John Gano studies baptism

Sprinkled as a Presbyterian infant, John Allen Gano studied the subject and mode of baptism and came out a Baptist. Benjamin Miller, pastor of the Scotch Plains Baptist Church, advised Gano to let God’s word and Spirit direct him, and if that did not make him a Baptist, Miller himself did not wish to do so.

For some reasons, I wished to join that of the Presbyterian; and as a communion season was approaching, I expected some examination. I took the Westminster confession of faith, and the Bible, with a view honestly to profess them. The doctrines appeared thoroughly grounded, and perfectly consonant with the Bible, until I came to the doctrine of baptism. The proofs there adduced, fell far short of my expectations, and appeared foreign to the point. I then took the Bible, especially the New Testament, and searched it for months together; and enquired for, and obtained all the disputes, especially in favour of infant baptism, that I could hear of; I, however, could find nothing that seemed to me to amount to a divine warrant. I went to a presbytery on purpose to converse with a Mr. Tennant, or rather to be instructed by him. A favorable opportunity presented, and from my attachment to the man, and a deference to his opinion, and the confidence he appeared to have of the justice of infant baptism, I was induced to embrace his sentiments. But on my road home, it turned in my mind, that this was not the way I had obtained the hope of salvation, or consonant with my former resolutions, to make the word of God my only rule of faith and practice. Let Mr. Tennant be ever so good a man, his belief, is not a di vine warrant for me to act upon. Before I got home, I was determined to try farther to see for myself.

Soon after, Mr. Miller, a baptist minister, inquiring of me why I did not profess Christ openly, and join some church, I told him my difficulty. He replied, that God’s word and spirit would direct me, and if I at tended to them impartially, they would remove my doubts; and if they did not make me a Baptist, he did not wish to do it. This conversation led me to enquire if I had done so. I was soon convinced I had not; but had only searched for something to confirm me in the doctrine of infant baptism, which I had received from my education. I really think, that if any person was ever induced to take the word of God in hand, with a fervent desire to be free from all prepossessions, to see the truth as it really was, and to let the Bible be their guide, I was. A number of inconsistencies perplexed me in my infant baptism, and Providence gave me an opportunity to disclose some of them. I happened to spend an evening with Mr. Tennant, and some of my Presbyterian friends, when I was drawn into the conversation, from the supposition that I was the person who conversed. with him at the presbytery. He asked me, if I was yet satisfied, or wished to converse farther on the subject. I told him I did so, provided it would be agreeable to bring in all my objections; with which he complied. I then related to him the thoughts with which I left him, and those which occurred after, and mentioned, that after conversing with him, I had an opportunity of attending the baptism of a child, when the minister, in his prayer, uttered these words: “Lord bless so much of this element as is used in this ordinance, the washing away of original pollution,” which struck me very forcibly; he however condemned it. I also remarked to him, that the minister in speaking, called it a seal of the covenant of grace, which I told him appeared to be saying too much of any external ordinance. That the blood of Christ was the seal, and that He also, in my view, was the covenant; and that God’s word and spirit applying to our consciences was a seal. I wished, if I was wrong, that he would put me right. I also mentioned, that I had my doubts, whether baptism was a substitute for circumcision, both being in use at the same time; and even ought to be, as “the cutting off of the Messiah,” and the shedding of his blood, was pointed at in that ordinance till it was accomplished; that the same subjects relating to both were useless, if one was the substitute for the other.—Their subjects were different, and the end and design of the ordinances appeared to me to be different. I mentioned these, and other difficulties, with a sincere desire of being instructed; but I had neither my doubts confirmed or removed. I was however much pleased with the goodness and candour of the man, who closed with this address: “Dear young man, if the devil cannot destroy your soul, he will endeavour to destroy your comfort and usefulness; and therefore do not be always doubting in this matter. If you cannot think as I do, think for yourself.” I then endeavoured to learn my duty from the new testament, as being a new testament ordinance, and found that it was from Heaven, had its authority from God, and became binding by a positive command. The characters of those, who were to be baptized were, disciples, penitent believers, and such as had received the holy ghost. I could not find by any of the apostles’ practice, that any others were encouraged or permitted, unless they intruded as Simon Magus did. And the apostles declared him to have no part or lot in that matter. The end and design was to fulfil righteousness—to answer a good conscience. All things considered, I could see no ground for infant baptism in the new testament. I next turned I my attention to the mode, which appeared so plain in the example of Christ, in the places where he administered, and the reasons why he administered in those places, insomuch, that I was soon established in the belief, that immersion was the only mode, which could be gathered from the new testament; and with this mode my conscience pressed me to comply. I then addressed my father on the subject. I told him “his constant religious care over me entitled him to all the gratitude I was capable of rendering, yet I must beg his indulgence. I believed he was conscientious in having me baptized in my infancy, as he had supposed, and I had tried to suppose, it right. But, on the whole, I was convinced it was my duty to be baptised by immersion; and that it relied on the profession of my own faith, if the church would receive me.” He replied, “that what he did, he thought right, and in the discharge of his own conscience. If I was conscientious, (and he was thankful to God, that he had reason to believe I was, from his observance of my searching the scriptures and the time I had taken therein, and the books I had read, I had his full and free consent; and it was my duty to make profession. That whenever I went to offer myself, he would go with me, and give the church his consent, and answer any inquiries respecting my life, if they chose to make any; and that he would go and see me baptized.”— This he did; and there were a number baptized with me. I believe from this time, my father changed his opinion on the subject, although he never confessed it, until a few months before his death; which happened in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

Biographical Memoirs of the late Rev. John Gano, of Frankfort, (Kentucky.) Formerly of the City of New-York, John Gano, Stephen Gano, New York, NY: Southwick and Hardcastle, 1806, pp. 21-27

The Scriptures given out by God himself

The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, that as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us, without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority.

John Owen, in The Works of John Owen, Volume 4, p. 452

Lord, It Is Eventide

Henry Ernest Nichol (who also used the pen name Colin Sterne for his hymns) wrote both words and music of the hymn given below. Nichol was born December 10, 1862 in Hull, Yorkshire, England. He studied music at Oxford, where he received a degree in 1888. For several years he was organist at St. Andrew’s Church, Kirk Ella. Nichol died August 30, 1926 in Aldbrough, Yorkshire, England. He was married with four children (2 sons and 2 daughters) at the time of his death. Nichol is buried in the General Cemetery at Hull, Yorkshire, England.

To most Christians, his most recognizable song likely is We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations. Lord, It Is Eventide possibly first appears in 1925 in Golden Bells: Hymn for Young People (London: Children’s Special Service Mission). The tune is usually called Christ’s Own Peace. This hymn and tune combination is made up of four stanzas with a refrain. Each stanza begins with four lines (13.12.13.12), followied by a fifth line – “O grant unto our souls” – leading into the refrain. The four lines of the refrain are shorter (9.10.10.10.) The tune switches time from 4/4 in the stanzas to 6/4 in the refrain. Lord, It Is Eventide may well be considered an evening prayer.

1. Lord, it is eventide: the light of day is waning;
Far o’er the golden land earth’s voices faint and fall;
Lowly we pray to you for strength and love sustaining,
Lowly we ask of you your peace upon us all.
O grant unto our souls –

Refrain:
Light that grows not pale with day’s decrease,
Love that never can fail till life shall cease;
Joy no trial can mar, Hope that shines afar,
Faith serene as a star, and Christ’s own peace.

2. Lord, it is eventide: we turn to you for healing,
Like those of Galilee who came at close of day;
Speak to our waiting souls, their hidden needs revealing;
Touch us with hands divine that take our sin away.
O grant unto our souls –

Refrain.

3. Saviour, you know of every trial and temptation,
Know of the wilfulness and waywardness of youth,
Help us to hold to you, our strength and our salvation,
Help us to find in you the one eternal Truth.
O grant unto our souls –

Refrain.

4. Lord, it is eventide: our hearts await your giving,
Wait for that peace divine that none can take away,
Peace that shall lift our souls to loftier heights of living,
Till we abide with you in everlasting day.
O grant unto our souls –

Refrain.

Winnsboro, What was Happening, 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.

• Winnsboro, What was Happening in 1903? -- “Although the city of Winnsboro was already here and thriving in the late 1800s, Winnsboro had accrued more land and property, much of which is where Downtown is located today.”
• The Trinitarian Bible Society and Its Position on Scripture -- “The Trinitarian Bible Society starts with scriptural presuppositions. Their practice of Bible publication arises from their biblical beliefs about the Bible.”
• The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark -- “...looking at the twelve verses of Mark 15:40-16:4, one finds not just sixteen such words, but twenty to twenty-two, depending on textual variants. This shows that the author knew quite well how to use in a brief passage many new words which he had not previously used.”
• The ESV Study Bible and Mark 16:9-20 -- “As I explained in the survey of Dr. Metzger’s comments...This indicates that the copyists of the only two Greek manuscripts in which Mark ends at 16:8 knew of at least one manuscript, older than the ones they were making, in which the passage was included.”
• St. Paul Methodist, Putnam County, Georgia, circa 1878 -- “The community of Rockville was chosen because it was halfway between the old St. Paul Church and New Hope Church and was built on land donated by Mr. and Mrs. F. G. Branch, the principal of the academy.”
• Scholarly Myths Perpetuated on Rejecting the Masoretic Text of the OT -- “Prior to the tower of Babel there was one mother tongue created by God. Jehovah divided this original language into many to disunite man’s rebellion (Gen. 11:6-9).”
• Practicing Primitive Christianity in a Progressive World: A Historical Examination of Two Divisions within the Churches of Christ in America -- “This study examines two such issues effecting one of the most conservative of these wings: the break over the requisite number of cups in the communion service, and the still-recent split over the issue of divorce and remarriage.”
• Meteoric Fall -- “An Odessa crater marks the site of a space rock’s collision with Earth.”
• Manuscript Destruction: Manuscripts Lost Since the Reformation Era -- “The following chart documents the destruction of millions of books and manuscripts since the Reformation Era.”
• Make No Bones -- “Barbecue joints in Brenham, a town famous for ice cream, are attracting crowds of their own.”
• Grounded in Mystery -- “Some believe Jacob Brodbeck made the first powered flight in history—but there’s little proof.”
• Gospel Coalition: The “New Calvinism’s” Attack on the Bible and Its Epistemology -- “The Bible is quite clear regarding its supremacy, superiority, and authority in all matters of faith, doctrine, practice, worship, and government.”
• A Pet Project -- “Until then, I’ve got plenty to keep me busy—a finicky, affectionate Isobel, as likely to snuggle up close as she is to turn up her nose.”

Satan’s repartee with Eve

Genesis 3:2-3 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Anglican cleric W. H. Griffith Thomas comments on a “3-fold error” in the words of Eve. He writes, “In her reply to his [the serpent’s] question, she perverted and misquoted three times the divine law to which she and Adam were subject: (1) She disparaged her privileges by misquoting the terms of the Divine permission as to the other trees. (2) She overstated the restrictions by misquoting the Divine prohibition. (3) She underrated her obligations by misquoting the Divine penalty.” ( W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary, London: Religious Tract Society, 1909, p. 48.)

A preacher could get ahold of that and shout, “That’ll preach.” Yes, but should it? There is another “that’ll preach” moment in Genesis 3 that should be approached circumspectly. It might be thrilling to hear someone preach on Adam blaming Eve, and Eve blaming the serpent. If so, where is their repentance? If what they say is read sans the emotion we add to it, we might see that they both tell the story exactly as it happened.

First, I think the objections about “ye-thou” and the “lest ye die” are picayune. There is little different there in what Eve said and what God said. When God gives the command as recorded in Gen. 2:15-17, there is no “ye” present. After the forming of Eve (2:18-25), then the command is to them both. I can’t see much to argue about there. “Lest ye die” seems to allude to the reason for not eating, the consequence being death (as opposed to meaning “ye might die”). Not different from thou shalt surely die, just saying it in a different context.

The main part of Eve’s statement that deserves real contemplation is “neither shall ye touch it.” Theologically, we cannot believe that Eve added to God’s word, which is a form of lying (Romans 3:4), and lying is a sin (Ex. 20:16; Lev. 6:1-7). If “neither shall touch it” is adding to God’s word, then either this is a sin and Eve sinned before and apart from partaking the forbidden fruit, OR the only sin that could happen in the Garden at this time was directly disobeying God’s command about partaking the forbidden fruit. If the latter is accepted, then it was not wrong at that time to add to God’s word. Either option produces a dilemma.

We might ask, “Is this idiomatic speech?” Perhaps, though I am not satisfied whether a neither nor statement by Eve rises to an idiom here. Eve is saying “Neither touch it nor eat it.” Why a neither/nor? Maybe it is an emphatic statement (in other words, added for emphasis on the seriousness of the disobedience). If my mother put a pie on the pie rack and said, “Don’t touch it,” I would know that it meant don’t eat it. She could also say, “Don’t eat the pie – don’t even touch it!” It would mean the same thing, but with perhaps a bit more emphasis.

Ultimately, I think the theological aspect of the fall must drive us away from the idea that Eve sinned before and apart from partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!!

Here are thoughts from a couple of Bible commentators:

• Albert Barnes: “The woman gives the natural and distinct answer of unaffected sincerity to this suggestion. The deviations from the strict letter of the law are nothing more than the free and earnest expressions of her feelings. The expression, ‘neither shall ye touch it,’ merely implies that they were not to meddle with it, as a forbidden thing.”
• Matthew Poole: “For it is not probable that the woman, being not yet corrupted, should knowingly add to God’s word, or maliciously insinuate the harshness of the precept.”

Editions of “Which Bible” by David Otis Fuller

Introduction

This piece was incited by charges that David Otis Fuller plagiarized Benjamin Wilkinson’s book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated – that it is a “well-known fact” that David O. Fuller “lifted it word for word with no citation.”[i] Is that true? I think not.

Over the years I have heard complaints about Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor, including the writings of a Seventh-Day Adventist in his book Which Bible. It is true that the author of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Benjamin George Wilkinson, was a Seventh-Day Adventist. Additionally, his material makes up close to half of the material in Which Bible? In my opinion, regardless of the worth of Wilkinson’s writing, Fuller made a mistake by including it. It has given his opponents a frayed thread to pull – and pull and pull and pull! But did Fuller plagiarize Wilkinson’s work? No!

What Kutilek wrote

J. J. Ray used Wilkinson’s material, without attribution, in his book God Wrote Only One Bible. Doug Kutilek (no friend of either Wilkinson or Fuller) wrote “The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism” to excoriate Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller. He stated that J. J. Ray “heavily plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson’s book.” On the other hand, he only complained that Fuller in 1970 issued Which Bible? and included Wilkinson’s work “with some editing, first to conceal from view Wilkinson’s cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst of his errors.” If Fuller had plagiarized Wilkinson, that would have made great fodder for Kutilek’s article. He would have left no stone unturned.Yet, he never mentioned it.

What the editions say

My copy of Which Bible is a 1984 reprint of the 1975 Fifth Edition. It attributes “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” to Benjamin G. Wilkinson – both in the “Contents” and on pages 174-175. Since I had no access to earlier editions, the indicter of Fuller refuged in the claim that it “may have been corrected in reprints, but the fact remains” it was originally unattributed to Wilkinson by Fuller.

In the absence of having earlier editions – particularly the original 1970 book – I hit on the idea of checking WorldCat library catalog. If the records on WorldCat are accurate, when Fuller originally compiled and printed Which Bible in 1970, he verily credited Our Authorized Bible Vindicated to Benjamin Wilkinson. No plagiarism. Here are the records on editions 1, 2, and 3 based on WorldCat. I have the 5th edition, so that is based on my own research. The 4th edition is not presently represented on WorldCat.[ii]

According to these records, the 1970 book has 231 pages, 1971 (2nd) has 282 pages, and 1972 (3rd) has 318 pages. The 1975 (5th) has 350 pages. This expansion is the addition of three indices after page 318. Regarding the page numbers, there are also 7 unnumbered pages in the 1975 5th edition books that I checked, one a 1978 printing and on a 1984 printing. 

First Edition, 1970

Which Bible? David Otis Fuller, editor. Grand Rapids MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids MI, ©1970

viii, 231 pages 21 cm

Contents:

The “why?” of this book, by D.O. Fuller. -- The Greek text of the King James version, by Z.C. Hodges. -- The learned men, by T.H. Brown. -- The magnificent Burgon, doughty champion and defender of the Byzantine text, by E.F. Hills. -- In defense of the textus receptus, selections by D.O. Fuller. -- The Codex Vaticanus and its allies, by H.C. Hoskier. -- The incomparable Wilson: the man who mastered forty-five languages and dialects, by H.W. Coray. -- About the author of Our authorized Bible vindicated, by D.O. Fuller. -- Our authorized Bible vindicated, by B.G. Wilkinson (p. 87-231).

Ouachita Baptist University Riley-Hickingbotham Library

(According WorldCat.org, there is also a 1970 printing of this book credited to Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan.)

Second Edition, 1971

Which Bible? 2nd Edition, revised and enlarged, David Otis Fuller, editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, ©1971.

viii, 282 pages 21 cm

Contents:

Why this book? / David Otis Fuller -- The learned men / Terence H. Brown -- The Greek text of the King James Version / Zane C. Hodges -- The incomparable Wilson : the man who mastered forty-five languages and dialects / Henry W. Coray -- The magnificent Burgon, Doughty champion and defender of the Byzantine text / Edward F. Hills -- In defense of the Textus Receptus / David Otis Fuller -- The Codex Vaticanus and its allies / Herman C. Hoskier -- About the author of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” / David Otis Fuller -- Our Authorized Bible vindicated / Benjamin C. Wilkinson -- The principle and tendency of the revision examined / George Sayles Bishop -- The Bible and modern criticism / Sir Robert Anderson -- A critical examination of the Westcott-Hort textual theory / Alfred Martin.

Criswell College, Wallace Library

Third Edition, 1972

Which Bible? 3rd Edition, revised and enlarged, David Otis Fuller, editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, ©1972.

viii, 318 pages 21 cm

Contents:

The “why?” of this book / by D.O. Fuller -- The Greek text of the King James version / by Z.C. Hodges -- The learned men / by T.H. Brown -- The magnificent Burgon, doughty champion and defender of the Byzantine text / by E.F. Hills -- In defense of the textus receptus, selections / by D.O. Fuller -- The Codex Vaticanus and its allies / by H.C. Hoskier -- The incomparable Wilson : the man who mastered forty-five languages and dialects / by H.W. Coray -- About the author of Our authorized Bible vindicated / by D.O. Fuller -- Our authorized Bible vindicated / by B.G. Wilkinson.

Dallas Theological Seminary Mosher and Turpin Libraries

Fourth Edition, 1974

Which Bible? Fourth Edition, David Otis Fuller, editor. 1974

No information

Fifth Edition, 1975

Which Bible? Fifth Edition, David Otis Fuller, editor. Grand Rapids MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, ©1970 (with alphabetical, scriptural, and chronological indexes by Thomas R. Steinbach)

[vii] 350 pages 21 cm

Contents:

Books by David Otis Fuller [unpaged 1] Cover page [unpaged 2] Copyright and catalog information [unpaged 3] Dedication [unpaged 4] Acknowledgements [unpaged 5] Contents [unpaged 6-7] Why This Book, David Otis Fuller [1-12] -- The Learned Men, Terence H. Brown [13-24] -- The Greek Text of the King James Version, Zane C. Hodges [25-38] -- The Incomparable Wilson: the Man Who Mastered Forty-Five Languages and Dialects, Henry W. Coray [39-48] -- Is Higher Criticism Scholarly? Robert Dick Wilson [49-85] -- The Magnificent Burgon, Doughty Champion and Defender of the Byzantine Text, Edward F. Hills [86-105] -- The Principle and Tendency of the Revision Examined, George Sayles Bishop [106-117] -- The Bible and Modern Criticism, Sir Robert Anderson [118-122] -- In Defense of the Textus Receptus, selections by David Otis Fuller [123-133] -- The Codex Vaticanus and Its Allies, Herman C. Hoskier [134-143] -- A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Alfred Martin [144-173] -- About the Author of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,” David Otis Fuller [174-175] -- Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Benjamin C. (sic) Wilkinson [176-318] – Appendix [319]: Alphabetical Index [321-341] Scripture Index [342] Chronological Index [343-350]

Robert Vaughn, Personal Library

Conclusion

However widespread or confined this “well-known fact” may be, I hope this article will help bust it as a “Christian Urban Myth.”[iii]

---

[i] To plagiarize means to reproduce something without attribution, to pass it off as own’s one. At one least one author, R. L. Hymers, Jr., put the charge in writing. “David Otis Fuller…excerpted page after page from Wilkinson, the Seventh Day Adventist author, without giving him any credit.”
[ii] Or if it is, I missed it. I suspect the 1974 4th edition might just be a “printing” (i.e., without any substantial changed) rather than an “edition.” The copyrights page does not list a copyright for the year 1974.
[iii] Interestingly, this bit of information about Fuller’s book floats around the internet. “‘Note: Robert Kregel of Kregel Publications personally told me that Fuller begged him to publish his book but did not inform Kregel that it contained the writings of an Adventist.’ - Bob L. Ross, Director, Pilgrim Publications.” I don’t think Kregel or Ross are lying, but there is something off about this. Perhaps some kind of misunderstanding? So far, I have found no editions of Which Bible that claim or list Kregel Publications as the publisher. Perhaps they printed the book for Fuller, but, if so, worked only as hired to print rather than as a publisher.

Bible Bill, King James, Western Canada, and the World

Why Bill? Which Bible? (As promised back on April 4th, I am getting around to a biographical effort on William Aberhart.)

Bible Bill’s biography

William Aberhart was a school teacher, principal, Bible teacher, radio evangelist, and the premier of Alberta (from 1935 till his death in 1943). Aberhart was often called “Bible Bill” in the press, probably in an effort to diminish or ridicule his political status.[i]

William Aberhart was born December 31, 1878 in Perth County, Ontario, Canada, the son of William Aberhart and Louisa Pepper. Aberhart married Janet Maria “Jessie” Flatt (1878-1966) in 1902. They had two daughters, Khona Louise (1903-1998) and Ola Janette (1905-2000).

Aberhart trained at Queen’s University and became a teacher. In 1915 he became the principal of Crescent Heights High School in Calgary. The same year he became the “unofficial minister” at Westbourne Baptist Church (he was not ordained). He continued to serve as principal of Crescent Heights High School until 1935.

Aberhart was a passionate preacher, Bible teacher, and radio evangelist. He started the Calgary Prophetic Bible Conference at Westbourne Baptist Church in 1918. He began broadcasting Bible teaching over CFCN in 1925. At the time CFCN was the most powerful radio station west of Montreal. Aberhart opened the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute in October 1927. A popular and well-known American fundamental Baptist preacher, William Bell Riley, preached at the grand opening of the building. In the midst of controversy yet by mutual agreement, in 1929 Aberhart separated from Westbourne Baptist Church (then still at least nominally affiliated with the Baptist Union of Western Canada)[ii] with authority to form a new church with his supporters. He organized the Bible Institute Baptist Church (an independent fundamentalist church).

Though Aberhart’s religious views are considered to the right, he adopted a political view (Social Credit) that was on the left, a form of socialism.[iii] Is this political position one reason some King James defenders tend to shy away from William Aberhart? Perhaps for some of his contemporaries, though it may be more likely for modern defenders that they simply have not heard of him. William “Bible Bill” Aberhart died May 23, 1943 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and is buried there in the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Burnaby.

Bible Bill’s Bible

William Aberhart stood tall as a proponent of the King James translation and an opponent of the Revised Version. Booklets, Institute course outlines, lectures, memories, and newspaper accounts stand as a reminder of that fact. Perhaps Lecture No. 12 in the God’s Great Prophecies series – “The Latest of Modern Movements,” or “What about the Revised Version of the Bible?” – is the most complete surviving statement of Aberhart’s views. Here are a few excerpts.

“Can we estimate the effect upon the rising generations to have nothing settled? Are the Holy Scriptures a mere nose of wax to be turned and twisted to suit the caprice of the reader? or Are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the WORD OF GOD, and the only infallible guide of faith and manners? Every earnest person must answer these questions.”

“Contemporaneous with this splendid movement back to the scriptures there has arisen the latest modern religious movement, which is settling down upon the human race like a dense fog. I refer to the popular, apparently insatiable craze to undertake the seemingly insignificant task of correcting the Bible by revision.”

“The Authorized version is reliable. I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”[iv] 

In this lecture, Aberhart follows lines of argument in common with many modern King James Bible defenders. He:

• Gives biblical warnings and assurances
• Speaks of the fog of higher criticism
• Addresses the modern craze of correcting the Bible by revision
• Warns against multiple translations and following modern scholarship
• Allows for changing archaic words that no longer mean the same
• Calls attention to Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus
• Talks about Westcott, Hort, and the revisers
• Examines the revision itself, comparing verses with the King James Version

In “The Present Eastern Question in the Light of Prophecy” (p. 7) Aberhart says the Presbyterians and Baptists arose “from the faithful ones who had preserved God’s Word in the caves and hiding places of the Alps.” (emphasis mine)[v] 

In Bible Bill (p. 36), David Elliott reminds us that William Aberhart’s rallying cry was “‘The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible!’ He held that the King James Bible of 1611 embodied the literal, unabridged, and undiluted Word of God” and that he “deplored the confusion and disagreement among those making new translations, his bête noire being the Revised Version of 1884.”

Bible Bill’s Bearing

William Aberhart had connections with leading fundamentalists in Canada and the United States. In 1925, the Prophetic Conference, Westbourne Baptist Church, and other sponsors brought T. T. Shields (pastor of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto) and P. W. Philpott (pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago) for a series of meetings against modernism. Harry Rimmer lectured at the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute in 1930. Aberhart visited the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) at least two summers while preaching in Los Angeles.[vi] 

“William ‘Bible Bill’ Aberhart was very much a home-grown Canadian…Mr. Aberhart also believed in the inerrancy of the King James Version of the Bible, claiming that the text on which the KJV is based had been preserved by God in the Swiss Alps, beyond contamination of the Roman Catholic Church.

“In the 1920s, Mr. Aberhart began broadcasting Sunday School lessons over the radio in Calgary. By 1935, he was broadcasting five hours every Sunday over several stations, reaching hundreds of thousands of people.”[vii]

Barrie Oviatt also hints at the scope of Aberhart’s influence by 1935:

“The vast audience to which Aberhart was able to speak is evident from the fact that during a broadcast in April 1935, he read several letters from ‘as far distant as Quebec, the maritimes, and Pennsylvania.’ At its peak in 1935 Aberhart’s radio audience was computed at three hundred thousand (it is likely that not more than 65 per cent of the three hundred thousand were Albertans), while the Bible Institute listed one thousand two hundred and seventy-five supporters and the radio Sunday school with its printed lesson material reached eight thousand families. Such was the influence Aberhart wielded through his radio broadcasts and Institute in 1935.”[viii]

What bearing does William Aberhart have on the development of the King James Only position. He was a contemporary of Philip Mauro and Benjamin Wilkinson. His reach was probably distinct from Mauro’s and wider than Wilkinson’s. Anti-KJVO authors (such as Kutilek and Hudson) have arbitrarily appointed Benjamin Wilkinson the originator of KJVO. KJV defender David Cloud briefly mentions Aberhart in connection with Mark Buch, as well as printing excerpts from “What about the Revised Version of the Bible” on his Way to Life site. David Otis Fuller reprinted works by Mauro and Wilkinson, thereby securing their names in the modern King James Only movement.

It is equitable to place the Bible view of William Aberhart in the realm of “King James Onlyism” – that is, within what may be generally regarded as that viewpoint. He started a radio program in 1925 that within 10 years could be described as “reaching hundreds of thousands of people.” He organized a Bible Institute in Calgary, Alberta in 1927 (which taught his views on the King James Bible). Notably, both the radio program and Bible Institute preceded Benjamin Wilkinson, who on the other side of North America published Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in 1930.

More research needs to be done on Bible Bill Aberhart’s influence in the realm of the Bible versions debate.[ix] He influenced men such as Ernest Manning, Cyril Hutchinson, and Mark Buch, who carried the banner after him. His expansive outreach in print and on the radio make it likely that his influence was greater than has been remembered or credited.

My sense is that William “Bible Bill” Aberhart was more influential than has been previously supposed, and that he should take his place with Mauro and Wilkinson as important opponents of the Revised Version in the first half of the 20th century. Aberhart – as well as Mauro and Wilkinson – drank deeply from Dean Burgon’s well,[x] provided early 20th century opposition the use of the English and American Revised Versions, and provided ammunition for the rise of the mid-century opposition to the Revised Standard Version.[xi]

Through a Bible Institute, radio, travel, and interaction with other fundamentalists, “Bible Bill” Aberhart left an imprint, sometimes no longer acknowledged, not only in Western Canada, but also in other parts of the world.

---

[i] My limited newspaper research suggests journalists began using this terminology after William Aberhart became premier of Alberta. Searching the U.S. and Canadian papers available at Newspapers.com, I did not find the term used in reference to Aberhart before 1936. 

[ii] Westbourne church later connected itself to the Regular Baptists associated with T. T. Shields. Bible Bill: a Biography of William Aberhart, David R. Elliott, page 30 and page 90. 

[iii] I am not familiar with “Social Credit” and have not tried to understand it. George Palmer, a Calgary resident writing to the newspaper against “Social Credit,” called it a pseudo-economic-politico-religious conglomeration. For general reference, though somewhat biased against him, see the entry “William Aberhart” in the Canadian Encyclopedia.

[iv] William Aberhart, “The Latest of Modern Movements,” circa 1925. The online booklet from which I quote is undated and may represent a “final product” on the subject. However, a listing on the Aberhart Foundation site shows a lecture from the 1920s titled “The Latest Modern Movements or the Growing Craze for Bible Revision,” indicating he had already developed this lecture in the 1920s. The foundation states that there “appears to be at least 3 different publications of God’s Great Prophecies which have some differences in Lecture Numbers and Titles.” 

[v] With knowledge of Aberhart’s views on the Bible, we certainly may understand this in reference to the survival of a pure text. However, it also seems that Aberhart may also have in mind the faith delivered to the saints and pure worship – as opposed to that of the Roman Catholics. 

[vi] Bible Bill, pages 62, 71, and 72. See The Los Angeles Daily Times, Saturday, July 14, 1923, p. 16, showing he lectured at Biola in the summer of 1923; and Saturday July, 17, 1924, p. 3, part II, showing he held a Bible Conference at the YMCA building in 1924. Calgary Herald, Saturday, September 20, 1930, p. 18.

[vii] “God: Americans Spread Gospel northward,” The Ottawa Citizen (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada), Saturday, June 20, 1998, page B3.

[viii] The Papers of William Aberhart as Minister of Education, 1935-1943, Barrie Connolly Oviatt, Master of Education Thesis, University of Alberta, 1971, p. 18.

[ix] One important factor is to confirm more definitely just exactly when Aberhart publicly rejected the Revised Version and espoused a stance for only the King James translation. It seems likely at least by the mid-1920s, making it possible to be influenced by Philip Mauro, but unlikely by Benjamin Wilkinson. The Aberhart Foundation site has a photocopy of a Bulletin of the Calgary Bible Institute which they date 1925. It shows Aberhart was already teaching on the Bible versions, and specifically against the Revised Version (Systematic Theology, Course A, pp. 4-7). The reference “What about the Revised Version” seems to be to Aberhart’s lecture by that title (p. 4). It also shows that the Institute required students to have the Authorized Version of the Bible among its necessary books (p. 1).

[x] David Cloud wrote, “Mark Buch testified to me that Aberhard (sic) used Burgon’s material in his Bible institute classes.” 

[xi] Aberhart associates and students such as Mark Buch, Cyril Hutchinson, and Ernest C. Manning were among active opponents of the RSV. See, for example, “Says New Bible ‘Fraud’ But Sales Are Booming,” The Calgary Albertan, Wednesday, December 17, 1952, page 1, section 2; “Vancouver Minister Scores New Bible,” The Calgary Herald, Wednesday, December 17, 1952, page 27; “Manning Hits Out At ‘Revised’ Bible,” The Calgary Albertan, Monday, April 23, 1962, page 3. Ernest Manning became premier of Alberta after the death of Aberhart. “The Revised Standard, Manning said, results in modernization of God’s Word to the point where the original intent is lost…The premier said the King James Version of The Bible contained God’s True Word and should not be defiled (or defied)…The original Word, as it appears in the King James Bible, was blessed by God Himself and should remain untouched.” Perry F. Rockwood (1917-2008) was another Canadian fundamentalist who staunchly supported the King James Version, but it is not clear that he was influenced by Aberhart.

Peter’s sermon in the household of Cornelius

“The summarie pith [i.e., the core, heart of the matter, rlv] in this accurate speech of Saint Peter unto Cornelius is, that all men indifferently, whether they be Jewes or Gentiles, have remission of their sinnes by faith in Christ, which is Lord over all things, and ordained of God to be the Judge of all men quicke and dead.”

The Workes of John Boys, Doctor in Divinitie and Deane of Canterburie, London: Imprinted for William Aspley, 1622, p. 666

Boyes further states that “The whole Sermon is divided into three parts.” These are the proeme (that is, the preliminary comments, or introduction) verses 34-35; narration (concerning the chief points of belief in Jesus Christ) verse 36-42; and confirmation (by production of witnesses) verses 39-43. p. 666-667.

[Note: John Boys (1571–1625) was Dean of Canterbury from 1619 to 1625. This is not the same person as John Boys/Bois (1561-1644), King James Bible translator.]

Day by day

Deuteronomy 33:25 ...and as thy days, so shall thy strength be. (...din ålder vare såsom din ungdom.)

“Lina” Sandell-Berg (1832–1903) wrote the hymn “Day By Day” (Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder). She is called the “Fanny Crosby of Sweden.” 

Karolina Wilhelmina Sandell was born on October 3, 1832 in Fröeryd, Småland, Sweden. Her father was a Lutheran pastor who was part of the pietist movement in his church and country. In 1867 she married Oscar Berg. Lina Sandell wrote many religious hymn texts and other poems.  She died died July 27, 1903 is buried at Solna Church in Stockholm, Sweden.

Sandell wrote “Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sander” in 1865. Some believe this great song of assurance was informed and motivated somewhat by the tragic experience of witnessing the drowning of her father. The translation below was made by Andrew L. Skoog (1856-1934), a Swedish-American immigrant and member of the Evangelical Covenant Church. Skoog was a choir director, organist, composer, and hymnwriter who served as co-editor of several hymnals.

Oskar Ahnfelt (1813–1882) wrote for this hymn the tune Blott en dag, which named after its beginning words. He was a singer, composer and music publisher, sometimes called the “spiritual troubadour of Sweden.” He wrote music for many of Sandell’s hymns, so much so that she said, “Ahnfelt has sung my songs into the hearts of the people.” Though her hymns are better known in her native land, “Day By Day” and “Children of the Heavenly Father” are quite popular here in the United States.

1. Day by day, and with each passing moment,

Strength I find to meet my trials here;

Trusting in my Father’s wise bestowment,

I’ve no cause for worry or for fear.

He, whose heart is kind beyond all measure,

Gives unto each day what he deems best,

Lovingly its part of pain and pleasure,

Mingling toil with peace and rest.

2. Ev’ry day the Lord himself is near me,

With a special mercy for each hour;

All my cares he fain would bear and cheer me,

He whose name is Counseller and pow’r.

The protection of his child and treasure

Is a charge that on himself he laid;

“As thy days, thy strength shall be in measure,”—

This the pledge to me he made.

3.  Help me then, in ev’ry tribulation,

So to trust thy promises, O Lord,

That I lose not faith’s sweet consolation,

Offered me within thy holy word.

Help me, Lord, when toil and trouble meeting,

E'er to take, as from a father's hand,

One by one, the days, the moments fleeting,

Till I reach the promised land.

In other words, philes, phobes, and jacks

• ailurophile, noun. A person who is fond of or enthusiastic about cats; a cat-lover (Cf. ailurophobe).
• ailurophobe, noun. A person who has an abnormal fear of cats (Cf. ailurophile).
• airsome, adjective. Placed high in the air, lofty.
• brata, noun. An extra amount or small gift added to a purchase by a seller, especially in a market, to encourage the customer to return.
• campy, adjective. Of, relating to, or characterized by theatrical or extravagant style.
• chuffed, adjective. (Chiefly British) Delighted; pleased; satisfied.
• collywobbles, noun. Pain in the stomach or bowels; bellyache.
• dodgy, adjective. Evasively tricky; (Chiefly British) risky; hazardous; chancy.
• embouchure, noun. (Music) The mouthpiece of a wind instrument; the adjustment of a player’s mouth to such a mouthpiece.
• grockle, noun. (Southwest English dialect) A tourist.
• incunabulum (also, incunable), noun. A book printed before 1501; a work of art or of industry of an early period.
• malism, noun. The doctrine or teaching that this world, although not the worst of all possible worlds, is a bad one.
• mammothrept, noun. A spoiled child; (usually figurative) a person of immature judgement.
• meme, noun. A cultural feature or behavior that is transmitted by repetition and replication, without the influence of genes; a cultural item in the form of an image, video, phrase, etc., that is spread via the internet and often altered in a creative or humorous way.
• panache, noun. A stylish, original, and very confident way of doing things that gains one admiration.
• piebald, adjective. Spotted or patched, especially in black and white.
• quiet quitting, noun. Doing only the minimum requirements of one’s job and putting in no more time, effort, or enthusiasm than absolutely necessary.
• rave, noun. (British) A rave is a big event at which young people dance to electronic music in a large building or in the open air.
• sclerotic, adjective. (Anatomy) of or relating to the sclera; (Botany) pertaining to or affected with sclerosis; (figurative) slow to change.
• sciolist, noun. One who has only superficial knowledge; a pretender to profound or scientific knowledge; a smatterer.
• soyjak, noun. (internet slang) A male (in a meme, and often effeminate) with a facial expression expressing surprise or excitement with their mouth agape.
• tittle-tattle, noun. Gossip, prattle, or foolish chatter.
• wet blanket, noun. A person who discourages enjoyment or enthusiasm (from, a blanket dampened with water so as to extinguish a fire.). Also verb, transitive. To have a subduing or inhibiting effect on (a person or thing).
• wet market, noun. An open-air marketplace that sells perishable items (such as fresh seafood, meat, fruits, and vegetables) in a non-supermarket setting.

Bible translators on Bible study

“…it shall greately helpe ye to understonde scripture, yf thou marke not onely what is spoken or written, but of whom, & unto whom, with what wordes, at what tyme, where, to what intent, with what circumstaunce, consyderynge what goeth before, and what foloweth after…” [It shall greatly help thee to understand scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and unto whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstance, considering what goeth before, and what followeth after.] -- Miles Coverdale, A prologe…unto the Christen reader, 1535

“Take the books into thine hands, read the whole story, and that thou understandest, keep it well in memory; that thou understandest not, read it again, and again. If thou can neither so come by it, counsel with some other that is better learned. Go to thy curate and preacher; show thyself to be desirous to know and learn, and I doubt not but God - seeing thy diligence and readiness (if no man else teach thee) - will himself vouchsafe with his holy spirit to illuminate thee, and to open unto thee that which was locked from thee.” -- Thomas Cranmer, Preface to the Great Bible, 1540

“To the Reader.

“Because there are in ye newe Testament some wordes, which should not of every body be wel understanded, because they are not accustomed in common speach, we have made a lytle gathering, & an exposicion of them: Not thorughly to treate them as learned men myghte, nor to declare them with longe circumstance, but only that the rude and ignorannt may knowe what they signifie, & so not be troubled in the readinge. [Because there are in the New Testament some words, which may not of everybody be well understood, because they are not customarily used in common speech, we have made a little gathering, and an exposition of them: Not thoroughly to treat them as learned men might, not to declare them with long circumstance, but only that the untaught and uniformed may know what they signify, and so not be troubled in the reading.] -- A gatherying of certayne harde wordes in the newe Testament, with their exposition, Taverner Bible, 1551

Review of Which Version? by Philip Mauro

In 1924 The Herald and Presbyter (Cincinnati, Ohio, Vol. XCV, No. 29, July 16, 1924, p. 10) reviewed and recommended Which Version? Authorized or Revised? by Philip Mauro. They wrote:

Which Version? Authorized or Revised? By Philip Mauro. Cloth. $1.25. Hamilton Brothers, Scripture Truth Depot, 120 Tremont Street, Boston 9 Mass.

There is the idea in the minds of some people that scholarship demands the laying aside of the Authorized Version of the Bible and taking up the latest Revised Version. This is an idea, however, without any proper basis. This revised version is in large part in line with what is known as modernism, and is peculiarly acceptable to those who think that any change, anywhere or in any thing, is progress. Those who have really investigated the matter, and are in hearty sympathy with what is evangelical, realize that this Revised Version is a part of the movement to “modernize” Christian thought and faith and do away with the established truth. The revisers had a wonderful opportunity. They might have made a few changes and removed a few archaic expressions and made the Authorized Version the most acceptable and beautiful and wonderful book of all time to come. But they wished, ruthlessly, to meddle. Some of them wanted to change doctrine. Some of them did not know good English literature when they saw it. An instance of all this is in the irreverent and impertinent change of “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” to “All Scripture that is given by inspiration,” as though there are parts of the Bible that are not inspired. This is what modernists believe, and there were enough modernists among these revisers to change the words of Scripture itself so as to throw doubts on the Scripture. In all there are some thirty-eight thousand changes from the Authorized Version. There is a growing judgment that God’s Word was tampered with by presuming revisers who committed many an offense, in the name of scholarship, as many an errorist has done, before and since. There will be a movement away from this revised version. Many of the divinely given words, as even of Christ in the Lord’s Prayer, and in the sixteenth chapter of Mark, have been cast away as unclean. No Bible is complete without them. This volume prepared by Mr. Philip Mauro is one that should be read by all those who have been tempted to tolerate the using of the penknife in dealing with God’s Word. The reading of this book will do anyone good. It may be an important element in turning the hearts of the people to the Word of God.

The slow method of insulated assault

George Junkin addresses the problem of gradually removing biblical support for a doctrine versus the outright denial of that doctrine.

Before proceeding in the matter of this charge, allow me three observations. 1. It is possible to teach error by denying the truth—to take away sound doctrine positively, by a series of detail in the negative, ex gr.: Certain texts of Scripture, say twenty in number, have been depended on to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. I wish to reject that doctrine and yet do not feel it to be prudent to do it openly. It may be done more successfully and safely by denying in the detail, that it is taught in any of these passages. I put a gloss upon the passage which contains a history of Christ’s baptism, and conclude, by saying, whatever may be the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is not taught here. I take up the words used at baptism, “in the name of the Father, &c.” and gloss over and conclude, that doctrine has no foundation here. And so throughout the whole. Have I not really denied the doctrine of the Trinity! And yet I have not in any one instance said “It is not true—it is not taught in the Bible.” Is there a more effectual mode of attacking truth than this partizan war; this slow method of insulated assault?

But then it will be said in reply, “I have only removed certain texts which have been usually supposed to prove the doctrine of the sinners inability,” there are yet scores of others left. Very true, but the same process may take away the rest. Now my position is, that when a writer displays a disposition to take away the Scripture props from any doctrine, it is evident he dislikes the doctrine itself.

George Junkin in The Vindication, containing a History of the Trial of the Rev. Albert Barnes, George Junkin, Philadelphia, PA: W. S. Martin, 1836, pages 41-42.

Doug Kutilek, Bible Bill Aberhart, and B. G. Wilkinson

Introduction

Doug Kutilek complained about a deception by David Otis Fuller, then perpetrated on the Christian community one of his own – the lie that “King James Onlyism” is a Seventh-Day Adventist product. Gary Hudson fanned the flames until he lost the faith altogether. Kevin Bauder and Roy Beacham bought and then resold this bill of goods in the book One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2001, p 44, e.g.). No matter the refutation offered, many of these men share a common flaw of never retracting their mistake.

Try to point out to these “true believers” that this is not correct, and they barricade themselves in a refuge of lies. Demonstrate historical evidence of people who believed the King James translation alone was the inspired word of God before Benjamin Wilkinson wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated – or before he was even born – and they assert it is not the same thing! Some “true believers” just cannot be helped. And, it seems, no matter the evidence, the purveyors of this story are unwilling to correct it. “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it,” they apparently agree.

Kutilek on the origin of “King James Onlyism”

Notice Kutilek from “The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism” (Christian Answers, Vol. 2, No. 4, [n.d., circa 1997]).

“From Wilkinson in the first generation, through Ray in the second, and Fuller and Ruckman in the third, the entire KJVO movement has arisen, and every present-day KJV-onlyite is a direct descendant of these ill-informed men… Every KJVO advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller and Ruckman…” (p. 4)

“So then Wilkinson, when he had conceived, brought forth Ray, and Ray, when he was fullgrown, brought forth Fuller, Ruckman, Waite, Chick, Riplinger, Hyles, Bynum, ....” (p. 4)

Kutilek’s puzzling admission

Doug Kutilek is very straightforward and specific that “Every KJVO advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller and Ruckman…” Yet, his own statements in the same article undermine his claims. Notice also that he writes:

“In 1930, he [Benjamin G. Wilkinson] wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, a book of several hundred pages which attracted almost no attention in its day…” (p. 1) 

“Wilkinson’s book lay unused and unknown…until 1955 when J. J. Ray…published a little volume, God Wrote Only One Bible…” (p. 1)

So, Kutilek creates his own problem when he notes that Wilkinson’s book “attracted almost no attention in its day” and “lay unused and unknown” until J. J. Ray included much of Wilkinson’s work in his book God Wrote Only One Bible.[i] While Wilkinson’s book was “unused and unknown,” one Baptist preacher in Canada was actively and widely promoting the King James Bible as the inerrant Bible for Christians. 

Bible Bill Aberhart

“William ‘Bible Bill’ Aberhart was very much a home-grown Canadian…Mr. Aberhart also believed in the inerrancy of the King James Version of the Bible, claiming that the text on which the KJV is based had been preserved by God in the Swiss Alps, beyond contamination of the Roman Catholic Church.

“In the 1920s, Mr. Aberhart began broadcasting Sunday School lessons over the radio in Calgary. By 1935, he was broadcasting five hours every Sunday over several stations, reaching hundreds of thousands of people.” “God: Americans Spread Gospel northward,” The Ottawa Citizen (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada), Saturday, June 20, 1998, p. B3.

I will hope to write more about William Aberhart at another time, but for now I want to notice the following points: 

• Aberhart can fairly be described as a King James Onlyist.
• He taught Waldensian theory of Bible preservation of the true text.
• He started a radio program in 1925 that within 10 years could be described as “reaching hundreds of thousands of people.” 
• He started a Bible Institute in Calgary, Alberta in 1927 (which taught his views on the King James Bible).
• Noticeably, both the radio program and Bible Institute preceded Benjamin Wilkinson, on the other side of North America, publishing Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in 1930.
• Associates and students of Aberhart, such as Cyril Hutchinson and Mark Buch, promoted the King James Bible at an early date.

Doug Kutilek’s theory fails on several counts.

Fails to account for his own statements about the initial obscurity of Wilkinson’s work.

As noted above (and will be developed in the future, Lord willing), the influence of William Aberhart among Baptists developed at least 30 years before J. J. Ray brought Benjamin Wilkinson’s work out of obscurity. Aberhart’s student Mark Buch was actively promoting the King James Bible before Ray printed his book in 1955. Many bold Baptists arose to defend the King James Bible and unmask the Revised Standard Version before Ray got around to reviving Wilkinson’s work. 

Fails to clarify that KJVO is not a Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine.

Kutilek asserts KJVO can be traced to a Seventh-Day Adventist, implying that Baptists, fundamentalists, and others have adopted their view of the King James Bible from the Adventists. While it is true that Wilkinson was an Adventist, it is not true that his view represents the denomination’s doctrine. In a reply to objections to his book, Wilkinson refers to a letter written by William Ambrose Spicer (President of the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 1922–1930), in which Spicer stated “that this denomination, by years of usage, has taken no position on the comparative merits of the Bible translations.” See also “The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of the Bible” to see that the leader Ellen G. White favorably referenced other Bible translations.

Fails to acknowledge multiple streams of origin for KJVO. 

Kutilek limits the origin of KJVO to the stream he apparently thinks is the most damning (Seventh-Day Adventism). I have demonstrated on my blog historical examples of versions of “King James Onlyism” well before Benjamin Wilkinson (before his birth, much less his book). The Tennessee Association of Baptists “established the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible as its standard” in their 1817 meeting. When the Barren River Association of Baptists organized in 1830, they included as their first Article of Faith: “We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God, and is the only rule of faith and practice.” Are we to assume that such bodies as these had no heirs and no influence?

Additionally, Kutilek’s notion supposes that individual Christians and Bible-believing congregations could not develop on their own the idea that the Bible they hold in their hands and read with their eyes is the inspired word of God without the documents and directions of Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller.

Fails to justify using “modern KJVO movement” to explain a sole origin.

When proponents of the Kutilek Wilkinsonian-Origin Only (KWO) theory are shown prior historical existence of the King James Only view, some deflect with the weasel words “modern” and “movement.” In One Bible Only (p. 44) Kutilek writes, “the modern King James-Only movement is not without precedent, although no traceable connection exists between those of the nineteenth century who held such a view with those of the latter part of the twentieth century.”

Perhaps Our Authorized Bible Vindicated is the first book of its kind vindicating the King James Bible (though there seems to be little reason to exclude the 1924 Which Version by Philip Mauro).[ii] King James detractors can play with the words “modern” and “movement,” arguing that there was not a “King James Only Movement” prior to the fundamentalists who found and promoted Wilkinson’s ideas. There really was no need for a KJVO “movement” prior to advanced efforts to replace it with other English Bibles. This went into high gear beginning in the mid-20th century.

Conclusion

Through the reproduction of it by J. J. Ray and David Otis Fuller, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated took its place in the larger debate about the King James Bible and replacement versions. There is no attempt or need to deny that fact. However, a counter fact is that the “KWO” theory of the rise of King James Onlyism is a tunnel vision look into history, a polemic designed to fight King James Onlyism by setting its conception in Seventh-Day Adventism. If left as a half-truth, it is an untruth. As a polemic, I suppose it serves its purpose. As an historical investigation, KWO is deficient.

Perhaps a better approach and fuller understanding is that, faced with the threat of the Revised Standard Version in the early 1950s, to support their polemic against it, conservatives, evangelicals, and fundamentalists resorted to earlier works vindicating the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible against the Revised Version – works by John William Burgon, Philip Mauro, and Benjamin G. Wilkinson.[iii] They used what they thought supported the cause.[iv] As an historical investigation, let us seek the whole truth.

---

[i] I am unsure whether Kutilek means Wilkinson’s book attracted little attention generally, or whether it was mostly unknown outside of Seventh-Day Adventist circles. Regardless of what Kutilek meant, it seems the latter is correct. Within Adventism itself, there was pushback against Wilkinson’s book and view. He later produced Answers to Objections to Our Authorized Bible to answer his critics. In contrast to the impression given by Kutilek, in his book In Discordance with the Scriptures, Peter Johannes Thuesen (p. 65) notes that “Wilkinson made no reference to his Seventh-day Adventist affiliation in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, concentrating instead on issues of broad evangelical appeal.” (I believe there are a couple of places where he quotes from Ellen White’s The Great Controversy.)
[ii] Mauro concluded that the Greek text behind the English Revised Version was corrupt and that the Authorized Version in translation was “vastly superior” to the RV of 1881 (p. 117). It is also notable that, while Kutilek keys on Fuller’s use of Wilkinson, Fuller also reproduced much of Mauro’s work in his 1978 book True or False. No doubt Kutilek would not want to attribute some of the origin of King James Onlyism to someone who contributed to The Fundamentals!

[iii] “Indeed, treatises by the Revised Version’s most colorful opponents—Burgon, Mauro, and Wilkinson—would enjoy a remarkable shelf-life as late twentieth-century Protestant conservatives reprinted them as virtual classics.” (Thuesen, ibid., p. 65) John William Burgon (1813-1888) was an Anglican minister and author. He became the Dean of Chichester Cathedral in 1876. He is best remembered for his passionate defense of the historicity and inerrancy of the Bible, and his opposition to the Bible revision headed up by Westcott and Hort. He wrote several works in reference to this controversy (general knowledge). Philip Mauro (1859-1952) was a lawyer, author, and member of the Christian & Missionary Alliance. A prolific writer, his works covered topics such as creation & evolution, eschatology, and Bible versions. Mauro contributed essays to the 12-volume The Fundamentals: A Testimony to The Truth, and produced Which Version in 1924. His motto was “Scripture interprets Scripture.” (Champion of the Kingdom: the Story of Philip Mauro, Gordon P. Gardiner). Benjamin George Wilkinson (1872-1968) was a Seventh-day Adventist dean, administrator, evangelist, and author. Born in Canada and began to study for the ministry at Battle Creek College in 1891. He received a BA degree from the University of Michigan in 1897 and in 1908 he received a PhD degree from George Washington University He wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in 1930 (Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Revised Edition, 1976, page 1609).

[iv] It is fascinating to notice that leaders who stood united against the Revised Standard Version later divided over the issue of the King James Version versus new/other translations. For example, Carl McIntire, David Otis Fuller, John R. Rice, Robert L Sumner.

Doug Kutilek, circa 1989

William Aberhart, circa 1935

Benjamin Wilkinson, date unk.