Campbell and KJVO

It is fashionable today among the anti-KJVO crowd to deny that anyone before 1950 believed that the King James Bible equaled the inspired Word of God. That historical revisionism may sound good to those who want to hear it, but it wouldn’t pass muster with one 19th century KJV opponent, Alexander Campbell. Campbell’s publication of his own New Testament locked him in battle with those who thought only the King James Bible was the word of God. Here is what he had to say about that in The Christian Baptist Volume 6, No. 9, April 6, 1829, page 540.[i] His arguments are eerily similar to the arguments of contemporary anti-KJV’ers. (Everything below with the exception of the endnote was written by the editor of The Christian Baptist.)

The Word of God

So badly taught are many christians that they cannot think that any translation of the scriptures deserves the title of the Word of God except that of king James. The translators of the king’s version did not themselves think so, as we have shown most conclusively by publishing their own preface—on which preface we have some remarks to make, at a more convenient time. But to the intelligent reader no remarks are necessary to show that they had very different ideas of their version, from those which this generation have formed. Have the French, the Spanish, the German, and all the nations of Europe, save the English, no Word of God? If king James’ version is the only Word of God on earth, then all nations who speak any other language than the English, have no Revelation.

Much of the reasoning of both priests and people, on this subject, is as silly as that of an old lady who, for many years, has been deprived of her reason, from whom we heard the other day. She once had a sound judgment, and still has a retentive memory, though she has not been compos mentis one day in twenty years. Her husband was reading in the new version, the account of the cure of the blind man, (Mark viii. 24.) He came to these words: “I see men whom I can distinguish from trees only by their walking.” In the king’s version, “I see men as trees, walking.” After reading these words he paused, and observed to the old lady, to elicit a reply, “How much better this, than the old version.” “That is a good explanation,” said she, “but it is not the scriptures, not the Word of God.” So our good logicians reason.

I would thank some of those ignorant declaimers to tell us where the Word of God was before the reign of king James! Had they no divine book before this good king, in consequence of the Hampton Conference, summoned his wise men? Yes; they had version after version, each of which, in its turn, ceased to be the “Word of God” when a new one was given. This I say after the manner of these declaimers. Our good forefathers, two hundred and fifty years ago, read and preached from a different version, which they venerated in their day, as our compeers venerate James’ Bible.—The English language has changed, and the original tongues are better understood now than then. The common version is, as many good and learned men have said, quite obsolete in its language, and in many places very defective in giving the ideas found in the original scriptures. Taken aa a whole, it has outlived its day at least one century, and like a superannuated man, has failed to be as lucid and as communicative as in its prime.

There is no version in any language that does not clearly communicate the same great facts, and make the path of bliss a plain and easy found one; but there is an immense difference in the force, beauty, clearness, and intelligibility of the different versions now in use. And that king James’ version needs a revision is just as plain to the learned and biblical student, as that the Scotch and English used in the sixteenth century, is not the language now spoken in these United States. And this may be made as plain to the common mind, as it is that the coat which suited the boy of twelve, will not suit the same person when forty years old. As the boy grows from his coat, so do we from the language of our ancestors. Editor.

---

[i] The Christian Baptist, by Alexander Campbell, Seven Volumes in One, D. S. Burnet, editor, Cincinnati, OH: D. S. Burnet, 1835; See also A. Campbell’s New Testament and the KJV.

A Study of, 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.

• A Study of the Greek Text of 1 John 5:6-10 which shows that the Testimony of “The Three Heavenly Witnesses” must be Part of the Epistle and Genuine -- "What no English, or any other language, other than the Greek, can tell you, is that the words in verse 7, are all in the masculine gender."
• Accomodation or Compromise: the Ongoing Battle for the Bible -- "If in the Scripture God is not always speaking, then the reader himself is required to determine where God speaks and where He does not. This makes an idol out of the human mind."
• Baylor survey names a dozen who can really preach -- "The dozen preachers in the top 12 — academics, pastors and authors — were picked from nearly 800 nominees."
• Benefits and Negatives of a Long-Term Pastorate -- "You get to watch generations be born, grow, marry, and invest in the kingdom."
• Comparisons & Contrasts of Old Baptist Doctrine & Calvinism -- "Gill basically stated that terms like “Arminian” and “Calvinist” had limited relevance to early Christians because their theology had not achieved sufficient sophistication to make such distinctions, and this was partly because their attention had not been drawn to the issue by any controversies about it."
• Early Latin Evidence for John 7:53-8:11 -- "...but there is another consideration:  recognition of the possibility that the vast consensus of commentators are wrong, and that the 1,495 Greek manuscripts which contain the passage are right."
• Early Minutes of the Russell’s Creek Association of Baptists, 1829-1833 -- "First, the Introductory sermon was preached by Elder John Harding, from Acts 20 and 21. “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”."
• God was manifest in the Flesh: Examination of a disputed passage -- "The Greek of Ximenes, Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and the Elzevirs, and the various translations derived from their editions all have “God” in this verse. The 19th and 20th century editions of the Greek prepared by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, the Revisers of 1881, Nestle-Aland, Souter, Kilpatrick, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, have all rejected the name of God from this text and have replaced it with “who”."
• Laparola Greek New Testament -- "The text of the Greek New Testament with the most important textual variants (alternative readings)."
• Liberalism is Unstable -- "Liberalism is architecturally unstable. It is a massive edifice that has been slowly, intentionally, and, by design, built without concern for its foundation."
• Liberated through Discipline: The Five Kinds of Discipline -- "As I understand the Scripture, there are five kinds of discipline that God has designed in order to allow a person ample opportunity to mend his ways before more serious disciplinary options become necessary."
• Modest & Gender Distinct Swimwear -- "What resources are available for modest and gender-distinct swimwear?"
• More Christian Than Democrat or Republican -- "Never discuss religion or politics...This common wisdom is well-intentioned but wrong, unhelpful, and, ultimately, impossible to put into practice."
• Recommended non-Ruckmanite literature in defense of the KJV or Textus Receptus -- "All these books and pamphlets defend the KJV or Textus Receptus without teaching they are inspired or perfect."
• Studies on the Holy Trinity by Andrew Martin Ansell -- "Showing from the Word of God, the Holy Bible, that the central doctrine of the true Christian church is One God, Who exists in Three Persons."
• The Authority of the Book -- "When sacred texts are published by secular publishers and primarily read in private by individual owners, who interpret them for themselves, the politics of texts change considerably."
• The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association -- "Unless you are one of a handful of people, you probably do not know about the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association. In fact, you probably think that I am talking about the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, International—but I am not."
• The King James Only Baptist Civil War over Inspiration -- "Actually, it seems that much of the “civil war” today is not really about doctrine at all. It seems to be about who is going to “speak for fundamental Baptists”."
• The Primitive Baptist Confession of Faith of 1900 -- "Pursuant to a call of the Primitive Baptist Church of Fulton, Kentucky the elders and messengers of the Church of God known as Primitive Baptists..."
• The Problem with Evangelistic Programs -- "Just as eating sugar can make us feel as if we’ve eaten when we haven’t, programs can often make us feel as if we’ve done evangelism when we haven’t."
• What I Said Ten Years Ago (And Still Believe) -- "I recently received in the mail an advertisement from a company whose slogan is “We build Christ’s church!” No, they don’t!"
• What One Baptist Association from 1707 Can Teach Churches in 2018 -- "In 1707, five churches joined together near Philadelphia and formed the first association of Baptist churches in America—the Philadelphia Association."
• Why the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery Belongs in the Bible -- "Another important testimony concerning the pericope de adultera is that of Eusebius (c. 324)."
• 2 John 7-11: Case Study or Comprehensive? -- "Is it only very specific truths that form a boundary line for the limitations John bring in 2 John 7-11?"

Inspiration and transmission of the Scriptures

Manual of Theology, John Leadley Dagg, 1857, pp. 22-23

Inspiration and transmission of the Scriptures.—The Bible, though a revelation from God, does not come immediately from him to us who read it, but is received through the medium of human agency. It is an important question, whether its truth and authority are impaired by passing through this medium. Human authority was employed in the first writing of the Scriptures, and agency was employed in the first writing of the Scriptures, and afterwards in transmitting them, by means of copies and translations, to distant places, and succeeding generations.

The men who originally wrote the Holy Scriptures, performed the work under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such was the extent of this influence, that the writing, when it came forth from their hands, was said to be given by inspiration of God. So Paul said, with special reference to the Old Testament: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . . . that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Though Moses and the prophets executed the writing, it is said to have been given by God, and the perfection attributed to it demonstrates that it had not suffered by the instrumentality which he had chosen to employ. Christ referred to the Hebrew Scriptures, as the word of God (Mark 7:13). Paul represents what was spoken by the prophets, as spoken by God (Hebrews  1:1). Peter attributes to the writings of Paul equal authority with that of the Old Testament Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). Paul also claims equal authority for what he spoke and wrote (1 Corinthians 14:37). Christ promised to his apostles, after his departure, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and described the effect of his influence on them in these words: “It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your father which speaks in you.” (Matthew 10:20) This gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them on the day of Pentecost; and their possession of it was proved by their power to speak with tongues, and work miracles. From all this, we learn that what was spoken and written by inspiration, came with as high authority as if it had proceeded from God without the use of human instrumentality. While Peter said to the lame man, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up, and walk,” (Acts 3:6) the voice which spoke was Peter’s, but the power which restored the ankle bones was God’s. The words, though Peter’s, were spoken under divine influence, or the divine power would not have accompanied them. So the gospel, received from the lips of the apostles, was received, “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) The men who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, were the instruments that God used to speak and write his word. Their peculiarities of thought, feeling, and style, had no more effect to prevent what they spoke and wrote from being the word of God, than their peculiarities of voice or of chirography.

BMAT on the Revised Standard Bible, 1952

Baptist Missionary Association of Texas on the Revised Standard Bible, 1952

The Vernon (Texas) Daily Record, Thursday, November 6, 1952, page 2

Voices of the Lonely, Dispossessed, and Desolate

“By excluding the cries of loneliness, dispossession, and desolation from its worship, the church has effectively silenced and excluded the voices of those who are themselves lonely, dispossessed, and desolate, both inside and outside the church. By so doing, it has implicitly endorsed the banal aspirations of consumerism, generated an insipid, trivial and unrealistically triumphalist Christianity, and confirmed its impeccable credentials as a club for the complacent. In the last year, I have asked three very different evangelical audiences what miserable Christians can sing in church. On each occasion my question has elicited uproarious laughter, as if the idea of a broken-hearted, lonely, or despairing Christian was so absurd as to be comical — and yet I posed the question in all seriousness. Is it any wonder that British evangelicalism, from the Reformed to the Charismatic, is almost entirely a comfortable, middle-class phenomenon?” 

– Carl Trueman, from “What Can Miserable Christians Sing?”

A Real Man

1. A Man there is, a real Man,
With wounds still gaping wide,
From which rich streams of blood once ran,
In hands, and feet, and side.

2. ‘Tis no wild fancy of our brains,
No metaphor we speak;
The same dear Man in heaven now reigns
That suffered for our sake.

3. This wondrous Man of whom we tell,
Is true Almighty God;
He bought our souls from death and hell;
The price, his own heart’s blood.

4 That human heart he still retains,
Though throned in highest bliss;
And feels each tempted member’s pains;
For our affliction’s his.

5. Come, then, repenting sinner, come;
Approach with humble faith;
Owe what thou wilt, the total sum
Is cancelled by his death.

6. His blood can cleanse the blackest soul,
And wash our guilt away;
He will present us sound and whole,
In that tremendous day.

- By Joseph Hart

Books, online

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the books linked.

• Answering the Myths on the Bible Version Debate by David Cloud
• Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists -- "Minutes of the 37th Annual Session, September 2-4, 1932"
• Life and letters of John Albert Broadus, by A. T. Robertson, 1901
• Luther's Forerunners: or, A cloud of Witnesses, deposing for the Protestant Faith, gathered together in the Historie of the Waldenses: Who for divers hundred years before Luther successively opposed Popery, professed the Truth of the Gospell by Jean Paul Perrin (London: Printed for Nathanael Newbery, 1624)
• Revival Lectures by Charles A. Finney
• Ruckmanism Exposed by R. L. Hymers, Jr. -- "I define Ruckmanism this way: ‘Ruckmanism is the belief that the KJV translation is given by inspiration of God; the translation itself is preserved, and this translation is superior to and corrects the Greek and Hebrew Bible from which it was translated’."
• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction a fresh look at Bible Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation -- "I believe the AV is inspired and inerrant because the preserved original language manuscripts from which it is derived are both inspired and inerrant, when correctly copied, which virtually all of the textual evidence suggests is assuredly the case."
• The Canonicity of the Received Bible Established from Reformation and Post-Reformation Baptist Confessions -- "While an examination of pre-Reformation Baptist groups such as the Waldenses is also pertinent to this study, a narrower focus on Reformation and post-Reformation Baptists will here be maintained."
• The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James Translation, In Use By All Protestants, by William Washington Simkins
• The King James Version Defended -- "Old books have sometimes been likened to little ships which have sailed across the tides of time, bearing within themselves their precious freight of ancient knowledge and culture."
• The Ruckman Conspiracy -- "Secondly, Ruckmanism must be defeated because it has already produced grave errors concerning Bible prophecy."
• The Principle and Tendency of the Revision Examined in The Doctrines of Grace: And Kindred Themes by George Sayles Bishop
• Three Witnesses for the Baptists by Curtis A. Pugh

The Bible is much more, 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.)

"The Bible is much more than God Word's, or God's grammatical constructions or God's pen strokes. It is God's heart!" -- Dave Brunn

"If ye were not Christ's wheat, appointed to be bread in His house, He would not grind you." --  Samuel Rutherford

"The worldly spirit shuts the Bible: the Spirit of God makes it a fire, flaming out all meaning and glorious truth." -- Horace Bushnell

"Either study [the Bible] as removing some obstructions that keep God and thee asunder, or as supplying some uniting power to bring God and thee together." -- Richard Cecil

"My faith has no bed to sleep upon but omnipotence." -- Samuel Rutherford

"Christ is a well of life, but who knoweth how deep it is to the bottom?" -- Samuel Rutherford

"One of the greatest needs that men have as they gain a proper understanding of the truth, (which is set forth in the scriptures) is to “unlearn” those things which they have obtained by their natural understanding." -- Mike McInnis

"God isn’t talking to you.  Stop saying He is.  You sound crazy.  If God was talking to you, you’d likely not be such a horrible Bible teacher." -- Seth Dunn

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -- C. S. Lewis

"Sinners are attractive because they are loved; they are not loved because they are attractive." -- Attributed to Martin Luther

"You can tell how big a problem is by what it takes to fix it. You can tell how big a problem is by how much it costs to fix it." -- Heard

Sitting on my pinnacle,
Looking to and fro;
I wondered where the people were,
And saw them all below.
-- Copied

Accepting Christ

By Jerry Reynolds (Bowling Green, Kentucky)

The catch phrases most popularized by the movement of D. L. Moody and other protestant mass evangelists are "accept Christ" or "accept Christ as my personal Savior." We understand that all must "accept Christ" as the only hope of salvation in route to their new birth experience, but it is never by this action that victory is secured. One cannot "accept Christ as his personal Savior", because Christ does not become our personal Savior by our acceptance of Him, but rather by His acceptance of our repentance and faith.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find such terminology among Baptists prior to the very late 1800's when mass evangelism was already beginning to influence our preachers. One of the earliest I have found is in a booklet by J. M. Carroll on eternal security, in which he may have used "accept Christ" twice. I have no reason to doubt Brother Carroll's soundness, but I believe this innovation in terminology was simply opening the door for a dangerous innovation in practice.

The American revival from 1720 - 1790 re-established the new birth to its proper understanding as being a supernatural spiritual experience with God when He creates a new spirit in the converted. It re-established faith as "evidence of unseen (and eternal) things" instead of blind acceptance of dogma or presumption of truth. Revealed religion became as real to the American revival as it was to Peter in Matthew 16:16-18. This revealed and experimental knowledge was the "rock" upon which Jesus promised He would always build His church. The great 1700's revival split every evangelical protestant denomination on this very issue. Each had two warring factions: those who believed that salvation was an experience with God which left the convert knowing God experimentally, and those who rejected this as supernatural nonsense or at least unnecessary. There was only one denomination not divided by the heaven-sent revival - Baptists! They were actually united by it. Why? Because this was one of their fundamental doctrines and maintained practices before the revival ever began. Many truly converted Protestants crossed over and united with the Baptists. Soon Baptists were the dominant religion in the new country, and for many years, until Moody's influence subverted them, they all maintained this peculiar insistence upon such a "know-so" conversion. Today, scattered and diminished remnants still do. Along with a few other basic fundamentals, this practice defines who are the Old-time Missionary Baptists. A rule of thumb that I have learned to apply worldwide to all "Landmark Missionary Baptist Churches" is this: if they practice heart-felt conversion and require a convincing testimony of such before baptism and church membership, they are almost always sound in all other points of doctrine and practice.

There still exist SOUND churches, who have adopted the terminology of "accepting Christ." They believe the truth regarding conversion, while expressing it in the same terms which Billy Graham and others use to deceive souls. Let us learn patience and understanding in not judging too quickly, but rather ask all who thus express themselves to define their terms. May all who believe the truth soon discard this unfortunate expression.

I asked a dear preacher friend (when I first met him), "What do you mean by 'accept Christ'?" He proceeded to tell me of his salvation experience. He was heavy laden with conviction when he was led through a "Roman road" type conversion process by some misguided preachers and then assured by them that he was saved. A short time later he knelt in private by a couch and poured his prayer out to God, who finally removed his burden and trouble and gave him inner peace. By that "peace with God" he knew intuitively that it was well with his soul. God had witnessed His acceptance of my friend's repentance and faith. Still he urged people to "accept Christ" and the church to which he regularly preached spoke the same way. I asked him why he did not use some other terminology instead of "accept Christ." He wondered why WE had such an aversion to that phrase. I explained to him that to most people this term means an unspiritual and feelingless assent to the gospel without prior Holy Spirit conviction or subsequent conscious evidence of profound inner change wrought in the heart by grace. Such is the "accept Christ" of Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, John Rice, Theodore Epp, and most other modern evangelists, leaving converts deceived and hell-bound, just as Moody and Sunday did before them. This IS NOT historically Baptist. Deep inner conversion which the convert KNOWS occurred, and can tell the time and place with accompanying thoughts and feelings which surround it, is the kind of conversion Baptists have historically required and which the Bible definitely teaches.

As published in The Baptist Waymark, Vol. III, No. 5, September-October 1995, p. 1

Are today's Evangelicals following, 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.

• Amazon Drops Christian Non-Profit from Donations Program After SPLC Declares It a ‘Hate Group’ -- "If you are going to rely on a discredited partisan organization like the SPLC to determine who is eligible to participate in AmazonSmile, you should disclose that in your policy and to your customers."
• Cal Thomas: Are today's Evangelicals following Jesus or following Trump? -- "There is a conceit among some conservative Christians that God is only at work when a person they voted for is elected and that the rest of the time He must be attending to other countries."
• Churches Rarely Reprimand Members, New Survey Shows -- "According to the phone survey of 1,000 Protestant senior pastors, 16 percent of pastors say their church has disciplined a member in the last year."
• Colleges: Anti-Diversity and Pro-Exclusion -- "None of this professorial and student behavior is new at the nation's colleges. It's part of the leftist agenda that dominates our colleges."
• Discrimination and Disparities -- "One of those myths is that but for the fact of discrimination, we'd all be proportionately represented in socio-economic characteristics, such as career, income, education and incarceration."
• Four Women Accuse New York’s Attorney General of Physical Abuse -- "Eric Schneiderman has raised his profile as a voice against sexual misconduct. Now, after suing Harvey Weinstein, he faces a #MeToo reckoning of his own."
• Is Dorothy Sayers’ Trivium Method True to Christian Ideas About Education? -- "What is it, really, that we are doing? And does what we’re doing, however well it might work (better than the modern educational models), align with what Scripture calls us to in formation and discipleship of our children?"
• Minutes of the Southwestern District Missionary Baptist Association -- "Individual years are listed on those pages. All minutes are in pdf format."
• Pagan Culture and Apostate Culture -- "Those cultures which were formed by Christianity and have since abandoned it are not...pagan cultures. They are apostate cultures, and an apostate culture is a much scarier animal than a pagan one."
• Pew: 25% of survey's Christians don't buy biblical God -- "It means, by the way, that not only are they not Christians, they're not even theists."
• Pew: 65% of White Democrats Don’t Believe in ‘All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving’ God -- "Republicans and nonwhite Democrats are also much more likely to believe God possesses any one of these traits than are white Democrats."
• Southern Baptist lobbying group silent on religious liberty threat in California -- "Assembly Bill 2943 would seriously curtail Christian voices regarding the power of Christ to deal with LGBTQ desires."
• The Danvers Statement -- "Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood."
• United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2018 Annual Report -- "In the 28 nations addressed in this report, governments and nonstate actors targeted religious minorities, dissenting members of majority communities, and nonreligious persons."
• When Americans Say They Believe in God, What Do They Mean? -- "Nine-in-ten Americans believe in a higher power, but only a slim majority believe in God as described in the Bible."
• Why I Prefer the King James Version, Part 2, by Wendell Butte -- "The KJV does not do damage to the virgin birth of Christ.

The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version

Written by Joseph Charles Philpot, Strict & Particular Baptist Minister in England 

“Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated”[i]

We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late – whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, “love” for “charity” all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:

1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians[ii] – in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.

2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God’s saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God’s Word!

3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising[iii] Neologian would blot out “God” in 1 Timothy 3.16, and strike out 1 John 5.7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views.[iv] He would read “priest” where we now read “elder,” and put “penance” in the place of “repentance.”

Once set up a notice, “The Old Bible To Be Mended,” and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words “election” and “predestination” into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. “Righteousness” would be turned into “justice,” and “reprobate” into “undiscerning.” All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit’s meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.

5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic – generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!

6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children. It is, we believe, the grand bulwark of Protestantism, the safeguard of the gospel and the treasure of the church; and we should be traitors in every sense of the word if we consented to give it up to be rifled by the sacrilegious hands of Puseyites, concealed Papists, German Neologians, infidel divines, Arminians, Socinians, and the whole tribe of the enemies of God and godliness.

[How much of this has come to pass in this day of many translations!]

Taken from pages 103-105, Sin and Salvation: Selections from J. C. Philpot (B. A. Ramsbottom, editor, Hertfordshire, England: Gospel Standard Trust Publications, 1987)

---

[i] “About the year 1855 the question [of Bible revision] began to be mooted in magazine articles and motions in Convocation…” Frederic G. Kenyon

[ii] We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.

[iii] Denying the Godhead of Christ

[iv] Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism.

My View of King James Only

I have read and heard a great deal of negativity towards what is labeled as a “King James Only” view of the Bible. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations and Definitions of KJV Only show that the label actually covers pretty wide ground.  The detractors reserve their greatest negativity for those who are labeled KJVO #4 and KJVO #5.[i] Because of the negativity I’ve encountered, I’ve spent a great deal of time and posts on my blog on this subject in the past couple months. I consider myself “King James Only,” but find myself at odds with different ideas in my own camp, in addition to not fitting how others categorize us. I even created a 6th category of KJVO to try to cover those whose views might not fit well in the categories of James White and Bob Griffin. I think it will be good (for me, and perhaps my readers) to try to clarify by own thoughts and ideas.

I believe the Scriptures are inspired, infallible, inerrant, trustworthy, and our only rule of faith and practice.[ii] The autographs[iii] are inspired and inerrant in the most direct and immediate fashion. The Holy Spirit moved on men (2 Peter 1:19-21), the result being that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17). No copy or translation is on par with the original, in the sense of this original being where the divine transaction between God and writer first took place. This does not mean we should doubt having the word of God in the present tense. All scripture is given by inspiration.

I accept Francis Turretin’s phrasing – authentic formally & authentic materially – but doubtless with a slightly nuanced meaning. The scriptures in their present condition may not be “authentic formally” because they are not the original form or writing. They are “authentic materially” because the same truth is expressed. The word of the Lord is forever settled in heaven (Cf. Psalm 119:89); the original documents were written on perishable media (think “paper”[iv]). The original text, the words of God, survive and exist without the original media. The original message is not a physical object that has perished. God’s message is not lost, when copied or translated accurately.

I believe, then, that the Scriptures are inspired by God; the original words (though not the original documents) are preserved by God; the preserved words are translated into languages other than or in addition to the original languages.[v] In the English language, I believe the King James Bible represents this work of God, and can legitimately be considered the inspired words of God, preserved and translated.[vi] I believe the King James Bible is inspired and inerrant because original documents, the preserved original language manuscripts, and copies from which it is derived are both inspired and inerrant – not because the King James translators themselves were inspired. I do not believe that God’s words are only preserved in English.[vii]

Unlike many (most?) in the “King James Only” camp, I do not spend my time on tirades against other translations of the Bible.[viii] Apparently, here I differ with many of my brethren. I am loathe to say that the words “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) or “Eber, Peleg, Reu” (1 Chronicles 1:25) somehow are no longer God’s words when printed within the lids of the American Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New International Version, or the Revised Standard Version. When the Douay-Rheims Version (DRA, 1899 American Edition) says in John 14:6 “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” it is a clear testimony that Jesus is the only way, even though contained in a Catholic translation. This is not an endorsement of these Bible translations, but a simple acknowledgement that God’s word cannot be bound or broken! (Compare 2 Timothy 2:9, John 10:35, & Isaiah 55:11, for examples). Wherever it is accurately translated – even in translations with which I otherwise disagree – God’s word is God’s word!

The King James Bible translators, in The Translators to the Reader, put it this way:

“Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.”

God’s word is resilient; it is powerful and persistent; it cannot be bound or broken. Bury it and it will rise again! John 6:63 “…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (Jeremiah 23:29, Ephesians 6:17)

---

[i] Though usually a little more covert, there is actually strong resistance to any form of KJVO – including KJV Preferred. See my Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda.

[ii] “Biblical inerrancy means the Bible contains no error. It is without error in faith and fact. If we have the self-disclosure of the holy God, it cannot be mixed with error.” J. Otis Yoder & Harold S. Martin, Biblical Inerrancy and Reliability (Harrisonburg VA: Fellowship of Concerned Mennonites, 1985, p. 9)

[iii] In theological discussion the autographs (or autographa) refer to the first or original writing (or manuscript) of the documents of the Bible. Therefore, for example, the first document created when Matthew penned his gospel is the “autograph.” When the original document is copied, it is still the Gospel of Matthew but the copy is not considered the autograph.

[iv] Much of the scripture, so it is believed, was originally written on papyrus, a writing material made from a papyrus or reed plant. We get our English word paper from the word papyrus. It may not seem troublesome to scholars to discuss our “not having” the inspired writings, but it is troublesome to destroy the people’s confidence in the Bible.

[v] “Another rendering of the authentic version is itself also Sacred Scripture, so long as it has been translated into other languages as devoutly as possible, and corresponds to it precisely and completely—as much, at least, as this can be done. Such translation is not only permitted and useful (contrary to what certain papal teachers have determined), but also entirely necessary (Acts 2:4, 6, 11; Nehemiah 8:8, 9, 14, 18), so that it may be of use to all people (Deuteronomy 31:11; Colossians 3:16), and so that it may be understood, read, and heard by all people and those of any kind—also lay-people.” – Synopsis Purioris Theologiae or Synopsis of a Purer Theology

[vi] Some people express it this way: Copies and translations have derivative inspiration. Derivative means not original or secondary. That seems okay to me, although I’m not sure that is the best way to express it, or what all may mean when they use the terminology.

[vii] Some people think “King James Only” implies this.

[viii] The multiplying of translations nevertheless causes a great deal of confusion.

Our differences, 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.)

"Our differences [as men and women], I am convinced, should not be seen primarily as differences from each other, but as differences for each other." -- Alastair Roberts

"I have absolutely no desire to build the church. That’s not my job. Jesus said, ‘I will build My church,’ and I would rather not compete with Him." -- John MacArthur

"As ministers of the gospel, we are called to faithfulness, not success." -- Steve Weaver

"Some well-meaning theological literateurs, or rather amateur theologians, who patronize religion in their own way, are fain to warn us of the danger of not ‘keeping abreast of the age,’ as if we are imperilling Christianity by not being quite so learned in modern speculations as they are." -- Horatius Bonar

"Never discuss religion or politics with those who hold opinions opposite to yours. They are subjects that heat in handling, until they burn your fingers." -- Thomas Haliburton

"Where Christianity is well-established and culturally ingrained, it’s easier to lose sight of just how revolutionary the church should be." -- Brett McCracken

"Many in our culture seem to be in a contest to see who can be outraged the fastest, and the most, in an effort to prove our moral sensitivity. It’s like we’re looking for new victims just so we can find new offenders to excoriate." -- Jeff Johnson

"Look at the poor Boy Scouts. Picked to death by their enemies. Always kept giving an inch – one at a time. Until finally, they are not even the Boy Scouts." -- Louis LNU

"Do not fall into the trap of reading only those authors with whom you agree because that would reinforce our prejudices." -- Howard Hendricks 

"If you set one trap, you may be setting two; because, the trap you set for others, may also be for you." -- Traditional

"John the Baptist was too early to have been a New Testament Apostle and was too late to have been an Old Testament Prophet." -- Caesar A. W. Clark

"There are religious grasshoppers and church gypsies who never can find a pastor or church good enough for them; who chase favorite preachers and live on samples brought back from Canaan instead of crossing Jordan and living in the Promised Land themselves, packing their notebooks with epigrams, but not hiding the Word in their heart." -- Vance Havner

"Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God." -- John F. McArthur

"Isn’t it odd how some maintain a succession of the Lord’s churches from the days of Christ, but no succession of the Bible for those churches?" -- Lee R. Tillman

The Greatest Enemy

The greatest enemy of any church of Jesus Christ is the man who remains in her, assumes to be one of her teachers, calmly wears her good name, and yet denies the deity of Him who brought her into being, and disputes the authority of the Book upon which she has rested her every contention. 

William Bell Riley in The Menace of Modernism

Assessing the Meaning of “Baptist Voices for the KJV”

“The advocates of this [KJV-Only] view form a very fringe group who often make a loud noise and cause a lot of damage to the Church.” I read this quote online last Wednesday. The testimony of the ubiquitous nature of the pro-KJV viewpoint among Baptists of the past, continuing into the present, indicates it is not “fringe” after all. As far as causing damage to churches – why is it that only those who want to hold on to the old Baptist voice are doing damage? Why aren’t those who offer a multiplicity of conflicting new voices also charged with “causing lots of damage to the churches?”

Over the past week, I have posted written testimony that the belief that the King James Bible is God’s word to the English people is widespread among by Baptists. In this there is no claim of exact agreement concerning the King James Bible among the different types of Baptists highlighted in those posts. There is also no claim that any or all of the classes of “King James Only” is currently the majority view. Nevertheless, it is more widely held than is often portrayed by its detractors. Fundamentalist to primitivist hoist the banner. Arminians, Traditionalists, Amyraldians and Calvinists raise the tune. Open communionists and closed communionists; universal church advocates and Landmarkists; isolaters and cooperators; doctors and dropouts; churches on Main Street and Possum Creek – all join the chorus, sounding out for the King James Bible. The tune is lively and sung widely across the Baptist domain.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that, though new ideas and new prophets have risen, some Baptists have supported the “King James Bible Only” over any others since the early 1800s. Peter S. Ruckman  created some unique ways of expounding his own KJV-Only view – many of which have been picked up by others – but he is not the originator of the belief that the King James Bible is the inspired word of God. While one may assert that there is “No evidence of Ruckmanism before 1950,” one cannot seriously assert that no one before 1950 believed that the King James Bible was the inspired word of God. Yes, you may if you require that everyone dot all your “I’s” and cross all your “T’s” – and require them to hold the elements that were uniquely Ruckman’s (i.e., double inspiration, advanced revelation, correcting the Greek, etc.). But, no, we cannot – cannot seriously assert that no one before 1950 believed that the King James Bible was the inspired word of God – if we are simply looking for Baptists who thought only the King James Bible was God’s word (as opposed to other English translations). The sheer diversity of Baptists who have accepted some type of “King James Onlyism” militates against a “Ruckman-only” origin, even if we had only found evidence of the belief after 1950! Ruckman did not run in all these circles, and many of them would have never heard of such a character. However, to make it even simpler, some did assert a “King James Only” belief before 1950.

My interest is in compiling historical data, not in supporting the peculiar views of Peter S. Ruckman (much with which I disagree, even far beyond his bibliology). The data presented support the conclusion that, within what has been broadly defined as “King James Only” as opposed to Ruckmanism (see James White, KJVO Controversy, pp. 23-24, for example), the belief has been historical and widespread among Baptists. Many Baptist have stood exclusively for the King James Bible and opposed other Bible versions. To assert that the “King James Only” position is a new invention requires two things: (1) ignoring the facts of history and (2) limiting the “King James Only” position to an unique Ruckman-type belief. Thousands of “King James Only” Baptists recoil at such suggestions! From the past week I highlight the following:

• In 1817 the Tennessee Association of Baptists advised “that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them.”
• Barren River Association of Baptists, in their Articles of Faith adopted in 1830, considered “the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God.”
• Bethlehem Anti-Mission Baptist Association in their Abstract of Principles in 1838 declared “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by King James, to be the Word of God.”
• In 1868 the General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, “…we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James’s version.”
• In 1896 the Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say “We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice.”
• Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed “that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
• In 1935 the Christian Unity Baptist Association said, “We believe in using only the King James version of the Bible.”
• The 1946 Senter District Primitive Baptist Association’s Articles of Faith declare, “We believe that scriptures of the Old and New Testament as translated in the 1611 King James version of the Holy Bible, is the written work of God and the only rule of faith and practice.”
• The Mountain Union Baptist Association’s Resolutions Committee in 1955 advised, “Let us resolve to use the King James version Bible as our only Bible. Let it be our faith and practice.”

All the extracted samples, save one, are before 1950 and all of them before Peter Ruckman wrote anything about the Bible.

The diversity of Baptists who have accepted some type of “King James Onlyism” includes Freewill and Predestinarian, Open and Closed communionists, Progressives and Primitivists, Conventionites and Independents – separated by years of divergent theology, but holding the common heritage in believers’ baptism by immersion. Such a finding weighs against a “Ruckman-only” origin. Peter Ruckman is not what these Baptists have in common.

These diverse Baptists share a common heritage of the King James Bible. Not only these Baptists, but also most of English-speaking Christendom (other than Catholics) have this common heritage of the King James Bible. Published in 1611, the King James translation became the Bible of non-Catholic English-speaking Christians for the next 400 years. No other translation has rivalled it until the recently. Many Baptists have lived and died knowing of no other Bible (and wanting no other)! On this count alone, it could be no other than “the” Bible for them. The common heritage of these now-diverse Baptists reaches back long before 1950. Peter Ruckman is not what is common to the background, faith, and practice of Baptists who have held and now hold the King James Version as their only Bible – it is the King James Bible itself!

These diverse Baptists share a clear respect for the King James Bible. The series of posts of statements by Free, Missionary, Old Regular, Separate, United, and other Baptists reflect that they certainly share a respect for the King James text of the Bible. The examples given consistently reflect their respect for the King James Bible, while at the same time demonstrating the diversity of range of the “King James Only” position. Some may accept it as absolute, while others may revere it too much to change. Every example, in my opinion, fits with the range of KJVO categorized by James White in The King James Only Controversy.

These diverse Baptists share a conservative approach to the Bible and religion. Most share a traditional approach and manner of faith & practice, are cautious of innovations, and avoid unnecessary changes. Some are so conservative that, though they now use and have always used the King James Bible exclusively, they will not alter or revise their articles of faith to state that fact! (This makes continued research in their reports, resolutions, and circular letters important.) The nature of caution and tradition in these churches suggest they would not – did not – hastily pick up an idea created by Peter Ruckman in the 1960s!

A reasonable person may disagree with the positions that Central Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, General Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Old Time Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Regular Baptists, Separate Baptists, Southern Baptists, Strict Baptists, Union Baptists, and United Baptists take on the King James Bible. A reasonable person will see that not all of these churches and/or groups are in exact agreement, even regarding the King James Bible. A reasonable person will understand a new priority for “King James Only” rose in the last half of the 20th century. A reasonable person, however, will not ignore the facts of history as if no Baptists before 1950 ever thought the King James Bible was the inspired and inerrant word of God!

Mark 12:37 “...And the common people heard him gladly.”

           

More Baptist Voices for the King James Bible

• American Baptist Association
• B. F. Dearmore and the KJV
• Free Baptists
• Independent Baptist
• Missionary Baptists
• Old Regulars
• Other Baptist groups
• Primitive Baptists
• Reformed Baptist
• Southern Baptists
• United Baptist


Other

• A. Campbell’s New Testament and the KJV
• Baptist Voices: Voices Stating Aversion to the Revised Standard Version
• Categorizing “KJV-Only” beliefs
• King James in the Menace of Modernism
• KJV in 1905 Articles of Faith
• KJV-Only predates Wilkinson
• Thoughts on King James
• Various KJVO Statements by Baptists