The Little Chap Who Follows Me

“The Little Chap Who Follows Me!”

A careful man I must always be,
a little fellow follows me.
I know I dare not go astray,
for fear he’ll go the self-same way.

I cannot once escape his eyes,
what’er he sees me do he tries.
Like me he says he’s going to be,
this little chap who follows me.

He thinks that I am good and fine,
believes in every word of mine.
The base in me he must not see,
this little chap who follows me.

I must be careful as I go,
through summer sun and winter snow.
Because I am building for the years to be,
this little chap who follows me.

Author unknown; as read by former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden

A Critique of God’s Word in Our Hands, and other reviews

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

• A Critique of God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us -- "God’s Word in Our Hands (GWOH) is “deja vu all over again.”"
• Book Review: The Mentoring Church, by Phil Newton -- "This work is well-researched, extensively footnoted, and comes with an appendix of about 90 books divided into 11 areas of pastoral ministry."
• Charity…rejoiceth in the Truth:  A Critique of Schnaiter and Tagliapietra’s Bible Preservation and the Providence of God -- "The Lord taught that the Scripture He used was the preserved Hebrew OT (“is written” gegraptai) which had jots and tittles and the three-fold Tenak division (Torah, Nabiim, Kethubim) starting with Genesis and ending with II Chronicles (Mt. 4:4; 5:18; Lk. 24:44; Jn. 11:50-51, respectively)."
• Book Review: Lies Pastors Believe, by Dayton Hartman -- "When we fail to ground our identity in gospel truth, we craft an identity for ourselves and ground it in the unstable sands of our accomplishments."
• Katharina, Katharina, by Christine Farenhorst. Reviewed by Helen Tangelder -- "Katharina is very timely written as the story of Katharina Schutz which took place in the 1490’s in Strasbourg, Germany...Recommended reading."
• Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist: The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism -- "by Ronnie W. Rogers (Google Book preview)"
• Responding to a Disenchanted Calvinist – Part One -- "The way I’ve chosen to do this is by taking each of his chapters and drawing out the main arguments, then responding to them."
• Review: Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist: The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism by Ronnie W. Rogers -- "Readers who embrace “moderate” or “high” Calvinism will benefit from the particular examples in which certain theological claims within their system seem to be internally inconsistent."
• Review: The Lost Sermons of C. H. Spurgeon, Volume II -- "I was immediately impressed by the aesthetic beauty of the book in my hands."
• Review: Winning Souls and Getting Them Down the Aisle -- "Dr. Curtis Hutson’s primary purpose in this booklet Winning Souls and Getting Them Down the Aisle was to emphasize the importance of soul winning and his subsequent emphasis on getting converts to walk down the aisle...For Dr. Hutson to equate walking down an aisle as a request of Christ is misleading and places upon the convert a compulsion that is not found in the Scriptures."
• The Church Fathers as Spiritual Mentors by Michael A.G. Haykin -- "Historian Michael Haykin examines the lives of such church fathers as Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyprian of Carthage, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius and Augustine, as he uncovers the theological debates, councils, creeds and preaching of the ancient church (A.D. 100—600)."
• William Kiffen and his World -- "These are research-oriented academic volumes that not only set an excellent example of historiography, but also tell interesting and important stories."

Two wrong turns in response to modernism

Two Wrong Turns Don’t Make a Right

Introduction

Beginning in the late 1800s and concluding (to some extent) in the early 1900s,[i] part of American Christianity went through a “Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy.” Reactions for and against higher criticism, Darwinism, and theological liberalism[ii] divided within several Protestant denomination two broad factions – evangelicals/fundamentalist who kept to historic Christian Orthodoxy and modernists/liberals who embraced some or all of higher criticism, Darwinism and theological liberalism. The term “fundamentalist” was coined to identify those who held five theologically orthodox beliefs. The beliefs were first set forth by the Presbyterian Church USA in 1910, in response to the Presbytery of New York licensing three ministerial candidates who did not affirm the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The Bills and Overtures Committee of the PCUSA developed a “Doctrinal Deliverance” which ministerial candidates would affirm in order to be ordained. In it five “essential and necessary” articles are identified thusly: (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, (3) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and (5) the reality and historicity of miracles recorded in the Scriptures.[iii] Sometimes this are rearranged today as:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
2. The Virgin Birth of Jesus
3. The Substitutionary Blood Atonement
4. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus and His Saints
5. The inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures

From the controversy emerged The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth[iv] – 12 volumes edited by A. C. Dixon, R. A. Torrey and others from 1910 to 1915. Funded by Christian businessmen Lyman and Milton Stewart, The Fundamentals was freely distributed to missionaries, pastors, churches, and seminary professors. It was a massive and masterful work that had immediate effect and historical significance.[v]

Two Wrong Turns

The above is written to lay some historical background. What follows is not directed to specific persons or events detailed above, but rooted in the history. The modernist response to higher criticism and such was one huge U-turn, biblical acquiescence, the laying down of the spiritual weapons of war. In my opinion, inerrantists (conservatives/evangelicals/fundamentalists) took two wrong turns in response to modernism – intellectualism and anti-intellectualism.[vi] These may be defined, based on several dictionaries, as follows:

• Anti-intellectualism: opposition to or hostility toward intellectualism and the academics; or the belief that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality, as well as minimizing an intellectual view or approach.
• Intellectualism: devotion to intellectual pursuits, or excessive emphasis on abstract or intellectual matters; and, in philosophy, the idea that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason.

By the “wrong turn of intellectualism,” I mean the response of orthodox Christians trying to out-do, out-degree, out-scholar, and out-school the modernists – the smugly sophisticated scholar. By the “wrong turn of anti-intellectualism,” I mean the response of trying to emphasize just how anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-tolerance, and anti-everything that one can possibly be – the uncultured Philistine. Oddly enough (or probably not), I have some schizophrenic tendencies in me that want to run in both directions![vii]

Yesterday, when I was young, a popular story told for truth – but likely apocryphal – mocked those who mocked the seminary. A young minister resisted all attempts that were made to convince him to attend seminary to prepare for the ministry. Asked why he would not consider it, he responded, “Why, the seminaries are hindering the second coming of our Lord!” “What?” gasped the questioner, severely taken aback. “Yea, that’s right. Them seminaries teach preachers to think, and the Bible says, ‘for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh’.” Seminarians would tell this for truth, and laugh and laugh. It is sad, if it be true, but it is no laughing matter. The story illustrates the extremes at both ends – the arrogance of the seminarians, and the ignorance of the contrarians – both with which we need to grapple biblically.

Mark Noll wrote, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”[viii] The Bible promotes wisdom, knowledge and learning – at least that of the spiritual kind. One purpose of the proverbs of Solomon was that the wise man would hear, and hearing would increase in learning (Proverbs 1:5). The Bible praises Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego for their knowledge, skill, wisdom, and in the learning and language of the Chaldees (Daniel 1). It blasts ignorance and does not tolerate fools (Proverbs 14:9; Matthew 23:16-19; 2 Corinthians 11:19; 1 Peter 2:15).[ix] The Bible is not the companion of deliberately entrenched ignorance or bumptious negligence in thought.

Job aptly upbraided his friends who knew it all, “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you” (Job 12:2). The Bible warns against the wisdom and ways of the world (1 Corinthians 3:19). All that passes for intelligence in the sight of men does not pass for intelligence in the sight of God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10). He who is not educated in the Bible is not educated. The Bible is the companion of the meek and lowly in heart, who love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God. The proud look and proud heart is an abomination to God (Proverbs 6:17; Proverbs 16:5).

Each reader probably knows one of these types. We might even be one of them! May we rather look to the Scriptures, and look like those in the Scriptures.

• Jesus, at age 12 and without formal education, attended the center of religious instruction and amazed the doctors (“sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions,” Luke 2:46-47).
• The education of Jesus was not accredited or recognized by the doctors of the law. Jesus’s marvelous teaching was made all the more marvelous by the fact it could not be traced to the centers of Jewish learning (“And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” John 7:15).
• The education of the Twelve was not accredited or recognized by the doctors of the law. (“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” Acts 4:13)
• Paul received an education that was highly regarded among the Jews (the school of Gamaliel, Acts 5:34, Acts 22:3), but the haughty philosophers at Athens mocked his manner of presentation (“What will this babbler say”) and message (“when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked”).
• In the midst of intellectualism and mysticism, the disciples of Jesus are to walk a middle road. (“we preach Christ crucified…the power of God, and the wisdom of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:21-24)

There is both rhyme and reason in God’s purpose: 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.

Part of the intellectual direction includes assuming that people know what they’re talking about based on the number of degrees attached to the front and back sides of their names. The anti-intellectuals who flock to the degree mills are sucked into the same black hole – the felt need for a prop to exude authority. How different from our unaccredited Lord, who simply spoke with authority (Matthew 7:28-29).[x] The Philistines may in turn rush to the guys without training! We must teach folks to discern whether persons have biblical knowledge, rather than assuming they are educated based on their degrees. If not, how does one discern a conservative Bible-believer with a lesser degree (or none at all) is more trustworthy than a liberal Bible-denier with a more respectable degree?

True Christians do not create castes of greater and lesser degrees based on the levels of education they have received! We do not search the letters before and behind the name – or the institutions behind the letters – for an academic pedigree. “Deep calleth unto deep.” Things alike recognize one another. By the Word and the Spirit we recognize the credentials of the one speaking or writing by what is spoken or written. [Those of Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:10-11).

Regardless of how respectable we try to become in the eyes of the world, the Bible-believing, Bible-keeping Christian will never be quite acceptable in a culture that casts away God and his moral compass.

The Middle Road

An important answer to the two wayside roads is found in an intelligent Bible-believing culture at the local church level – from the greatest to the least. Understand Paul’s exhortations to the Corinthians: that God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27) and Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant... (1 Corinthians 10:1). Without being recognized by the doctors, Jesus nevertheless confounded them, so that they could not answer him (Matthew 22:41-46). On the other hand, he chided those who had not read (Matthew 12:3) did not understand (Mark 8:21) and needed to search the scriptures (John 5:39). He tolerated neither intellectual elitism nor refusal to study.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

---

[i] Many divided and went their separate ways in this period. The much-later “Inerrancy Controversy” (Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover) in the Southern Baptist Convention demonstrates that all was not resolved in the early 1900s.

[ii] “In a nutshell, then, the liberal theological ethos accords to ‘the best of modern thought’ the weight of authority in theology alongside or stronger than biblical revelation (and certainly than tradition).” – Roger Olson, What is “theological liberalism?”

[iii] This is my summary. The full “Doctrinal Deliverance” may be viewed HERE.

[iv] The linked book is Volume 1.

[v] The Untold Story of The Fundamentals by Paul W. Rood II

[vi] These two terms are problematic, in that the latter has a much great negative connotation. Nevertheless, I never know no better terms to use.

[vii] For an example of the “anti” direction, see “Who You Gonna Believe?” – though I do not repudiate any of it, and though it appears on Seeking the Old Paths “intellectualized” a bit from its original appearance many years before.

[viii] The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994, p. 3; he goes further, writing, “Notwithstanding all their other virtues, however, American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.”

[ix] Yet what passes for wisdom and folly in the world is not always so (e.g. Psalm 14:1; Romans 1:22).

[x] None of us can speak with authority in the manner of Jesus, but my point is that the hearers were able to distinguish his authority to speak and teach without inquiring of which degrees he held.

KJV functioned as a common reservoir

“Because the KJV was so widely read for religious purposes, it had also become a source of public ideals. Because it was so central in the churches, and because the churches were so central to the culture, the KJV functioned also as a common reservoir for the language. Hundreds of phrases and thousands of words were in the common speech because they had first been in this translation…But during the past half-century, we have come into a new situation. For believers who read the Bible because they think it is true, a welter of modern translations compete for the space once dominated by the KJV. For the public at large, the linguistic and narrative place that for more than two centuries had been occupied by the KJV is now substantially filled by the omnipresent electronic media. The domains that have been most successfully popularized by television, the movies and the Internet are sport, crime, pornography, politics, warfare, medicine and the media itself. Within these domains there is minimal place for biblical themes of any sort, much less the ancient language of the KJV.” 

– Mark Noll

Can Christians Tell, 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.

• Can Christians Tell ‘White Lies’? Menno Simons’ Classic Dilemma -- "Like most Christians throughout time and space, the Anabaptists didn’t always do what they wanted to do."
• Forever Infallible & Inerrant: Remembering God’s Extraordinary Providence in Preserving His Inspired Words through the Traditional & Reformation Texts Underlying the King James Bible -- "Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk."
• I’m a scholar of the “prosperity gospel.” It took cancer to show me I was in its grip. -- "Some believers in the prosperity gospel seek wealth. But others just want reassurance."
• Is a Pronominal Revision of the Authorized Version Desirable? -- "The real issue is whether or not we are prepared to give up the use of the singular of the pronoun entirely, and to this there are two main objections."
• King James Onlyism: A New Sect -- "This new doctrine declares that the King James Version of the Bible is the providentially preserved Word of God, and is actually (or essentially) the only and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for the English-speaking world today."
• King James Only (Part I) -- "What the KJ only folks are saying is that only the KJ version gives the divinely-chosen translation of the Greek original."
• King James Seminary, Part II -- "I realize that those who defend the 'King James only' (KJO) position, especially those in our denomination, do so out of a sincere love for God and for the Bible as the Word of God."
• My Response to Gary R. Hudson's 7 Reasons Why KJO Spreads in Independent Baptist Churches -- "With Reason #1, Hudson enters full steam ahead into his carnival of disingenuity."
• Scholarly Myths Perpetuated on Rejecting the Masoretic Text of the OT -- "These historical myths and supporting corollaries diametrically oppose the reception of the Masoretic text as the Hebrew text behind the Authorized Version."
• The Lord Jesus Christ and the Received Bible, John 17:8 -- "The Bible, however, attests to its own inspiration, preservation, and authority. Furthermore, the author of Scripture, the Lord Jesus Christ, spoke clearly about the doctrines of perfect inspiration, perfect preservation and their resultant text and translations."
• The New Bible (Revised Standard Version): Why Christians Should Not Accept It -- "The people and the church that feed upon this new Bible will be a different people and a different church from those who feed upon the King James Version with its honoring of the deity of Christ and the virgin birth of our Lord."
• The Study Of Bible Translation -- "This is why the King James Version 1611 remains the best choice for believers today."
• Vetus Latina edition -- "A critical edition of the Old Latin Bible is being overseen by the Vetus Latina Institute." 
• Which Version: Authorized or Revised? -- "The present inquiry is in regard to the many differences, some of them quite serious, between the "Authorized," or King James Version, first published in 1611, and the "Revised" Version of 1881."
• White Oak Baptist Church – Simply Appalachian -- "The altar and pulpit were in the front of the church, and as many as five of six preachers would sit up there when I was a young child."

Quotation marks in the Bible

“One of the characteristics of ‘modern speech’ versions of the Bible is the use of quotation marks. They are not used in AV or ARV. Probably there are at least two reasons why ARV did not introduce them: they are at times definitely interpretive (cf. John 3:15 in RSV), and their use tends to become complicated, cumbersome, and confusing… This is very confusing and arbitrary…introducing of quotes may seem at first sight a simple matter. But it becomes extremely complicated, which is a good reason for not attempting to introduce it.”

Oswald T. Allis in Revised Version or Revised Bible? A Critique of the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament (1952)

One Bible

“When an entire church, or group or churches, or even an entire nation of Christians, uses basically one Bible translation, genuinely wonderful things happen. An individual Christian’s knowledge of the Bible increases almost by accident, because certain phrases become woven into the language of the community.”

– Mark L. Ward

Come unto Me, ye weary

1. “Come unto Me, ye weary,
And I will give you rest.”
O blessèd voice of Jesus,
Which comes to hearts oppressed!
It tells of benediction,
Of pardon, grace, and peace,
Of joy that hath no ending,
Of love that cannot cease.

2. “Come unto Me, ye wand’rers,
And I will give you light.”
O loving voice of Jesus,
Which comes to cheer the night!
Our hearts were filled with sadness,
And we had lost our way;
But Thou hast brought us gladness
And songs at break of day.

3. “Come unto Me, ye fainting,
And I will give you life.”
O cheering voice of Jesus,
Which comes to aid our strife!
The foe is stern and eager,
The fight is fierce and long;
But Thou hast made us mighty
And stronger than the strong.

4. “And whosoever cometh,
I will not cast him out.”
O patient love of Jesus,
Which drives away our doubt;
Which love so free and boundless
Unworthy though we be,
Invites us very sinners
To come, dear Lord, to Thee!

 – William Chatterton Dix

The greatness of the King James Version of the Bible

...by a Revised Standard Version reviser:

“The greatness of the King James Version of the Bible—and beyond all cavil it is one of the great Bible translations—lies, as every reader recognizes, in its superb literary qualities. Commonly it has been pointed out that the King James Version was created in the great, the classic age, one might say, of the language. But what is almost as commonly overlooked is that it owes its merit, not at all to seventeenth century English—which was far different—but to its faithful rendering of the original. The style of the English Bible is the style of the Hebrew, and of the Koiné Greek of New Testament times. Rather than a child of seventeenth century English, it is parent of the English of today. Its lucid clarity has established itself as the standard of good writing; its great phrases have passed over into common usage; many of its figures of speech have established themselves in the language as indigenous English.” 

William A. Irwin, from An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament, as quoted by Oswald T. Allis in  Revised Version or Revised Bible? A Critique of the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament (1952)

A church platform, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

"A church platform of worship must never become a stage for earthly performance." -- Glenn Harrell

"No meritorious deed, nor religious exercise, no action of the human will can put away sin; but Jesus paid the price, canceled the debt and put away sin for all who come to him." -- Lasserre Bradley, Jr.

"If God saves me without my works, then he must choose me apart from them, too." -- Michael Horton

"An interpretation falsified by a relevant context is not an interpretation of Scriptura." -- John Frame

"The start of sinful people's corruption of God's fair earth was as small as the first weed, but its end is a withered world." -- J. Alec Motyer

"The day before everything changes feels like just another ordinary day." -- Becky Thompson

"We don't get to choose which conversations we have in culture." -- Heard

"We all marry the wrong person." -- Gina Bria (as quoted by Sharon A. Hersh)

"To be humble is to be teachable." -- Richard G. Scott, Richie Norton, maybe others

"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you." -- Steven Wright

"In some cultures they love their neighbors, and in other cultures they eat their neighbors. Which do you prefer?" -- Ravi Zacharias

"The “scope” of Scripture, the range of subject matter to which it may be applied, is unlimited." -- John Frame

"To have faith in the Word, Scripture must not grasp us in our critical thought, but in the life of the soul." -- Abraham Kuyper

"My conscience is captive to the word of God." -- Martin Luther

Baptist Voices: VSA to the RSV

Voices Stating Aversion to the Revised Standard Version

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was published in 1952. It was met with the plaudits of many and the censure of others. This seems to coincide with the push of publishing documents supporting the King James Bible. “However, one must not assume that fundamentalists began to preach King James Onlyism because they rejected the RSV,” says James D. Price. “The rejection was because of a theologically liberal bias in the RSV, not to textual issues or a sudden need to have a final authority in English.”[i] On the other hand Jeff Straub writes, “Because of the populist nature of the KJV-only movement within fundamentalism, it is not entirely easy to determine when this began to surface within the large and rather amorphous movement of self-identified fundamentalists.” He believes the books by Jasper James Ray (God Wrote Only One Bible, 1955) and Edward F. Hills (The King James Version Defended, 1956) “were probably motivated by the recent publication of the Revised Standard Version.” There certainly was a flurry of activity concerning the RSV and KJV Bibles about this time, possibly beginning with the pamphlets “The New Blasphemous Bible” by Wichita, Kansas Baptist preacher Gerald B. Winrod and “The Eye Opener” by Oregonian J. J. Ray.[ii]

According to Daniel Wallace, “[The RSV] is in fact the most hated English translation of all time.” In November 1952, Martin Luther Hux, pastor of Temple Baptist Church of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, shocked many by announcing his intentions to burn a copy of the Revised Standard Bible.[iii] Others followed suit, and “One straw in the wind of public reaction was the adoption by the city council of Crestview, Fla., or an ordinance prohibiting the burning of the Revised Standard Version...which prescribed a $500 fine or 90 days in jail...”[iv] Another controversy involved the Revised Standard Version ended a church up in court in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.[v]

Here is some “odds and ends” history of what a few Baptists thought about it.[vi]

American Baptist Association

“Whereas, the religious worlds is divided into two schools of thought or two parts, the liberal or modernistic and the Fundamental or Conservative, the former denying the Virgin birth of Jesus, the verbal inspiration of the Bible, etc., and the latter accepting both as Cardinal truth and,

            “Whereas, the modernistic group have authorized the recent translation of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and,

            “Whereas, the Revised Standard Version seems to definitely minimize the truth of the Deity of Jesus; Be it therefore Resolved that this messenger body go on record as opposing the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.”[vii]

Arkansas State Association of Free Will Baptists

RESOLUTION NO. 5. Be it resolved, that we the Arkansas State Association of Free Will Baptist go on record as denouncing the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and that we Petition the American Bible Society to discontinue publishing or distributing same. And a copy of this Resolution be sent to our National paper, the Contact for publication.”[viii]

Baptist Sunday School Board, Southern Baptist Convention

“The Sunday School Board plans to continue the use of the King James Version as the basic text of all its publications. The blessing of God has been upon this Version…No one need have any uneasiness about the fidelity of the Sunday School Board to the Bible and to the faith and convictions of our Baptist people.”[ix] [This was neither a rejection of the Revised Standard Version nor a “King James Only” statement. It was a practical, and probably disingenuous, move to not anger its base who preferred the KJV.]

BMA of Texas resolves against RSV
Lubbock Avalanche Journal, Nov 1952

Bible Baptist Church, North Miami, Florida

In December 1952 George E. Ziemer, pastor of Bible Baptist Church of North Miami, said he wouldn’t “burn a copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible today after all—unless his congregation wants him to...He does intend, however, to denounce the translation as ‘The New Blasphemous Bible,’ he said, and to distribute a pamphlet bearing the same title.”[x]

Big Bear Missionary Creek Association (Northwest Alabama)

At the 118th Session, 1953: “The Committee on Publications made a strong report recommending the King James Version of the Bible to be the rule and guide for the churches. The committee disapproved of the new standard revised Bible of 1952. This revised edition had been studied by Elder Silas Lang, at the association's request, and his recommendation was that it should not be accepted. This was the feeling of the association, too, according to the records.”[xi]

Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada

The Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada, formed in 1953 by a merger of two Baptist bodies. At their second annual convention in October 1954, this body passed a resolution condemning the Revised Standard Version:

WHEREAS this Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada has come into existence as the result of protest against modernism and modernistic affiliations; 

AND WHEREAS it is necessary to reaffirm our loyalty to God and His Word in the face of new dangers which arise to threaten the faith of God’s people; 

AND WHEREAS there has come into being a new translation of the Scriptures entitled the Revised Standard Version, which has been promoted with continent -wide publicity, with the avowed purpose of replacing the King James Version now being used in most of the churches of the English speaking world; 

AND WHEREAS almost every scholar who helped translate this version is known to be an outstanding modernist who no longer holds to the old fundamentals and accepted foundational truths upon which the Christian Church has rested through the centuries; 

AND WHEREAS this translation has the effect of undermining the authority of the Scriptures, and of casting doubt upon the eternal existence and Deity of Chris, and contains many serious additions and omissions which indicate a disregard of the verbal inspiration of the original Scriptures; 

AND WHEREAS this translation is published under the authority of the modernistic National Council of Churches of Christ in America which owns the copyright and receives a royalty on the sale of each Bible; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we as messengers of the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada gathered in convention this October, 1954, at High Park Baptist Church, Toronto, place ourselves on record as rejecting the Revised Standard Version as a reliable translation.

Fundamental Baptists, Jacksonville, Florida

“Fundamentalist Baptist pastors of Jacksonville have rejected the new Revised Standard Version of the Bible because they say it is ‘the attempt of the devil to discredit the holy word of God.’ Their opposition to the new translation was set forth in a resolution adopted at a recent meeting of fundamentatlist preachers and is signed by Dr. R. D. Ingle, and the Revs. Lunsford Heath, J. A. Atkinson and James K. Miller…Ingle said 14 churches in this area with a membership of around 5,000 were represented at the session when the resolution was adopted.”[xii]

General Association of Regular Baptists, Robert T. Ketcham

“Referring to the [Revised Standard] Bible, [Robert T.] Ketcham said, ‘We don’t call it a version. We call it a perversion.’ It is ‘treacherous’ he said, because it eliminates the prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ and substitutes the words ‘young woman’ for ‘virgin’.”[xiii]

Missouri Baptist State Association, Minutes of the 1955 Annual Session, 1955, p. 14
“Resolution. Let it be resolved that we as messengers of the churches comprising the Missouri Baptist State Association express our disapproval of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as a standard of worship, along with any other versions which tend to deny, or question the virgin birth of Christ, His blood atonement, or any other of the fundamentals for which Baptists have stood since the days of Christ.
“Be it also resolved that we express that it is our desire that the teachings and practices of our missionaries and the editor of the Missouri Missionary Baptist be in keeping with this resolution.
“Let it further be resolved that we request that this resolution be printed in the Missouri Missionary Baptist.”

Phoenix Evangelical Ministers Association, Phoenix, Arizona

In 1952, LeRoy D. Thomas, pastor of Palmcroft Baptist Church, was elected chairman of the Phoenix Evangelical Ministers Association. In their December meeting, “The Association adopted a resolution at the meeting which renounced the new revised standard version of the Bible as being ‘modernistic and Unitarian in its handling of many vital portions of the Bible.’”[xiv]

Pastor Obie Barton leads Fellowship Baptist Church (BMAT) in a Rally to support the KJV and oppose the RSV
He appeals to those who believe “in the Old Time King James Bible”

Southern Baptist Church, unidentified, in Missouri

In September 1955 an unnamed Training Union director writes to ask a question of R. L. Hudson of Word and Way about “the new version.” “My church has split over the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. When the new [Southern Baptist] literature came out with the picture of the new version on the back of one of the quarterlies our church went wild and voted out the whole Training Union literature. Our pastor led in the movement and the church voted not to send any more mission money.”[xv]

Tennessee Baptist Convention (Southern Baptist)

“Upon the publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in 1952, C. W. Pope received at the TBC office numerous letters from Baptists who were greatly disturbed over the new version. Some of the letters were petitions, and others told of churches which had withdrawn from the convention or were withholding contributions to the CP.”[xvi]

It is my opinion that King James “Only” support was not a new thing in the 1950s (or even 1930, see HERE). But the publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible – considered by many to be a liberal translation by liberal translators from a liberal publisher (National Council of Churches) – clearly gave a motive for people to study the issue and eventually turn the negative opposition to the Revised Standard Version into positive support for the King James Version.[xvii]

---

[i] King James Onlyism: A New Sect, James D. Price, Singapore: Saik Wah Press, 2006, p. 2

[ii] Winrod was a Baptist, and some have claimed that Ray was. The case for the latter is not clear.

[iii] “Rocky Mount Bible-Burning Set Tonight,” Asheville Citizen-Times (Asheville, North Carolina) Sunday, November 30 1952, p. 1; The Rocky Mount Ministerial Association declared that none of their members had any sympathy for and part in the Bible burning episode of Hux. (“Ministers Deplore Burning Of New Bible By Local Pastor,” Rocky Mount Telegram, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, Wednesday, December 3, 1952, p. 1B); According to a history of Temple Baptist Church published in The (Nashville/Rocky Mount) Graphic October 16, 1987, Hux actually on burned “…a page from Isaiah, chapter 7, verse 14…”

[iv] “Fundamentalists in Bitter Attack Upon Revised Standard Version of the Bible,” Decatur Sunday Herald and Review (Decatur, Illinois), Sunday, February 1, 1953, p. 39

[v] See Reid v. Johnston -- Reid v. Johnston, 85 S.E.2d 114 (N.C. 1954); also “Text Of Judgment Rendered By Judge Paul In Rocky Mount Church Case,” Rocky Mount N.C. Evening Telegram, Thursday, December 31, 1953, p. 8, and “North Carolinians Brew Revolt In Southern Baptist Ranks,” The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) Sunday, July 23, 1955, p. 3, Section 3; William C. Lassiter, attorney and Baptist layman – speaking of Southern Baptist leaders who testified in a way to keep the North Rocky Mount Church in the Baptist Convention –  wrote, “These gentlemen, in their enthusiasm over the prospects of saving an individual Baptist church ‘for the conventions,’ have repudiated and recanted some of the basic things each of them had previously written in their book which had been widely published for the education and enlightenment and guidance of ordinary Baptist laymen.”

[vi] There were Baptists who viewed the RSV positively, but that is someone else’s story to tell. For example, in “Local Minister Scores Proposal Of Rocky Mount Pastor to Burn Bible,” G. Durham Ipock, pastor of the Nashville (North Carolina) Baptist Church “described the new Revised Standard Version as ‘the best Bible news in 341 years’.” (The Nashville Graphic, Thursday, November 27,  1952, p. 1)

[vii] History of the American Baptist Association, Robert Ashcraft, editor, Texarkana: American Baptist Association, 2000, pp. 323-324; See also “Baptist’s Convention Ends With Resolution Opposing New Bible,” The Montgomery Advertiser, Friday, March 13, 1953, p. 1C

[viii] Minutes of the Fifty-Eighth Annual Session of the Arkansas State Association of Free Will Baptists, September 28-30, 1955, pp. 14-15

[ix] “A Statement About the Revised Standard Version,” Word and Way, Thursday, January 8, 1953, p. 4

[x] “Bible Burning At Church Up To The Congregation,” The Miami Daily News (Miami, Florida), Sunday, December 14, 1952, p. 12; Ziemer was a graduate of Bob Jones College in Cleveland, Tennessee, now Bob Jones University (The Miami Daily News, January 12, 1946, p. 7).

[xi] History of the Big Bear Creek Association, 1835-1977, Silas Lang & Jewel Moore, n.p., n.d., p. 100

[xii] “Fundamentalists Object to New Bible Version,” Detroit Free Press, Saturday, October 25, 1952, p. 9; Ingle was Director of Missions for the World Baptist Fellowship; the resolution was passed at the Tri-State Fellowship of Fundamental Baptists (see, e.g., “Bible Opposition Not Voiced Here,” Tallahassee Democrat, Sunday, October 12, 1952, p. 18)

[xiii] “Says New Bible Is A Perversion Of The Truth,” The Algona Upper Des Moines, Tuesday, December 16, 1952, p. 1

[xiv] “Palmcroft Pastor Heads Unit; New Bible Version Renounced,” Arizona Republic, Saturday, December 13, 1952, p. 11; “In part, the resolution reads, ‘Resolved that we, as a group of pastors, believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that the Authorized Version (King James) is so translated as not to destroy the original meaning of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity which according to Webster’s Dictionary are: ‘Belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, biblical miracles, especially the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ.’ The Resolution continues: ‘Resolved that we hereby reject the new modernistic, National Council of Churches’ translation, as being improperly translated.’”

[xv] “Counselor’s Corner,” Word and Way, Thursday, September 22, 1955, p. 7

[xvi] Tennessee Baptists: A Comprehensive History, 1779-1999, Albert W. Wardin, Jr., Executive Board of the Tennessee Baptist Convention, 1999, p. 507; TBC is the Tennessee Baptist Convention, and CP is the Cooperative Program.

[xvii] It is interesting to note that many concerns voiced in Carl McIntire’s “The New Bible (Revised Standard Version): Why Christians Should Not Accept It” find voice in KJVO publications.