I am well aware of the Sikh religion. You’re coming in a year later here and reading my use of the “Sikh thing” and making a judgment on what I meant by that. If you were to go to Brandenburg’s blog and search through the archives to a few weeks or so prior to the date on the comment above, you’d find out what I meant. “Thing” refers to the occurrence or happening he wrote about in connection with a Sikh parade that he observed.

Respecting other religions does not also require we allow for their equal claims to the truth. I believe absolute truth exists, and the God of the Bible is the only true God. That belief does not make me superior to others, it helps me love them more, as I believe God made us all.

Blessings be on you through Jesus Christ the Lord, may you come to know and love the truth as I do.

Bob

Bob Hayton ,

Sikh is not a thing, its a religion. if you want others to respect your religion then learn to respect and accept other religions.

thanks,

-singh

Not at all. What is “the” MT? On both of these there is minority support for the true KJB reading. Also lots of auxiliary support, Ben Hayim even put in a fascinating margin note about the evidences of the Joshua verse.

Just like we are slow to speak of “the Greek” or even “the TR” we should be slow to speak of “the MT”.

Kent, thanks for your time of support for the pure and inerrant KJB at Sharper Iron while you were there.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

You said: “We didn’t protest your use of the medical”.

Quote from your own blog:

“…To end, he skips out of town and then sends us his wife’s dentist bill three months later, a day before that benefit, paid by our non-profit school, runs out. Himself disloyal to everyone but himself. The world revolves around him….”

Yes you guys paid the bill and stuck to your word, but this sounds like protesting or complaining (at the least gossipping) to me.

You have made your point, and I have made mine. I see that we are not moving anywhere in this exchange. Anyone reading this exchange is welcome to contact either of us for more on our point of view, and they can make their own conclusions.

Discussion on this aspect is now over under this comment thread. We may perhaps further discuss Kutilek’s article here. I probably won’t interact with it on your blog, unless you want me to. I wouldn’t get a warm reception from your readers, and I don’t want to make a big stink. Most of them know about this blog and so they don’t need me to be coming over to their blogs policing them, so to speak.

I am thankful for your ministry, really. I was encouraged to read about the Sikh thing, on your blog. I do hope God continues to bless your ministry and grow the faith of you and your people.

God bless,

Bob Hayton

The word “pontiff,” for your info, is inflammatory language—I say this mainly for a kind of false-piety that guys of your ilk seem to carry that you are ‘above the frey’ and very peaceful. It isn’t so. I’m not upset; I’m just desirous for you to see the telephone pole in the eye while you judge the Louisville Slugger. And you stand by “cult” whether it offends or not—this is part of the peace and unity strategy?

We didn’t protest your use of the medical (it was eye/dental for the fastidious detail correction, which we call dental coverage); just would like a little balance in your pseudo-coverage. You don’t want certain details like that, which are positive, they’re gossip, but you seem to provide one thing after another about your former places very selectively to paint a very negative picture—those are “good reporting.” A false picture.

I will deal with Kutilek on my blog.

A few responses.

1) An example of the gossip would be talking on your blog about my submitting my wife’s dentist bill days before our coverage by your school ran out. It was an eyeglass bill not a dentist bill, and we had not yet used the coverage (even though we had it 2 years) but were looking at having no coverage soon, and there was a definite need. If it had been a dentist bill, and she had broken a tooth or something, would you fault us for trying to use the coverage we had for a legitimate need?

Larry merely mentioned he considered you to be belligerant and schismatic. The first entry in my desk dictionary says gossip is “rumor or talk of a personal or sensational nature”. I don’t think Larry’s warning fits the bill. Merely warning people not to take me seriously would not fit the bill either. But the example above, and a few others like it, do.

2) I understand “cult” could be offensive. I stand by my description however. Coming out of the strictness of fundamentalism results in a disorientation similar to that which attends one’s leaving a cult. Doctrinally, there is no comparison. You guys are no cult. I am saying that some of the practices and customs you have are exclusive to your group and strange to people in general, and that there is limited interaction with others outside your group–very much like some cults.

3) Your statements under your second and sixth points belie a basic misunderstanding. I was not secretly plotting an ejection from fundamentalism while at your church. I was not close to rejecting some positions while there. I was finding answers to all the questions and objections I encountered or thought of. I wanted to remain in fundamentalism. I was proud of many of my beliefs.

It was not some secret plan of mine to leave fundamentalism. When I left I had no intentions of rejecting the positions I held to. It was through further interaction with my brother and more reading and study, that I came to leave the positions I held. Before I left your church there was much pressure to conform and stay conformed. There was not much opportunity to objectively evaluate beliefs, as exclusion and expulsion would result if I changed even one position. After leaving, we were not as closely connected to the church we joined as we had been with yours. Distance and I admit some fear prevented me from asking for further input from you and your church as I encountered yet more objections and questions after I left. I did feel that I had heard all the answers on some of these things, and felt that the understanding I was seeing would not be changed by further input from your church. I had studied and come to many of the conclusions I had previously held to on my own. Or at least I had come to really know why I believed them. Once I took the first step of actually being wiling to change and look at one of my beliefs without the prejudice I held for it, more and more questions arose. Things became crystal clear. The answers I had previously marshalled against questions raised or encountered, were seen to be as dull as they really were. I have explained this elsewhere, but it seems you and others will not take my explanation at face value.

4) It was almost a year after I left fundamentalism before I started the blog. I even said a big part of the blog was to document and put down on paper the ideas and understanding I had on the issues I had recently faced. The blog was mainly for my benefit at first. I don’t pretend to be ordained. And I do not believe that I need to be an authority figure in order to have permission to speak about these kind of things. People are free to not listen to me. But discussing theology and defending your own views are not the sole propriety of pastors. I respect elders/pastors and am to sumbit to them, but they are not to be pontiffs. People can understand Scripture on their own and talk about it and defend their views.

5) Waite is not connected to Trinitarian. What he does is one thing, what they do another. Trinitarian chose to leave out the preface and appendices of Scrivener’s text. Waite chose to provide them. Trinitarian’s own preface judged on its own merit can easily lead one to conclude falsely that its text is an exact representation of the KJV in Greek. This is what Kutilek objects to and suggests that Trinitarian may have intentionally left out the preface/appendices for that very reason. If it is not a conspiracy, it is still not fair scholastically for them to leave out info which would shed a whole new light on their own preface. They should at least have gone out of their way to explain what text it was they were giving in their preface. The error was either planned or unintentional, but either way I agree with Kutilek that it is an error on Trinitarian’s part.

6) I will read what you post on Kutilek’s article on your blog. And I am not sure how I am “unwilling to listen” because I do not see how Kutilek is so full of prejudice and errors as you make him out to be. The facts he shares speak for themselves with or without any invectives.

I appreciate that you say these things calmly. I trust my response is so, as well. I do not think we are going to see eye to eye. And these responses could go on ad infitum. You have said what you need to, and I have as well. If you have further clarification, I am fine with you posting more. I just do not want to see this devolve into discourse of a considerably less calm nature.

Respectfully,

Bob Hayton

First, I haven’t gossiped about you unless we define it differently. I have already confronted you personally and you are unrepentant. You have a public blog. I am warning about you. Was John gossiping about Diotrephes? Scripture says: “Lay hands on no man suddenly.” I don’t think people should get in the habit of listening to you. If you truly think that you understand us, as you regularly say, then I don’t understand why you can’t understand this, because you were with us. By the way, if you think that you are on a different rhetorical level, one of peace, the word cult takes it to a different level. I don’t call you a cult, but you lump what you left altogether neatly into something like leaving a “cult.” I don’t take personaly offense. I’m just pointing out that you should look in the mirror on your complaints about rhetoric. Do you think that Larry’s comments about me were gossip, incidentally? To check your standards of gossip?

Second, this could go on ad infinitum, the Tom doesn’t listen to me; you don’t listen to me, as if you have these superior arguments, but people won’t listen. We have, I believe, much more credibility on the listening side. I never knew you were so close to pushing the eject button on so many different doctrines when you were at our church, especially for someone who talked as much as you. You certainly weren’t lacking in opportunity to tell us.

Third, I have been very, very non-revelatory as it relates to you. Even about positive things we did for you, which I’ll name one—I taught you third year Greek and advanced homiletics for free for at least a month until you had to opt out for non-revealed reasons. Does that sound like your cult-like, IFBx–teaching people Greek? Very KJVO too.

Fourth, you are glossing over Kutilek’s faux pax on the Trinitarian issue. They did not reprint the notes in the back which showed the difference between the 1598 Beza and the text behind the KJV. Kutilek makes it a conspiracy. If so, then why did Waite not get in on the conspiracy? Oh, and how do you prove what the KJVers had and didn’t have in the way of Greek text, besides quoting James White or Price?

Fifth, On the “general accessibility,” we not only take the view of Scripture, availability, but we also take the view of history. The article I had prepared for Sharper Iron would tell you this. I’ll probably post it on our website when I’m through with a final edit.

Sixth, leaving fundamentalism wasn’t the shot at our church, but leaving so many of the doctrines we preached without every questioning it a year earlier when you left in such ‘great fellowship.’ And then immediately thinking you, now Mr. Unity (you like it for you right now especially), was fit to attack these doctrines publically.

Seventh, your view of what Mr. Kutilek writes indicates the unwillingness to listen. If you can’t see the problems with what he writes, you are selectively closing your mind. You choose not to see it.

I actually, the bull, say these things quite calmly.

I think your “general accessibility” view has holes in it. It does not really dodge the main thrust of this post. Okay, so God’s Words are to be generally accessible. So both “word of God” and “word of the Lord” were accessible. So how do we know which is correct? Which is God’s intended word?

Regarding Ruth 3:15, I had forgotten you addressed it specifically. Pastor Voegtlin included your email to him which mentioned it. I purposely left out Ruth 3:15 in my post on Sharper Iron, since your position on it seems reasonable. Although, I still think you have to address how you know the MT to be inerrant. My understanding of what you would claim is that since the churches accepted the MT and used the KJV which is based on the MT, then this means the MT is the authorized edition of the Hebrew so to speak. Now the MT does have some indisputable errors. Ps. 22:16 (mentioned in my post) and Josh. 21:36-37 (omitted in the MT, included in a few Hebrew MSS as well as the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac) are two examples. I wonder how you can simply state “The Hebrew text must stand because it is not erroneous”?

As for Kutilek, at times he is harsh with the KJV onlyists, that is true. He seems no harsher with them than they are with him and those who hold his position, truthfully. I think I understood what he was saying with the “lemming” line, although I think it may have been simply a slam. But I did not see “many things absolutely untrue”. On the whole it was fairly balanced. His beliefs might be wrong and sometimes he might misjudge KJV onlyists, but generally he presents the facts in a no holds barred fashion. I know you have had past run ins with him, and perhaps you filter what he says through a different grid than the rest of us.

As far as the Trinitarian thing, I think Kutilek has a point. In their preface, the reader is lead to believe he holds the Greek text which underlies the KJV. However, if you look at the preface to Scrivener’s Annotated TR, he expressly says that there were many times the KJV departed from all Greek texts for the Vulgate or for no known authority. In these places, he gives Beza’s 1598 instead of what the KJV used. He also lists 40+ readings based on the Vulgate in the appendix with the note that the list he gives is most likely only a small sampling of the number of times the KJV depends on the Vulgate.  At one time I thought the Trinitarian TR was equal to the KJV, but later I learned better. So in a sense, the Trinitarian Bible Society is hiding this small truth from those who use their TR. I would venture to say that many who use it do not know this fact. They think the Trinitarian TR is absolutely equivalent to the text the KJV is based on, when in fact it isn’t.

Thanks for coming on here and clarifying some things. You are welcome to comment here and are subject to the same rules as everyone else (see my commenting policy).

I should also mention that somehow your comment ended in wordpress’ “Akismet Spam” folder. This means I was not notified of it at all. And since 99% of comments in the spam folder are spam, I don’t check it that often. Anyway, just wanted you to know I was not purposefully playing games with your comment.

I understand your perspective regarding “tough love” and saying what I need to hear. And I can respect that. I also appreciate that you’ve said comparatively “very, very little”.

Here is my beef, though. As regards Sharper Iron, when you have encountered my comments you went out of your way to discredit me. I have tried to interject meaningful comments or thoughts into discussions at times. You refuse to listen or allow others to consider those thoughts because you view me as totally discredited. The way you have done this has been troubling as well. At times you have insinuated things and spoken about things no one else would know of, all in the interest of putting me in my place. Then you just brush off whatever point I made, hardly even dealing with it. This tactic is demeaning and just out of place in a public forum, in my opinion.

And beyond Sharper Iron, at your blog and some other blogs you frequent, you have gossipped (I can’t think of another way to term it) and seemingly gloated over the depths of my fall. At times you have talked about me without actually naming me, although it was very clear to anyone familiar with my blog. At other times you have mentioned me by name. Sometimes what you have said amounts to simply mocking me. It is as if you are pumping up yourself and others by agreeing that what I have said and what I have done is simply preposterous.

If you look through this blog, the discussion here is the closest I have come to any of that. I have gone out of my way to make sure that others know I have great memories of my time at your church. I still do. I speak very highly of it. And while I disagree with some positions and tactics of IFB/IFBx people, I have labored to not have a belittling and demeaning approach to them. Check out my new “about this blog” post for the latest clarifying post with regards to my view of fundamentalism.

I have taken different positions, being convinced by Scripture on a number of issues. Rather than patiently deal with the issues, or spend time on the blogs you frequent answering my charges or destroying my exegesis, you just discredit and belittle me. I have labored to explain how and why I came to these changes. I have tried to explain my true motives. Over and against what I claim, you have read into me the motives you think I have.

I find this statement of yours above to be most enlightening: “Turning on what you former church believed is the worst thing you could do to us.” I do not know how my changing my own beliefs on issues that your church deems important has anything to do with your church. How is my leaving fundamentalism a personal insult of the worst kind to your church? Yes, I think many points of what my former church (your church) are wrong. I am now trying to help people see why those points are wrong. But this does not mean I disrespect or hate your church. I respect them and understand them, since I used to believe everything they did. I wish your church would change its positions, but knowing they most likely will not, I am happy they are serving Christ. I wish the best for them.

I am saying all this to explain why I said what I did in comment #5. I am trying to explain my perspective. I do plan on answering Tom’s second letter. It will be difficult, because it seems he never read my initial response to him. So much of what I said fell on deaf ears. Tom has tweaked his arguments a bit, increased the rhetoric and tightened his stance but it is basically the same letter I already answered. I already know how he’ll answer this response, and so I am having a hard time getting motivated to give it. Anyway, that is enough personal discussion. I will discuss your responses to my article in the comment below.

Speaking the truth in love may have something to do with style, sure. Warning the unruly isn’t unloving, because it is what God told us to do. It is also speaking the truth that is in love. Not speaking the truth is not love. I think that is part of what it means too. My conscience is also clear with you because I have not held back at all from telling you what I believe. I didn’t follow you around at SI; you may have felt like. I just wrote when I happened to see you.

Larry, if you pop back on here. Your words belligerence and schismatic seem to belie what you say you favor as a mode of communication. I actually think we could have a good discussion. You just wouldn’t get rubber stamped if that’s what makes things peaceful for you.

As far as representing me, Bob, I can appreciate it to some degree. My wife was on SI and told me you got a post about me published and so I clicked on your link to come here. You probably thought I could answer you on Sharper Iron. I can’t. No one knows, but I’m excommunicated by the owner/operator. See the previous post from my last to find out how. It is a unique situation. I’m not banned. I’m vaporized.

Regarding your representation of my answer. Why does Acts 19:20 and other places create a problem for me? We don’t have a problem with the “Which TR?” question. Our position, even in TSKT, has been and continues to be general accessibility to the Lord’s churches. We have never taken the one TR edition view or even the one copy view. I have an article prepared that the owner/operator at SI promised me I could publish there as a response to the materials on the Mike Sproul review, but that is not happening. It is a synopsis of what might be book 1 and book 2 of the TSKT two book series. I also noticed that you didn’t mention anything about my Ruth 3:15 dealing and the vowel point dealing. Kutilek said many things absolutely untrue, judged motives, but you like it when he does that? How does he get a free pass when you are sensitive to these things? He tries to make Trinitarian look like they have a conspiracy with their NT.

We believe preservation is in the text. You can’t actually prove what the translators had and didn’t have when they did their translation. What I’m left with is faith in God’s preservation and a perfect Bible based on Scriptural presuppositions and sufficient history. And you are left with subjectivity, Darwinistic science, and an errant Bible. I feel sorry for you. Oh ye of little faith.

In the interest of truth here, I write this.