Friday, March 31, 2017

Bible text comparisons

John 11:35 in 28 English translations
ASV Jesus wept.
AMP Jesus wept.
AMPC Jesus wept.
BRG Jesus wept.
CSB Jesus wept.
DARBY Jesus wept.
DLNT Jesus wept.
ESV Jesus wept.
ESVUK Jesus wept.
EXB Jesus wept.
GNT Jesus wept.
HCSB Jesus wept.
JUB Jesus wept.
KJV Jesus wept.
KJ21 Jesus wept.
AKJV Jesus wept.
LEB Jesus wept.
MEV Jesus wept.
NASB Jesus wept.
NET Jesus wept.
NIRV Jesus wept.
NIV Jesus wept.
NIVUK Jesus wept.
NKJV Jesus wept.
RSV Jesus wept.
RSVCE Jesus wept.
WEB Jesus wept.
YLT Jesus wept.
John 14:6 in 18 English translations
ASV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.
BRG Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
DRA Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
ESV Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
GNV Jesus said unto him, I am that Way, and that Truth, and that Life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
JUB Jesus said unto him, I AM the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes unto the Father, but by me.
KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
KJ21 Jesus said unto him, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.
LEB Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
MEV Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NABRE Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
NASB Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
NKJV Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NLT Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
NRSV Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
RSV Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
WEB Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.
WYC Jesus saith to him, I am way, truth, and life; no man cometh to the Father, but by me.
Ephesians 2:8 in 6 English Translations
BRG For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
DRA For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;
GNV For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,
JUB For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,
KJV For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
KJ21 For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God—

Baptists and Religious Liberty, 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.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

KJV to "UNV" to KJVO: a Journey

As I noted Tuesday, I have written a fair amount regarding the King James Bible. Many people probably assume us “older folks” just grew up with the King James and are therefore predisposed to use it. I suppose there is some truth in that, but it doesn’t reflect the whole story.

My first Bible was a King James Version. For the most part, my memories go back to the early 1960s. Back then in “our” churches everyone used the King James Bible, but there was little talk or teaching about it.[i] Folks just believed their Bible was trustworthy and were skeptical of the new Revised Standard Version. Seems most Baptists in the South warned against the RSV.[ii] The New American Standard Bible was once mentioned in our pulpit by a young visiting preacher. His idea of it was that the NASB was just the KJV with some newer, more up-to-date words (“you” for “thou” type stuff). I think everyone took his statement at face value and there was no action or reaction about it.[iii]

I own several print versions of the Bible, from a first edition facsimile reproduction of the 1611 King James Bible to a New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses – even a few foreign language Bibles thrown in for good measure (whether I can read them or not!). I don’t I think ever carried a different version of the Bible to use in church, but I was not committed to the sole use of the King James Bible. In Sunday School when I was a nearly-grown teenager I would read from the King James Bible and “translate” it into modern English as I was read (changing pronouns and verbs and such like). I think I had a Living Bible back when those were popular. Most older people used and trusted the King James Bible, but I don’t remember any specific talk or discussion of “King James Only” in our circles.

In the fall after I surrendered to preach, I enrolled in a Bible College – against the better judgment of some and at the urging of others. “The story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent” (though no names are mentioned and no one was innocent). The Bible College was generally conservative but somewhat progressive. They took the position on the Bible that only the original autographs were inspired. Its current doctrinal statement on the subject affirms, “The Holy Scriptures, which we call, ‘The Bible,’ in their original expression, are the Words of God; they are verbally inspired and the author of them is God.” It was here I began my journey back to the King James Bible.

This Bible College was covertly “anti-King James.” They did not appear so outwardly to the churches, but were so within the four walls of their sanctum. I was “UNV” – unaligned and largely unaware of the versions debate. It was the school’s mixed message which eventually caused me to study the subject of Bible versions and decide I preferred the King James Bible. I read books such as Which Bible by David Otis Fuller (pro) and The King James Version Debate by D. A. Carson (con), as well as The Men Behind the King James Version by Gustavus S. Paine (about the translators).[iv]

Most of the instructors at the Bible College were also pastors. Most were from generations that grew up using the King James Bible, and they preached from the King James Bible in their churches.[v] Though they took the position that only the autographs were inspired and that other versions – particularly the NASB – were better than the KJV, they always recommended the student preachers to use the King James Bible when they visited and filled in at churches. In the classroom they spoke plainly about their opinions of the King James Bible. In the pulpit – not so much! One leading professor emphatically exclaimed to his class (which I was in), “I had just as soon use a Catholic Bible as an Episcopalian Bible.”[vi] In my second year one of the instructors began a chapel series on one of the letters of Peter.[vii] The lesson began with his translation from the Greek (UBS/Nestle-Aland) and proceeded with a litany of what was wrong with the King James translation of this or that. After several weeks I had more of this than I could take and quit going to chapel. I can only assume that the series continued in the anti-KJV rhetoric with which it began. At the end of the year I concluded that higher-learning experience and did not return. The quest of learning about the Bible continued as part of my larger journey of learning about the church.

So there you have it. A journey. An outwardly neutral anti-KJV school took an unaligned student and turned him toward a KJV-Only supporter. It doesn’t make me right or wrong, but it is my journey. It is not what many people might suppose about (so-called) “older” King James Bible supporters. It is not just a default position.

[i] For example, the Sunday School material used the King James Bible, but a writer might comment on a Greek or Hebrew word and suggest “a better translation.” Back then I don’t suppose any of our people had ever even heard of “KJVO.”
[ii] I believe the American Baptist Association, Baptist Missionary Association and Southern Baptist Convention all made resolutions against it.
[iii] His idea was incorrect, though he may have believed what he said.
[iv] These are a sample of where I started my search.
[v] There was one exception of which I was aware.
[vi] But he didn’t use the Catholic Bible – and he did use the Episcopal Bible.
[vii] I forget whether it was First or Second Peter. I think it was First and that he eventually went through both.

Spurgeon on Revised Version

Charles Spurgeon comparing new Revised Version with the King James Version:
"With regard to the Revised New Testament, in answer to many enquiries we are only able to go thus far. It is a valuable addition to our versions, but it will need much revision before it will be fit for public use. To translate well, the knowledge of two languages is needed: the men of the New Testament company are strong in Greek, but weak in English. Comparing the two, in our judgment the old version is the better."
Charles H. Spurgeon, The Sword and the Trowel, 1881

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Random Ruminations on the KJV

The words of the Bible do not lose their inspiration (i.e., truth) when copied from the originals or translated into another language. When copying is correctly done or translating accurately made, the words of the copy or translation derive their inspiration from the original words and can be spoken of as true, pure, inerrant, etc. The words of God do not lose their truthfulness through copying and translating, so they do not need to be “re-inspired”.

Dave Mallinak claims “If we argue that the English version is inspired, then we must necessarily believe in double-inspiration.” But he misunderstands. The average folk who speak of their translation of the Bible as inspired do not speak in theological terms, but are using non-technical terminology related to the trustworthiness of the Bible and not the mechanics of how it got that way and continues to be so.

Any edition of the King James Bible that contains the same words is a faithful representation of the KJV – regardless of minor differences in punctuation and spelling, typeface or text format and such like matters.[i] Proponents of the King James Bible shoot themselves in the foot when they argue over matters like the spelling of “musick” versus “music”.

“The historic and biblical view is that inspiration took place once (over a period of time), never to be repeated again once the canon was closed. Therefore the term ‘double inspiration’ has the tendency to raise a red flag for many people.” – What exactly does Ruckman believe about double inspiration

An individual influenced by Ruckman’s views said, “The italics in the King James Bible were inspired of God to be there and they are advanced revelation.”  This shows an ignorance of both inspiration and translation. The italics are simply words included by translators when it took more words to sensibly translate into the target language than there is an exact correspondence in the source language.

Certain disciples of Ruckmanism have gone so far as to create a text to “prove” the 1611 King James Bible is mentioned in the inspired word of God: “We call it the Authorized Version, Numerical. It is identical to the regular Authorized Version in words and meaning. The only differences are the written out number words are changed to digits, with brackets around the digits for clarity (basically just a spelling change), and the text is broken at sentences, questions, and the digits.” These Gnostics have found the key to the Scriptures: “It appears the Lord hid a key in the Scriptures nearly 2000 years ago that He kept hidden until 2009.”

Among those who believe the KJV is advanced or new revelation are some who believe most or all of the following: that the KJV was given by inspiration; that the KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based; that the KJV is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text (and therefore is used to correct Greek or Hebrew manuscripts); that Bible translation into other languages should be based on the KJV rather than Greek and Hebrew manuscripts; and finally, that a person can only be saved through hearing the gospel from the King James Bible.


[i] An error in translation is when the translation fails to convey the meaning of the host language.

The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman

Peter Sturges Ruckman (November 19, 1921 – April 21, 2016) was an independent Baptist pastor, teacher, author, artist, musician, and founder of Pensacola Bible Institute in Pensacola, Florida. He was well known for his brand of “King James-Onlyism” – perhaps better known for his vitriolic approach in its defense. Two authors examining his claims wrote, “Ruckman is without any doubt the most caustic and abusive among King James-Only partisans.”[i] The Bible Baptist Bookstore refer to Ruckman’s writings as “Truth With An Attitude” rather than “mean spirited.” His obituary yields the interesting fact that “He was lead to the Lord by a Baptist preacher, Bro. Hugh Pyle” (an associate of John R. Rice).

Peter Ruckman’s teachings are full or errors that far exceed his position on the Bible. He insulted others that he mocked as scholars and positioned himself as the sole arbiter of the truth. He was thrice married and twice divorced. Concerning the Bible itself and the King James Bible in particular he taught “double inspiration” and “advanced revelation.”

Insults and attacks
  • “Every major, recognized Christian scholar in this century is an habitual, chronic, intentional, pathological LIAR (Gen. 3:1).”[ii]
  • “Every time I consult the best Christian brains of the 19th, 20th, and 21st century I am forced to conclude that the scholar is just as rotten as a dead shrimp in the sunlight or as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, or….else he is simply ‘out of his skull’ because he hasn’t got any brains in it. I hate to keep calling them ‘LIARS’, but they do lie like a Persian rug and lie more consistently than the sun coming up in the morning. I do not like to call them ‘jackasses’, although they meet the Biblical qualifications (Job 11:12) many times, by their comments; and I do not like to refer to them as ‘cloned robots’, although that is EXACTLY what their writings reveal.”[iii]
Double inspiration and advanced revelation

Double inspiration and advanced revelation do not mean the same thing, yet are two sides of one coin.

Double inspiration is a little tricky to nail down, since it is more likely to be defined by those who disagree with it than those who agree.[iv] Double inspiration is the idea that God inspired the translators in the same manner that he inspired the original writers of the Scriptures, or that God gave the words of the translation “by inspiration.” For practical purposes, double inspiration is the idea that God inspired the translators of the King James Bible in the same manner that he inspired the original writers of the Scriptures.

It is hard to find definitive quotes from Ruckman on double inspiration,[v] but the following from the Bible Believers’ Bulletin (January 2008, page 9) uses the terminology:
  • “The first time they were ‘inspired’ was in the Hebrew language, and the next time (‘double!’) they were inspired again in the New Testament ‘original autographs’! They were inspired in a different language, and many times the translations did NOT match ‘the original Hebrew’ or the ‘original Old Testament manuscript’ or ‘the Hebrew text’.”
  • He also writes, “The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’”[vi]
  • ‘AFTER EASTER’ (vs. 4). The Holy Spirit has thrust Himself into the AV committee of 1611 and said, ‘WRITE . . . !’”[vii]
Advanced revelation can also be tricky to define. Yet it is stated more plainly than double inspiration in the writings of Peter Ruckman. Advanced revelation is truth not revealed by God until a later date, in the case of Ruckman’s teaching it is that the King James Bible contains advanced information or revelation not found in the Greek and Hebrew from whence it came.
  • “There are more than forty-five advanced revelations in a King James Bible that no Hebrew or Greek scholar was able to find in any set of Greek manuscripts, in any translation of any Hebrew text, for any version in any language, published by anyone who rejected the AV as the final and infallible authority.”[viii]
  • “Maybe the Lord doesn’t want you to have the exact force of the original. Maybe he wants you to have the exact force of the English!...If I had the originals right here in my pulpit tonight, I wouldn’t teach them to you—and I mean it.”[ix]
  • “Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!”[x]
  • “A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 years later.”[xi]
  • “The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books: An Illustrated Account in Layman’s Language of the English Bible, Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Institute, 1973, p. 9)[xii]
Evasion and equivocation

Ruckman evades uncomfortable issues with “Who cares?” Asked about English-speakers having access to the word of God before 1611: “What version of the Bible was the inerrant, infallible, inspired translation prior to the AV1611? Answer: Who cares? Ask the people that read it.”[xiii] Asked about the translators own recognition that they were not inspired: “Who cares what the King James translators thought about their work?”[xiv] The fact that someone asked the question shows they both think and care.

KJV vs. Ruckmanism

Now that we have examined some of the views of Peter Ruckman on the Bible, someone might ask, “Who cares?” We care because Ruckmanite doctrines of double inspiration and advanced revelation deny plain truths taught in the Scripture.

Advanced revelation denies the truth of preservation of the word. The Psalmist wrote, “Forever, O Lord, thy words are settled in heaven.” Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mark 13:31; cf. Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35; Luke 21:33; Isaiah 40:8). If the words of scripture were lost and had to be “re-revealed” in 1611, then Jesus did not fulfill his promise of preserving his word. “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (Psalms 12:6-7). The doctrine of preservation is a crucial companion of inspiration. Preservation means that God sovereignly oversaw the process of the transmission of his words over the centuries.[xv] Because of preservation we can trust the Scriptures. An inspired Bible that is not preserved would be of little consequence to us living today – or those living in any period![xvi]

Double inspiration confounds the biblical meaning of inspiration. Without question, the original human authors of the Bible received divine revelation directly from God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16) and “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). The product was inerrant, infallible, pure words of truth from God. points out that “when human translators translate, the divine act of the Holy Spirit breathing out words does not take place. No double or secondary inspiration takes place when human translators do their work because they are not being inspired in the process as were the Biblical writers.” Double inspiration further confuses the “closed” nature of the process of revelation – “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The Old Testament and New Testament authors were inspired. The translators did not claim this type of inspiration for themselves.[xvii] (They did accurately translate the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek scriptures into the English language.)

King James Bible supporters must be aware that the teachings of Peter Ruckman and his followers sound like what we believe – they sound like they support our views. His view is no sound support of the King James Bible. It perverts the true doctrine of inspiration and preservation and supplants it with cleverly disguised falsehood. Beware! The words of the LORD are pure words.

[i] One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible, Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001, p. 47
[ii] The Christian Liar’s Library, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1997, p. 212
[iii] The Books of 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Philemon, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2005, p. 95
[iv] Many adherents of “Ruckmanism” avoid or deny the term “double inspiration.”
[v] One of Ruckman’s followers writes, “I not only believe in DOUBLE inspiration [which the NEW Athenians reject], but, also, I believe in TRIPLE INSPIRATION. I believe that God not only inspired the writers in the original languages, but also the New Testament writers when they TRANSLATED the Hebrew passages into the Greek, and the translators of the Authorized Version as they made their selection of English words.” – The New Athenians, James H. Son, Lubbock, TX: Praise Publishing, 1992, p. 25
[vi] The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, pp. 271-272
[vii] The Book of Acts, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore 1974/2003, p. 395
[viii] Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Peter S. Ruckman, December 2005, p. 13
[ix] A Survey of the Authorized Version, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1978/2003, p. 17
[x] Concluding his explanation of the use of “churches” in Acts 19:37; The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1976, p. 125-126
[xi] Ibid., p. 127
[xii] The Monarch of Books: An Illustrated Account in Layman’s Language of the English Bible, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Institute, 1973, p. 9
[xiii] “Strictly Personal,” Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Believers’ Bulletin Reprint, Vol. 7. 2004, p. 251
[xiv] The Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1989, p. 446
[xv] Preservation is the process by which God kept the Scriptures since their original inspiration. Preservation applies to the copying of scripture and making translations.
[xvi] I believe a Bible succession is necessary for the Lord to keep his promise of Matthew 28:18-20, as well as for the church to fulfill the commission of Matthew 28:18-20, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Cf. Matthew 16:18)

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The King James Bible and Jack Hyles

Jack Frasure Hyles (September 25, 1926 – February 6, 2001) was a well-known Baptist preacher and “soul-winner”[i] – gathering together in Hammond, Indiana and pastoring for 42 years what was perhaps the largest church in the United States.

The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible shows that Hyles developed his views on the King James Bible over a long period of time.  He began preaching in the 1950s, but did not then hold the King James Bible as the only inerrant word of God. By the mid-1980s he appears convinced of the primacy of the King James Bible.  In his book Enemies of Soul Winning in 1993,[ii] he plainly taught that the use of the King James Bible at some point was necessary for one to be born again.

In it he writes:
2. The words of God are the genes of regeneration. Titus 3:5, ‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.’ Actually the word “regeneration” means “to be re-gened.” Just as the genes of my parents brought my old nature into existence, even so the genes of God brought my new nature into existence. Your old nature is sinful because there was sin in the genes, but the genes of the Word of God are incorruptible, meaning that which is born of God; that is, the new nature, cannot sin.
“Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God. This means that the Revised Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Good News for Modern Man is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Living Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Reader’s Digest Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New Scofield Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New International Version (NIV) is not precious seed, and it is not incorruptible. This means that the American Standard Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. If the versions do not agree, then all of them cannot be the very words of God that have been preserved for us.”
Hyles goes to Titus 3:5 to pick up the topic of regeneration – that the “genes of God” are brought into the believer through the word of God. Though the Bible is not mentioned he apparently inserts it through the idea of belief, then quickly moves to a logical presentation of anything other than the King James Bible is not the word of God. Unfortunately for Hyles’s position, the point of his logic actually proves too much – that any time another Bible version agrees with the King James Bible it is the word of God also. For example, at least six Bible versions on Bible Gateway give “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” in Ephesians 2:8. They are the same words, so all or none are the word of God.[iii]

He then connects his interpretation of Titus 3:5 to 1 Peter 1:23:
4. Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, ‘Being born again, not of corruptible seed....’ Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person’s life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever.”
False Bibles—An Enemy Of Soul Winning (extracted from his book, Enemies of Soul Winning, 1993)
With no way to prove his point by exegesis of the text, Hyles “proves” he is right because he has “convictions as deep as his soul” and “believes it with all of his soul.” “If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again…” According to Hyles, if someone read “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” he could not believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life because it came out of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. If this were true, preachers should never use their own words but simply form sermons from texts in the King James Bible. Of course, Jack Hyles had another serious problem that had to be a presupposition before he could founder on the shoal of equating the King James Bible and the new birth – that is, that salvation is mere mental assent to a proposition of words (be it from the King James or no) rather than an inward work of Holy Spirit of God on the soul, “by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

King James Bible supporters must be keen to hear the uncertain sound of Jack Hyles and his followers. He does not prop up our views. His view is no support of the King James Bible but a serious dashing of the whole truth that brings it into censure. Beware! Salvation is of the Lord.

[i] Jack Hyles believe that if a “soul-winner” or preacher used some other English translation to present the gospel (at least to English speakers), the convert was not truly saved. Hyles’s errors regarding salvation did not begin with the King James Bible – an idea he developed later in his ministry. Rather it began with multifarious “how-to” procedures designed to obtain outward professions of faith, get people to “make decisions” for Christ and “walk the aisle” for baptism and church membership.
[ii] Enemies of Soul Winning, Jack Hyles, Hammond, IN: Hyles-Anderson Publishers, 1993 (First Electronic Printing, June, 1997 by FFEP)
[iii] At least 28 English Bible versions have the same reading in John 11:35.

The King James Bible, Jack Hyles and Peter Ruckman

Those who read this blog (and hear me teach) know that I use the King James Bible in private study and public ministry. I do this not for convenience, but because I believe its accuracy of translation and underlying Greek texts are superior to other translations. I recommend only it to others for personal study, public use and private devotions.

At “Seeking the Old Paths,” I have written Thoughts on King James. I have highlighted the positives of the King James Bible, and as well as explaining details of Why the Ye's and Thou's are in the King James Bible (and worth retaining) – even considered the one use of Easter in the King James Bible. I have gone negative in Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda.

At times promoting the King James Bible requires its proponent to speak out against false-supporters of the book. Two of these are Jack Hyles and Peter Ruckman.  Peter Ruckman’s views are probably the most widespread. His doctrines of “double inspiration” and “advanced revelation” are in direct conflict with what God has revealed in His Word. Jack Hyles’s influence may be lesser than Ruckman’s, but his doctrine may be more pernicious in that it touches the very heart of the gospel and salvation. In the next two posts I intend to address these errors.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Customs of Primitive Churches, election of a minister, continued

PROP. VIII. Of the election of a minister, continued

9. Here follows a narrative of proceedings at two church meetings; the one was to move a person to a trial of his supposed gifts; the other to choose him to be a minister. At the first, the church met fasting, according to previous notice; public service being over and the rest of the congregation dismissed the minister addressed them in words to this effect.
10. “We are come together in the name and with the power of the Lord Jesus; and that fasting, according to notice. The design of the meeting (as many of you know) is, to consult and determine something on the case of our brother _______, who is inclined to the ministry from a consciousness of an inward call thereto. The external call is the business of the church, which you are bound to give, or deny him, according as you know and believe him to be, or not to be fitted of God for the office. He is no novice; for you know the man and his communications. If you know him to be given to wine; to be a striker; or covetous; or greedy of filthy lucre; or a brawler; or accused of riot; or unruly; or a polygamist; or self-willed; or apt to be soon angry; or have an ill report of them that are without; or is defective in understanding, or utterance; or if ye believe on good grounds, that he has not aptness to teach; or has not the spirit of prayer; or is not skilled in the mysteries of the gospel; ye are forbid all aiding and abetting towards introducing him to the ministry. But if, on the other hand, ye know him to be blameless; (the husband of one wife;) vigilent; sober; of good behavior; given to hospitality; patient; (ruling well his own house;) a lover of good men; just; holy; temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught; able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince gainsayers; having a good report of them that are without; and especially if ye have reason to believe he has aptness to teach; has the spirit of prayer; and is skilled in the word of righteousness ye are bound to give your suffrage in his favour; for by endowing him with those qualifications God marks him out as a proper object of your choice. Wherefore let us ask help of God to act the wise and faithful part in this matter.
11. “The kingdom of the Lord are we! and with us are the keys of his kingdom! But we are what we are by thy sovereign grace! and have what we possess by thy unmerited bounty; for thine is the kingdom, and thine is the power! Will it please the king of saints to be in the midst of us now? and at this time reign over us in a special manner? that with the presence and power of the Lord Jesus we may do the thing that pleaseth him on earth, and may obtain the concurrence and {ratification} of heaven! Is he whom the Lord hath designed for the ministry before him? Is our brother _______ the man? Is he really fitted for the ministry, who appeareth to us so to be? Is his disposition to the sacred office the effect of a touch which thy finger hath given to his conscience, or is it owing to some other cause? Shall we encourage him to a probation in the ministry, or shall we forbear? Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show us these things! Even so Lord Jesus, Amen.”
12. After prayer the minister desired the brethren to speak their minds freely touching the thing that had been moved to them. Much was said, and all in favour of the motion. Then the minister put the matter to the vote, saying,
13. “You who think it your duty to encourage our brother _______ to a proof of the ministerial qualifications which you know, or believe him to have, show it by the lifting of your hand.”
Hands were lifted up. Then he put the negative to them, in words to this effect,
14. “You who {hold} yourselves bound to oppose the motion, show it by like sign.”
No hands were lifted up. Then the person was called in whom the minister bespoke thus.
15. “You are, sir, by the unanimous suffrage of your church moved to the exercise of the gifts which they believe you have; we would know whether you will accept the call?”
He signified willingness to comply. Then was informed of the set time when he was to give specimens of his ministerial abilities; and the church required to attend. After that the minister prayed in words to this effect.
16. “Let the thing which we have now done please the, O Lord! for thou knowest that doing thee a pleasure has been our end; and that a sense of duty, exited by indications of thy will, was our motive. Thou hast taught us to pray that many labourers may be sent to the harvest! We have done as thou hast commanded! And no sooner hath one stood up among us, professing a mission from thee and rendering credible the profession by an appearance of ministerial qualifications, than we have hasted to be workers together with God! If we rightly interpret these things, confirm us more and more therein by what we may further see in thy servant, and hear from him, so as not to leave a doubt behind! Help him, good Lord, to make a full proof of his ministry and mission! Help us to judge truly and impartially; for we would not dare abase the power we have because it is thy power, delegated to us as an accountable trust; If we err, will our dear Lord convince us of the error, and forgive; even so, Lord Jesus, Amen.

Then were sung the following lines. The music by Mr. Arne.

                        He, bounteous still, bids others rise,
In lieu of each that fails, or dies;
Nor shall the order cease;
And when he sends by whom he’ll send.
He makes the means attain the end,
By adding the increase.

Let each that hears the preached word,
Admire this goodness of their Lord,
And in his praise agree;
For ministers, their work, and call,
Their shining gifts, their use, and all
Are fruites of his decree.

Then the minister dismissed the church with the usual benediction. See the manner, Prop. iv. ver. 40.

Customs of Primitive Churches, Morgan Edwards, pages 19-21