Mining the Archives: The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published March 17, 2006.

This post is long but covers this issue well. I have taken the liberty of slightly editing the original post and shortening it here for the re-post.


The main point of  the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism — Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg — can be summarized as follows.

  1. God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
  2. God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
  3. God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)

Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology [editor’s note: the idea that the Bible does not teach that there is a “universal church” but that God works through local churches only], and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.

The proponents of KJV-onlyism seem to  have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.

The third point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism, and is what I intend to focus the rest of this post on. This point at first glance, appears to give authentication to the KJV-only position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.

The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.

  1. That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
  2. That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
  3. That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
  4. That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
  5. That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.

In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. [Editor’s note: I would now add that the political climate of England during and after its civil war was a boon to the KJV since the Geneva Bible’s notes were considered treasonous.] Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).

I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now some would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.

With regard to assumption 3, some might counter that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.

Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?

The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!

In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.

I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this, but most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.

John Piper on Limited Atonement

In reading through Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011), I came across a section where Piper clearly explains his view of “limited atonement”. He says something to this effect elsewhere, I believe, but the section as found in this book is very helpful. I recommend Piper’s booklet length explanation of the five points of Calvinism as perhaps the best introduction to Reformed theology available for a layperson. His booklet was very instrumental in my conversion to a Reformed viewpoint.

Anyway, what follows is most of Piper’s explanation and defense of “limited atonement” from Bloodlines, his latest book:

————————————-

Hand in glove with the doctrine of our disabling depravity is the doc­trine of God’s effective purchase of his people on the cross. The reason it’s like hand and glove is that our inability because of sin calls for a kind of redemption that does more than offer us a forgiveness we don’t have the ability to receive. Rather, it calls for a redemption that effectively purchases not only our forgiveness but also our willingness to receive it. In other words, the unwilling glove of depravity calls for the insertion of a powerful hand of ability-giving redemption.

Sometimes this doctrine is called “limited atonement.” It’s not a helpful term. Better would be the terms definite atonement or particular redemption. The reason limited atonement isn’t helpful is that, in fact, the doctrine affirms more, not less, about Christ’s work in redemption than its rival view called “unlimited atonement.”

The view of unlimited atonement takes all the passages that say the death of Christ is “for us” (Rom. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10), or for his own “sheep” (John 10:11, 15), or for “the church” (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25), or for “the children of God” (John 11:52), or for “those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14) and makes them refer to all human beings. In this “unlimited atonement” view, the sentence “Christ died for you” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.

Now as far as it goes, this seems to me to be biblical teaching— salvation is offered to all because of Christ. But then this view denies something that I think the Bible teaches. It denies that Christ died for his church—his bride (Eph. 5:25)—in any way different from the way he died for unbelievers who never come to faith.

There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe. Moreover, I have no dispute with saying that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you will have eternal life.”

The dispute rather is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things—more than (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide offer of blood-bought salvation to every person on the planet. Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Eph. 2:8) and repentance (2 Tim. 2:25)? Did the blood of Jesus obtain not only the benefits that come after faith but also the gift of faith itself?

We want to be biblical. Does the unlimited atonement interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contra­dict this more that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ—texts like John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; and 1 John 2:1–2?

I don’t think so…

…The fact that God makes salvation possible for all through the blood of Christ does not contradict the view that God does more than that through the death of Christ. I don’t affirm that God does less but that he does more. He actually secures the salvation of his chosen people. He secures all the grace needed for their salvation, including the grace of regeneration and faith.

Paul says in Ephesians 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This was a particular redemption. Christ had his bride in view differently than he had all in view. He knew his bride, and he wanted his bride, and he bought his bride. Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He said, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you [Father] have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). He said, “And for their sake I consecrate myself [to die], that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19). In other words, Christ had a specific design in his death for the sake of his people—the cross would be sufficient for the salvation of the world, but efficient for his sheep, his bride.

And Paul carried through this understanding of Christ’s work when he said in Romans 8:32–33, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” God’s elect in verse 33 are the same as the “us all” in verse 32. This group, he says, will most surely receive “all things.” God will see to it. And the reason Paul gives is that Christ did not spare his own Son but gave him up “for us all.” That means that the giving of the Son guarantees all the blessings of the elect.

This does not limit the extent of what the atonement offers. The benefits of the atonement are offered to everyone. If you believe on Christ, they are all yours. But “the Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). For them, for his bride, he is securing something that can­not fail—their faith and their justification and their glorification. Those for whom he died, in this fullest sense, will most certainly obtain all things—they will finally inherit the kingdom of God. His death is infal­libly effective for the elect.

–pg. 136-138, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011)

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Jay Leno, Jon Stewart — Why Mike Huckabee Can Win It All

Mike Huckabee has an outside chance of winning the Republican nomination. It all starts today with the Iowa Caucus. Perhaps his biggest negative is a common assumption that he can’t win it all. He’s too conservative and too Baptist.

In a brilliant move, Huckabee landed an appearance on the Tonight show with Jay Leno last night — the night before the Iowa caucus. What thousands of Iowans saw last night is a charming personable guy. His humor and wit disarms you, and he lives up to his billing as a conservative who isn’t mad at everyone.

Huckabee was wonderfully received by both Leno and his crowd. And it is this ability to portray himself positively and amiably in venues typically unfriendly to Republicans which sets Huckabee apart. In early 2007, he made an appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart where he impressed Stewart and his crowd as well.

Jay Leno and Jon Stewart treat Huckabee with respect and give him the time of day. Their audiences give him their ear. One can’t imagine the typical Republican being so well received on these shows. So it stands to reason, that Huckabee really can win it all. He really has crossover appeal.

If the video clips below don’t convince you, check out my list of reasons why Huckabee can win the general election. And better yet read a joint endorsement from Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost), Justin Taylor (Between Two Worlds) and Matthew Anderson (Mere Orthodoxy) which really lays out the case for Huckabee.

See the Daily Show with Jon Stewart interview here.

Mike Huckabee: The Next Howard Dean??

Does anyone remember all the buzz that surrounded 2004 Democratic candidate for president Howard Dean? His support came mostly from blogs and the internet, and at that time blogs were quite new. His campaign fizzled and he never did win the nomination, but he helped redefine politics as we know it. The web had come of age, and politics had a new venue.

The web gives all the candidates an equal playing ground, for the most part, and that helps Huckabee’s shoestrings campaign immensely. Now Huckabee is no Ron Paul, but he is using the web to generate tons of support and momentum. He said recently, “The internet has been the key to our success, the blogosphere and people going to our website.”

Huckabee has been consistently at the top of campaign website traffic (recent data from Hitwise has his website second among all campaign websites for hits, behind Ron Paul). And he has raised 2 million dollars online in just the past month or so. And his web support is translating into real, on-the-ground support as well.

Blogging is a significant element to web-campaigning. More than simply contacting or emailing people you know, blogging brings people of similar interests together. These interested readers will be more likely to respond positively to posts promoting Huckabee.

Chuck Norris is living proof that blogging has dramatically impacted Huckabee’s campaign. Recently he added his support to Huckabee, and helped create some fascinating and unique campaign ads. Right around the time Chuck gave his support, Huckabee’s campaign started surging forward at an incredible pace. In his own words, Chuck Norris said he started thinking of Huckabee largely because of an email from two teenage bloggers, Alex and Brett Harris of The Rebelution. (This video will show you both a Norris ad, and his discussion of blogs and the web influencing him to support Huckabee.)

And if that was a big development, my own blogging has to be considered as well! I speak facetiously here, but let me illustrate the power of blogging. I read Brian McCrorie’s blog where he promoted Huckabee. Then a month or so later (in April), I came out and started supporting Huckabee. Now over the past several months, I’ve had many tell me they are considering Huckabee because of my blog. And recently Rhett Kelly pointed to my blog as the reason he now supports him. And the chain will go on.

All of this is intended to be a shout out to you bloggers out there. Start blogging about Huckabee!! Do 1 post at least. Add a banner in your sidebar. Get yourself linked from Huckabee’s website (it will bring traffic to your blog.) Jump in and lend a hand. Even if you don’t have spare change, your blogging can really help his campaign.

All along people have said they like Huckabee and his message but don’t think he can win. Now that he is near the top of national polls and all the state polls, what are you waiting for? He has a big chance to win the nomination, and an even better chance of winning the presidency. As Jonathan Alter of Newsweek said a while back, “[Huckabee] may be the only Republican candidate with a decent chance to beat the Democrats next November.”

For those still unfamiliar with Huckabee, I came across a great post co-authored by Justin Taylor. In it he, with Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, details the reasons why Huckabee is both the best candidate ideally and pragmatically. He is consistent conservatively and has a real shot at winning the general election. My thoughts on Huckabee can be seen in my Huckabee category here, and especially in this post. Also, you can keep up with the latest on Huckabee by following my Go Huckabee tumble blog.

One final note: today is Mobilize for Mike Day. Mike Huckabee is asking for people to send emails to friends introducing them to himself and his campaign. You can do this via the Huckabee website and that will help keep track of all the emails today. The goal is 100,000 emails to that many different people. This is one more pain-free way to support Mike Huckabee, now while there’s still time for Huck to win the nomination.

So lets work to make Huckabee more than a Howard Dean has been. Let’s band together and propel him to the presidency!

Why Mike Huckabee Can Win the General Election

Update: For a post which lays out the reasons why Huckabee is a genuine conservative and can appeal to all 3 conservative factions, check out this post from Evangelical Outpost (Joe Carter, with Matt Anderson and Justin Taylor).
Momentum is Mike Huckabee‘s friend right about now. He’s been riding it for quite some time.

Huckabee scored big in yesterday’s Iowa Straw Poll by finishing solidly in 2nd place, with 18% of the vote. Romney spent literally millions more than Huckabee, and won first place with only 31% of the vote, even though the two other big name, top tier candidates didn’t participate.

With characteristic charm, Huckabee remarked, “For us to finish second, for all intents and purposes, we won the Iowa straw poll. This is David and Goliath and one smooth stone.” (source, David Chalian of ABCNews.com). Huckabee may not be over exaggerating either.

Chris Cillizza on his Washington Post political blog “The Fix”, suggested that Huckabee may well be the biggest winner from the straw poll. And “The Blue State”, a progressive blog without bias, predicts “Mike Huckabee is about to receive a huge bounce in the polls after finishing second…“. Blue State went on to discuss how Huckabee can position himself as “the leading conservative alternative to the frontrunners“. After highlighting evidence which may suggest hundreds of voters actually changed their minds to vote for Huckabee, Noam Scheiber of The New Republic‘s political blog “The Plank”, went on to describe how, “The political press is absolutely head over heels for Huckabee.”

So with all the buzz surrounding Mike Huckabee and his bid for the Republican nomination, now might be a good time to raise the question: “Can Huckabee win the general election?” I suggest he can, for the following reasons.

  • With a Republican party lagging in morale and political viability, the best chance Republicans have for winning must be a united front. They would need a candidate who appeals both to their base and to middle-of-the-roaders. Huckabee is that man. Conservatives have nothing to fear, and moderates will warm to Huckabee’s optimistic emphasis on vertical politics.
  • Who can say what it takes to win on the big stage, but a healthy dose of charisma, charm, and a quick witted humor never hurt anyone. Huckabee has that and more. He has consistently over achieved in the debates, and displays a presidential tone.
  • Huckabee is not connected to Washington. And he’s a governor — a governor’s governor, really. With 10 1/2 years of executive experience to leverage, Huckabee will convince the public that America needs a proven leader.
  • Since Huckabee isn’t a Washington insider, he isn’t in Bush’s back pocket. He’s been loathe to openly criticize the sitting president, but one can tell he has some significant differences and disappointments with Bush. Republicans and Democrats alike will need to be assured that Huckabee doesn’t represent more of the same.
  • Huckabee is also one of the few Republican candidates with a full-orbed political plan for change. He emphasizes vertical politics and the importance of actually governing and getting things done (see this video clip of Huckabee on this very point).
  • What’s more he is extremely believable and likable. The media love him. He has a great story of losing 100 pounds, and he would also have an underdog turned contender storyline going into the general election.
  • And Huckabee is not a cookie-cutter Republican. Sure he is solidly pro life, but he emphasizes the need to support life from the womb to the grave and everyplace in between. He also is calling for Republicans to take the lead in the stewardship of our environment, and the fighting of corporate greed. He even advocates an emphasis on art & music education in public schools. As for his faith, he stresses that it will influence him to “do what’s right” in office.
  • Early media reports have tried to paint Huckabee as a member of the radical right, with him being an ordained Southern Baptist preacher and all. They’ve made much of his personal belief in God’s creation, over and against evolution. Yet Huckabee’s record will prove them wrong. He won election twice in a solidly democratic Arkansas, and worked with Democrats to get things done.
  • He has a clear across-the-aisle appeal. Huckabee, his bass guitar, and his quick wit proved enough to win applause and more in a must-see interview with Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”.
  • To sum it all up, Huckabee is the only conservative who can genuinely appeal to his party’s base as well as reach out to independents and moderates. It’s like Huckabee says, although he’s a conservative, he’s not mad at everybody!

AddThis Social Bookmark Button