Preservation of the Scriptures

In his lecture “How Has God Preserved His Word” at the TBS 2023 Trinity & Text Conference, Pastor Jeff Riddle of Christ Reformed Baptist Church made the following points that I want to repeat and accentuate here. In the modern era this classic biblical doctrine of preservation has been neglected, denied, and redefined.

Neglect. According to Brother Riddle, “Protestant pastors and theologians starting in the early 20th century largely stopped writing about the Divine preservation of scripture.” I think this is a valid observation, and that it was probably brought on by conservatives focusing on what they saw as an important strong point – inspiration – while avoiding focusing on a point of which they were becoming uncertain.

“What does it profit a man if he proves the Bible was originally inspired but he cannot point with certainty to the place where it has been preserved?”

Denial. Following in the path of neglect of the doctrine of preservation of scripture, “there’s been denial of this doctrine.” The denial is not a denial of normal preservation – that is, we have the manuscripts of scripture that in the course of natural means survived to the present. Daniel Wallace makes this historical argument, writing, “My own preference is to speak of God’s providential care of the text as can be seen throughout church history, without elevating such to the level of doctrine.” (“Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism”)

This denial is not a denial of the historical accident of preservation of written media, but a denial that the scriptures teach God’s determination to preserve them. Put another way, the absence of a doctrine of preservation is the absence of any promise from God to preserve his words written in scripture.

At this point, many modern deniers of the doctrine of preservation want to “have their cake and eat it, too” – that is, many will claim that the original words of scripture are found somewhere in “the entirety of the manuscript tradition.” At least to some of them, this means they think the right words exist “somewhere” in the extant manuscripts, if we can just find them. However, once God’s promise to preserve scripture is dismissed, so is any basis on which to believe that we must still have all the autographic words of scripture.

Redefinition. The neglect and denial of the doctrine of preservation leads to a redefinition of the meaning of “preservation.” This is inevitable because they still use the word “preservation.” Many who use the word “preservation” do not mean the historical doctrine of God’s providential preservation. Some may even continue to use the word “providential,” but without its traditional or expected meaning in reference to scripture. Jon Rehurek speaks of God’s providence with regard to the preservation of Scripture in a way that is no more special than the providence of preserving the works of Shakespeare or Plato (“Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View”). Stripped down, the redefinition simply means that we have some manuscripts of scripture that still exist today. It is the manuscripts, the media, that have been preserved, and not necessarily the words. Therefore, we can have the extant preserved media, and not know that the original words are preserved. Again quoting Dan Wallace, “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” (“Foreword,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson, Peter J. Gurry, editors, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019, p. xii).

In contrast to the problem of neglect, denial, and redefinition, Pastor Riddle explains that “the classic Protestant biblical doctrine of divine preservation of scripture should be retrieved, maintained, and defended.”

Retrieval. If you have abandoned the doctrine, you need to retrieve it. It is sound, biblical, and historical teaching – and as a committed Baptist, I add that it is sound, biblical, and historical Baptist teaching.

Maintenance. If you have retrieved the doctrine, now maintain it. If you have not abandoned it, continue to maintain, hold, and support this biblical doctrine.

Defense. The doctrine – as with any and all biblical doctrines – should be defended as the truth taught in and by the scriptures. (See “What does the Bible speak of itself” in A Fundamental Problem for Fundamentalism.) Jude, verse 3 ...it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Pastor Jeff Riddle exhorts that the retrieval of the older traditional bibliology “includes retrieval of the biblical doctrine of the divine preservation of scripture. We are not called upon to empirically reconstruct the text. We are called on to receive the text, as God’s people, which he has preserved.”

If we do not know what the Bible is, then we do not know what the Bible says. If we do not know what the Bible says, then we cannot speak with authority from it or about it.

God and the “Gentile Mission”

The term “Gentile mission” refers to the spreading of the message of the gospel by the early New Testament church to non-Jewish people (known as Gentiles). It is often used in commentaries, dissertations, lectures, but probably not nearly as much in sermons. The so-called “Gentile mission” was ordained of God, but early church Christians – who were Jews by nature and culture – struggled with this expansion to include a people held in low esteem and even disdain by Jews and their Jewish culture.

The book of Acts documents that expansion and its accompanying struggle, beginning with the foundation of the Lord sending out the church empowered unto the uttermost part of the earth (1:8) and empowering Peter (2:16ff.) to speak of the prophet Joel’s message that God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, and that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The role of God in the Gentile mission is emphasized.

• Acts 10:45. God poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles.
• Acts 11:17. God gave the like gift to the Gentiles as to the Jews.
• Acts 11:18. God granted Gentiles repentance unto life.
• Acts 14:27. God opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
• Acts 15:7. God chose that the Gentiles should hear the gospel.
• Acts 15:14. God visited and took out a people for his name among the Gentiles.
• Acts 21:19. God wrought things among the Gentiles.
• Acts 28:28. God sent his salvation to the Gentiles.

God stamped his approval on the expansion of the Gentile mission through prophecy, visions, and spiritual guidance.

• Acts 9:10-16. A vision to Ananias confirms God had chosen a vessel to bear his name to the Gentiles.
• Acts 10:9ff. (11:5ff.). This vision shown to Peter reveals the Gentiles are not to be considered common or unclean.
• Acts 11:27ff. God sent prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch, as the church expands into Gentile territory, first among the Jews (v. 19) and then the Grecians (v. 20).
• Acts 13:2ff. The Holy Ghost reveals to the church at Antioch that he called Paul and Barnabas to a Gentile mission.
• Acts 16:9ff. This vision received by Paul introduces a call to the people of Macedonia.
• Acts 18:9ff. The vision given to Paull states that God is in the work among the Gentiles at Corinth.
• Acts 15:32ff. Judas and Silas, prophets sent by the Jerusalem church, confirm the word at Antioch.
• Acts 23:11ff. The Lord encourages Paul that he will bear witness in Rome.

Dispensational salvation: IFB and false gospel

Because of a common interest in supporting and defending the King James Bible, we sometimes “rub shoulders” with some folks who hold some pretty tainted tenets. While we agree on the King James Bible being the word of God and its use for English-speaking people, we disagree on some other very important issues. Some are important enough to require ecclesiastical separation, while recognizing those persons are still teachers of the truth of the gospel. Some are so rank that they incite marking and naming the persons as teaching soteriological doctrine outside the purview of orthodoxy.[i]

I am an independent Baptist, in the sense that our church is unaffiliated with any Baptist association, convention, or fellowship. I am a fundamental Baptist, in the sense that I agree with the doctrines that have traditionally been identified as the fundamentals of the Christian faith. If called on to identify myself beyond just “Baptist,” I prefer to say “old-time” Baptist, which will usually elicit the response, “What do you mean by that?” I do not identify myself as an Independent Fundamental Baptist.[ii] There are good people and churches who use that terminology, but there is also a lot of doctrine of putrid smell housed under that roof.

One of these putrid precepts seems to be most commonly identified as “dispensational salvation.”[iii] This is a false gospel that denies that only one way of Jesus Christ, a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (John 14:6; Acts 4:12: 1 Timothy 2:5; Revelation 13:8). In this post I will not spend time trying to prove the orthodox position, but will operate from that presupposition. The purpose of this post is to warn King James Bible defenders of the error of “dispensational salvation” and to name and warn against some of the promoters of it. No doubt there are many more. Be warned. Be careful. Naming and marking will doubtless be offensive to some, perhaps many, but the Bible is clear. Perverting the gospel of Christ is a damnable issue.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9

IFB purveyors of false gospels.

Peter Ruckman.

Peter S. Ruckman seems the ringleader of the bunch. Others may have taught such before him, but likely most of the living Independent Fundamental Baptist promoters of multiple salvations across multiple dispensations generally accept Ruckman and his views. Here are a couple of excerpts of his claptrap. I do not think more is necessary. It is unlikely anyone will deny he taught such heresy; his followers gladly rejoice in lauding him and in purveying his views. Here are three examples of the teaching of Ruckman.

“Those silly asses actually teach that salvation is the same in the Church Age, the Tribulation, the Millennium, and the Old Testament. You never met a more gullible, blind, deceived bunch of Bible-rejecting apostates in your life.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, November 2001, p. 13)

“Whenever you hear any heretic say that ‘men are saved in the Old Testament by looking forward to the cross and after the New Testament by looking back at the cross,’ you are dealing either with a lazy preacher or a stupid preacher or a crooked, lying fool. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, April 2004, p. 18)

“We have learned that before the law a man was saved by grace through faith, if his works showed he had faith. Under the Mosaic Law, a man was saved by grace through faith and works, if he was short on either item (faith or works) he could die in his sins and go to hell…Here, again, [i.e., during the Millennium] we will encounter salvation by Works, through Works, and ‘that of YOURSELVES’ for there is no ‘gift’ to it. (How to Teach Dispensational Truth, Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1996, pp. 60-61, 91)

I generally do not like to strike too harsh a tone on my blog, but dealing with the heretical views of Peter Ruckman requires it. “Answer a fool according to his folly…” (Proverbs 26:5). I must honestly say that I do not think Peter Ruckman was lazy or stupid – but I do think he was a crooked, lying fool, and worse – as well as a Bible-truth-rejecting apostate and a disqualified minister with two divorces and three marriages under his belt.

Other followers.

I initially thought to give sort of exhaustive quotations from those who hold this variant view. I decided that would become tedious and tiresome. Instead, I will give a few quotes and just identify others by linking to their writings. Be warned of these. This are not personal people problems, but biblical issues of a doctrinal nature.

Ken Blue.

“It will be obvious to the open mind and anointed eye that more than one gospel in found in Scripture. A right division of the Word of God is necessary in order to distinguish between these gospels and place them in their proper dispensations.” (Dispensational Salvation)

Robert Breaker.

“Are we going to follow Peter, or are we going to follow Paul. … We are supposed to follow Paul. … In Acts chapter 8, verse 36 [reads 36 and following] …Here we see a Gentile saved…He was saved by believing. So this Gentile was saved differently than these Jews back here in Acts chapter 2...

“You cannot say that people are saved the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament. It just does not work.” (Dispensational “Salvation”)

Gene Kim.

“Old Testament salvation is by faith and works. Christian salvation is by faith alone. Tribulation salvation is by faith and works. Millennium salvation is by works.” (Dispensational Salvation – God always gave salvation by faith alone … WRONG)

Andrew Sluder and Randy Keener.

“When we have people who fail to rightly divide the word of truth, they end up saying crazy things like ‘There is only one gospel that has ever been preached.’ Now folks, If you’ve seen my other videos, you’ve seen the fact that I believe that there are three Gospels laid out in the Scriptures.”

“We believe that a man today is saved by believing on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the payment for his sin – plus nothing, minus nothing. … We don’t even believe in repent of your sins … We do not believe that men were always saved by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, in the Old Testament there was a mixture of works and faith involve … (3 Gospels, Dispensational Salvation & Hyper-Dispensationalism)

Cody Watters.

“There are also verses in Revelation that make it clear that the Tribulation Saint is saved by faith and works.” (Dispensational Salvations)

Cody Zorn.

“You know why people say that people can lose their salvation here (pointing to the church age on his white board)? Because there’s people that can lose their salvation here (pointing to the tribulation on his white board). And there’s people that can lose their salvation back there (pointing to the Old Testament period on his white board). But we’re living in the day and time (pointing to the church age) where we don’t … we can’t lose what we didn’t work for.” (Starts about 1:05:50 in End Time Explained, Part 1)

Others who appear to promote this viewpoint include: Gary N. Alford, Bandi Arjuna Kiran Kumar, Vince Larue, and probably any close follower of Peter Ruckman. If I have misidentified anyone, I will be glad to correct it.

Deflection.

One interesting idea I ran across is the “defense” of “dispensational salvation” on the grounds that the view does not affect anyone in the present – since these folks are preaching salvation by grace through faith without works in the present. This occurs both within and without those who hold the view, and is a strange way to support something one believes to be a major doctrinal truth.

Randy Keener, who holds dispensational salvation, sort of flippantly suggests it is a meaningless difference in the present “unless you have a time machine.” At about 16:15 “It doesn’t affect your salvation, our salvation, or anybody else’s salvation – unless you have a time machine – so don’t worry about it.” (3 Gospels, Dispensational Salvation & Hyper-Dispensationalism)

James Melton, who does not seem to hold the view himself, seemed to be okay with it, on the grounds that these people are currently preaching the right way of salvation. Melton writes, “Those who teach what you might call dispensational salvation do not teach anything wrong with the salvation plan today. I don’t know of anybody that differs—any fundamental Bible-believing Baptists that disagree with me on how one is to be saved today… Why does it really matter to you and I today how somebody got saved over 2,000 years ago?” (Understanding Dispensational Salvation)

Well, if nothing else, it matters that we rightly divide the word of truth and hold fast the faithful word as we have been taught.[iv] Additionally, to suggest multiple plans of salvation, even promoting dispensational views that include salvation by works and falling from grace, gives cover to those who hold that today. As Cody Zorn said, “You know why people say that people can lose their salvation here (pointing to the church age on his white board)? Because there’s people that can lose their salvation here (pointing to the tribulation on his white board). And there’s people that can lose their salvation back there (pointing to the Old Testament period on his white board).” To be fair, he goes on to say that we are living in a time where one cannot lose his salvation. Nevertheless, he made a clear excuse for those who get confused on it.

One salvation, Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that some King James Defenders may be “closing ranks” and not calling out this serious soteriological error because many (most? all?) who hold this view also defend the King James Bible. However, we need to not only be correct in our bibliology, but also in our soteriology, our ecclesiology, and so on.

There are not multiple gospels. There is one everlasting gospel created in the mind and purpose of God. It has been progressively revealed under various terms that refer to that one gospel, but it is one! If salvation could be accomplished by works in any generation (or dispensation), there was no need for Christ to die for that generation.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:43

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:6-7

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John, verses 10-11

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

---

[i] Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. It is biblical to “call names” when necessary. See “Is It Right: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names?” by E. L. Bynum.
[ii] In its natural and simple form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of faith (as clarified in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism at the end of the 19th and beginning of 20th centuries): (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (4) the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ for sins; and (5) the physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. I hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred self-descriptor. I am a Bible-believing Baptist. (Baptist born. Baptist bred. When I die, I’ll be Baptist dead.) Many modern Fundamentalists are befuddled by schismatic soteriology, adrift on the sea of bad ecclesiology, while filled with fussy fighting factions full of a bad spirit.
[iii] “Dispensational salvation” is a teaching that people at different times in history (dispensations) have been given different ways to be saved. For example, saying that under the Old Testament law dispensation people had to keep the law (good works) in order to be saved, but under the New Testament church dispensation people are saved by grace through faith (without good works).
[iv] This view of accommodation seems to be somewhat rooted in a largely “semi-pelagian” view of salvation that has become diffused among Baptists who hold a general atonement position. This view, in the minds of many (though they may not vocalize it) holds not that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but the power unto salvation is in how well they present the gospel and harangue those to whom they present it.

Christian Standard Bible

There are so many English Bible translations, the weary Christian reader may well ask, “Why do we need another Bible translation?”[i]

Here is a bit of the history of the “why” of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) and Christian Standard Bible (CSB) came into existence. The current CSB was a major revision, including a name change, of the 2009 edition of the HCSB. The CSB was copyrighted in 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers, a division of Lifeway.[ii] Its forerunners, the HCSB New Testament, was published in 1999 and the whole HCSB Bible in 2004. In August 2023 Christianity Today claimed that the CSB was the second best-selling English Bible translation.

The origin of the HCSB is found in a two-pronged history. One prong was the desire of Arthur Leonard Farstad to create an English Bible translation based on the Majority Text.[iii] The other prong was the desire of the Southern Baptist Convention to have copyright control of a Bible for use in their publications. These two met together in 1998.

Arthur Farstad had been the general editor of the New King James Version, published by Thomas Nelson. He had hoped to help create this as an English translation based on The Majority Text, a Greek text edited by Farstad and Zane Hodges.[iv] However, Thomas Nelson publishers did not want to proceed in that fashion with the NKJV. After this project was over, Farstad began an independent translation of the Majority Text.

Prior to the creation of the HCSB, the Southern Baptist Convention had an exclusive contract to use the New International Version (NIV) in their Sunday School curriculum and other educational literature. This was an expensive and restrictive agreement with the copyright holder of the NIV. As the time of the end of this contract neared, they began plans to create their own Bible version. The money previously going to others could stay in SBC coffers. The headache of dealing with copyright restrictions would be relieved. Additionally, there were also considerations and concerns about an upcoming revision of the NIV. With their entity holding the copyright, the SBC would not have to worry about Bible revisions made by another entity. Of particular concern was the issue of gender-neutral language.[v] The SBC tried to negotiate the purchase of the copyright of the New American Standard Bible and others, but these efforts failed. 

After this, either Farstad, knowing about the plans of the SBC, pitched his idea to them; or, the SBC, knowing of Farstad’s work, approached him to help them further their plans. Maybe some of both.[vi] It was a match made in ..... Nashville, probably.

It seems the initial plan of action was to follow Farstad’s desire to use the Majority Text as the basis for the New Testament translation.[vii] However, Arthur Farstad died at age 63 in September 1998 – five months after the initiation of the project. Holman brought in a new editor, and the translation’s basis was changed to the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek Text. Promotional material says that “a team of more than 100 top conservative scholars from 17 denominations” worked on this translation.

The promotion of the CSB Bible states a goal to create “optimal equivalence” in translation (accurate yet readable), and to stay up-to-date with advances in biblical research. When the history of the HCSB/CSB is told, it usually does not include these background details, especially the financial and theological considerations behind its rise. I thought the parts left out were worth telling.

---

[i] Simply put, I would say we do not. Information for this article was gleaned in bits and pieces across the World Wide Web, with a good bit of debt to the review of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, by Michael Marlowe.
[ii] Lifeway is what used to be the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
[iii] The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers 2nd edition, 1985).
[iv] The independent project of which Farstad was translator and general editor lives on in the New Testament, or at least the Gospel of John, translation called Logos 21. Some sources state that Logos 21 was the first English translation of the Greek Majority Text.
[v] Interestingly, however, the CSB update of the HCSB itself moved in the direction of gender-neutral language.
[vi] I could not get a clear sense of which came first. In this article, Mark L. Strauss says that SBC representatives from Holman and Lifeway approached Farstad.
[vii] There are some unclear statements that suggest he had to agree with Holman to use the Critical Text. Mark L. Strauss says Farstad planned to use the Majority Text. He also says that Edwin Blum had been working with him on the indpendent project of translating the Majority Text into English

Not “not any,” just “not many”

The following quote appears to be passed down through tradition by the followers of Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon. I found it this way in one place.

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

The Countess of Huntingdon: 

Blessed be God, it does not say “any mighty,” “any noble”; it says “many mighty,” “many noble.”

I thank God for the letter “m.” I owe my salvation to the letter “m.”

If it had been “not any noble,” where would the countess have been?

God music did at once supply

“Johann Walter was the first Lutheran kantor, and was an advisor and colleague of Martin Luther. He desired that a holy and proper use of music in worship prevail in German churches. A poet as well as composer, Walter produced a lengthy, rhymed poem of 324 lines which describe his view of music’s importance in liturgy.” Cynthia Pock

“In 1538, while at Torgau, he published a rhymed homage to music, Lob und Preis der loeblichen Kunst Musica (In Praise of the Noble Art of Music), a didactic poem of 324 lines, in which he developed an entire theology of music, following the ideas of Luther’s scattered remarks on the subject. . . .

“Luther himself provided a rhymed introduction to this poem entitled ‘Vorrhede auff all gute Gesangbuecher’ (‘A Preface for All Good Hymnals’). Luther put his preface on the lips of Frau Musica (Lady Music) and had her extol her own gifts. Luther’s introduction, together with Walter’s more elaborately conceived poem, provide remarkable insights into the early Reformation’s view of music.” Carl Schalk

Johann Walter was born in 1496 at Thuringia, Germany. He died in 1570 at Torgau, Germany. He believed God created music; and his work influenced congregational participation in worship services. The stanza’s below are from an English translation of Walter’s hymn praising God and his music. As far as I know, it has not been used as a church hymn.

1. That such unmerited free grace
(Which God from love for all our race
Had promised in his word) might be
Kept fresh in human memory
And move the heart to high delight
In praising God both day and night—

2. This is the weightiest reason why
God music did at once supply.
Then too, since sin acquired at birth
Would bring to Adam’s seed on earth
Much woe and—earth itself now spoiled—
Small joy in all for which they toiled,
As antidote against that blight,
To keep man’s life from wilting quite,
And also to rejoice the heart,
God soon supplied sweet music’s art.

Why you shouldn’t care, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• Why you shouldn’t care what Daniel Wallace thinks about the King James Bible -- “Wallace’s lifetime devotion to the Critical Text and his own Bible translation couldn't possibly cloud his objectivity, could it?”
• Why Is My Battery Draining So Fast? -- “Find out what drains a phone’s charge and what you can do to stop losing battery so fast.”
• What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Two) -- “Mark Ward defines intelligibility in a particular way that does not fit 1 Corinthians 14. Many people have explained that to him. I haven’t seen him listen on this and almost anything else.”
• What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part One) -- “Just as a thought experiment, I am going to practice a public apology, one that Ward would want from all the division causers, none of which has the name, Mark Ward.”
• Welcome To The Home of Gospel Singing Conventions -- “GospelConventions.com offers the most comprehensive listing of singing conventions, singing schools, and gospel music publishers available anywhere on the internet today.”
• The Tale of the Defiant Pineapple and Its Confused Friend the Pinecone -- “In 14th-century English, the word “pineapple” was a word for a pine cone.”
• The NIV Exhaustive Concordance -- “By Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan, 1990 (not a recommendation of the NIV, but a good resource for someone researching it).”
• The Bomberg Bible -- “This edition of the Masoretic Hebrew text underlies the Old Testament of the Authorised (King James) Bible, and which the Trinitarian Bible Society publishes.”
• Some Early Evidence for the Twelve Verses St. Mark XVI. 9-20 -- “Charles Taylor, The Expositor Fourth Series 8.1 (July 1893): 71-80.”
• KJB Textual Technology -- “Rudyard Kipling in 1911 (on the tercentenary of the Bible) spoke of the King James Bible as hammering England into existence, its words being hammer blows onto the anvil of the language.”
• Human Health and Welfare Effects from Increased Greenhouse Gases and Warming -- “A colder climate generally poses a much greater risk to human health and causes more deaths than a warmer climate.”
• Found in Translation -- “For those who have at least a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, traveling Texas becomes quite interesting because the Spanish names of places reveal, or hint at, their histories.”
• Focus on Texas: Mascots -- “Meet the characters that charm and amuse us so.”
• First-Name Basis -- “A wolf spider misidentified for 120 years gets its due, thanks to an observant amateur naturalist.”
• Eight Attributes of Courageous Christians -- “The Library of Congress has a small box labeled ‘Contents of the President’s Pockets on the Night of April 14, 1865.’”
• “Brother of Goliath” or “Goliath” in 2 Samuel 21:19? -- “The second word of the underlined portions in both verses is גלית (Galeyat), which is ‘Goliath.’”
• Ancient Greece and the Modern Cemetery -- “From the flaming Olympic torch, to laurel wreaths, and classical columns, Greek influence can be seen in nearly every cemetery in the Western world.”

The Bible Makes Baptists

Back in mid-November, I listened to Stephen Boyce’s video “The KJV Is Not A Good Translation For Baptists.” It is a strange hodge-podge of thought that I cannot recommend. There are lots of negative things that could be said about it. Throughout his podcast called Facts, he gets a lot of facts wrong! Others, such as Christopher Yetzer and Nick Sayers, have responded to many of his misrepresentations of fact. I want to focus on his premise. Stephen Boyce is a former Independent Fundamental Baptist turned Anglican. His premise sounds more like something that would be proclaimed by anti-KJVO Baptists like Rick Norris than an Anglican who supposedly likes the King James Bible (especially in his accusing the translators of bias).

The theme or title of the video is based on a false premise. Beginning about 18:00 minutes in the video, Boyce makes a point concerning how he sees the “church of the firstborn” in Hebrews 12:23. He thinks that text and translation fits his Anglican theology, but that it does not fit Baptist theology. Then notice carefully what Boyce says.

“These things need to be considered when you’re looking at the King James Version as a Baptist. How does that actually fit your framework of theology, ecclesiology, and even your practices?”

I do not agree with his interpretation, but that is beside the point I want to make. 

It is a false premise to suggest that if the Bible does not fit my theology, ecclesiology, and practice that I should therefore find and use a different Bible. Instead, if my theology, ecclesiology, and practice does not fit the Bible, I should study and change my theology, ecclesiology, and practice to fit the Bible. The Bible is our rule of faith and practice. Our faith and practice should not rule which Bible to use.

At various times I have written or spoken on the theme “The Bible Makes Baptists.” In 1787 a young Welsh man named Christmas Evans was converted from the Paedobaptist view to the Credobaptist view by reading the Bible. This happened because and while he was studying the New Testament for the purpose of refuting the Baptists! For Evans, that “Baptist book” was the King James Bible – in those days for all intents and purposes The Bible. Today men may run to the refuge of many different translations, seeking safety in and confirmation of their sincerely-held beliefs. Evans had no such option. He had one Bible and his theology needed to fit in the framework of it.

Behind the statement that the King James Bible is a “Baptist book,” there exists what to many is an untold story. The men who translated the King James Bible were not Baptists. They were Arminians and Calvinists, Puritans and High-Church, but all men of the Church of England. They believed and participated in a state church. They practiced infant baptism. Yet in their superior language skills and intellectual honesty, seeking “the truth rather than their own praise,” these translators shaped a Bible translation that in its lifetime has led many out of the tenets of their own denomination. The story continues to unfold; the old King James Bible is still making Baptists!

We are not Baptists because someone translated the Bible to fit our beliefs. We are Baptists because we hold the beliefs we find in a Bible translated by others who did not hold our beliefs.

In memory

Funeral services will be held today (Friday, December 13, 2024) for Phillip Jason Chapman, at 12 noon at the South Union Missionary Baptist Church (159 FM 997, Daingerfield, Texas). Interment will follow at the Holleman Cemetery in the Oak Flat Community of Rusk County, Texas. He was born September 4, 1970 and passed away on December 9, 2024, at the age of 54.

Phillip is a Holleman family descendant, and served on the board of the Holleman Cemetery Association. He is survived by the wife and two children, his parents, and a host of friends and relatives.