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.
3 comments:
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
I think this would explain a Baptist to Anglican conversion best.
An excellent point! I still love that little old book- "The Little Baptist." Illustrates for all that the Bible is a "baptist book," for reading it honestly and without the weight of confessions and tradition, one will come a way a Baptist.
Jim and Adam -- thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Post a Comment