong; doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship is a problem; manipulative Revivalism is a false hope. We need to turn to God in humble prayer and seek for Him to pour out His power and Spirit upon our congregations and not try to create this false power and emotion ourselves. We cannot manipulate revival; true revival is of God and can only be prepared for and prayed for.

________________________
They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

I am astonished that Bauder could actually come to such a conclusion.

___________________
To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

The value of what they do? These men are promoting a half-Gospel that teaches people to not be concerned with separation and true holiness and basically live as their conscience directs. “They are elect of God and free from the law.” They equate holiness with legalism and the result is all around us. Just take a look at reformed congregations. The dress is often lax, the standards are often loose and the lifestyle is not that distinct from the world. Sovereign Grace has worked on the music–encouraging believers to worship as the world does. Their music is so close to the world’s party music, it is quite difficult to even distinguish between the two.

We do not agree in the areas of holiness and separation, therefore we cannot cooperate with these men; we can only rebuke them in love and fight their flawed methodology with Scripture.

______________________________
If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

If the Conservative Evangelicals have furthered the cause of Christ, it has been in spite of their separation standards and their half-gospel message; NOT because of it.

The Fundamentalists have stood hard and long; and receive bombastic criticism from the Conservative Evangelicals for doing so.

_____________________________________
Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

They have not even preached the whole Gospel, therefore they are not allies and therefore are not friends of those who do. They preach a partial gospel, which is in effect, another gospel.

_____________________________
If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

This statement blows my mind. (I prefer not to rant, but I am not perfect.) If we preach against those who are not preaching the true Gospel, we are certainly not preaching against friends of the Gospel.

_________________
Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

I have no personal hard feelings of malice or ill-will for these men, but as one who tries to preach the WHOLE Gospel, I am not grateful for these men, for they are doing far more harm than good.

Closing Remarks:

I conclude the essay by summarizing the fact that Bauder does make some legitimate points, but his overall assertions are flawed, wrong, and skewed. I think he is in the wrong camp personally. If he has such a twisted view of Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals, he ought to simply join them openly.

We need to purge out these Evangelical – presences in our camp. We must preach the whole Gospel and defend it from the partial gospel.

May God grant us strong, bold men who will resist the seduction of the partial gospel and preach the whole-counsel of God. Amen.