Anyone who goes by the title “The Bible Answer Man” must be impervious to criticism. The record shows that controversy did surround both of the men who bore that title over the last fifty plus years. A new book from the daughter of Walter Martin, the original “Bible Answer Man,” gives an insider’s perspective on the life and ministry of both Martin and his successor Hank Hanegraaff — as well as the controversies that enveloped them. The Bible Answer Man: Walter Martin and Hank Hanegraaff: Dr. Martin’s Daughter Reflects on CRI’s Founder, Its History, and Its Current President is self-published but fairly well edited. The content is intriguing and enlightening, part-biography and part-memoir, with some theological rabbit trails and a few controversies addressed head on.
Cindee Martin Morgan’s story is poignant and personal. The book includes family pictures and a look back in time. It also unpacks family heartaches (a girl’s perspective on her parents’ divorce, and a sister’s heartbreak over a legal feud with another family member over the legacy of her father’s work). And more than this, it introduces (or reacquaints) readers to her father and his ministry, as well as to that of Hank Hanegraaff.
Morgan details the beginning of her father’s ministry: Christian Research Institute (CRI) and its move from the east coast to California. She highlights her father’s style and determination to follow the evidence where it may lead (this accounts for his defense of not classifying Seventh Day Adventism as a cult). She also includes interesting behind-the-scenes details, such as Martin’s friendly meal with the Roman Catholic theologian Mitchell Pacwa after a debate they had on the John Ankerberg show. The book includes letters, transcripts of taped shows and lectures, statements by friends and significant leaders, and news-clippings of the time. She marshals this evidence to highlight her father’s gradual rejection of dispensationalism and to detail his stand against Paul Crouch.
Central to the book is Morgan’s defense of her father’s choice to lead his ministry after his death: Hank Hanegraaff. Years after Martin’s death a disgruntled former employee and one of Martin’s family members have alleged that Hanegraaff was not chosen to be groomed as Martin’s eventual replacement. Morgan recounts the story of how first-hand evidence (audio tapes from Martin’s Sunday School class) surfaced to remove any doubts — although sadly not all agree.
Speaking of Hanegraaff, Morgan illustrates how he follow’s Martin’s example in following the evidence no matter the outcome by unpacking his decision to reverse CRI’s assessment of the Local Church movement (Watchman Nee/Witness Lee). Another trait of Hanegraaff’s is his determination to stay busy in ministry during his present fight with cancer. A more troubling decision, however, has impacted the ministry of CRI through lost sponsors and radio stations: namely Hanegraaff’s conversion to the Greek Orthodox Church. Morgan shares her own angst and bewilderment over the news and then takes us on her own journey to understand and appreciate the change. She concludes the book with a lengthy interview she conducted with Hanegraaff.
This book brings to mind the impact that Christian apologetics has had over the last fifty years. That impact owes much to men like Walter Martin. He was not perfect and his methods are not above criticism (accountability to a local church seems missing, and appears to be missing with Hanegraaff as well), but no one can doubt his love for the Lord and his sincerity to follow the Bible. Hanegraaff likewise strikes me as a sincere follower of Christ who is worth listening to, even though I do not condone his embrace of the Greek Orthodox Church. This book can encourage us to follow the examples of these men and study the Scriptures ourselves for answers when it comes to evaluating the cults, the Church and our own doctrine.
Disclaimer: this book was provided by the author for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.
You can pick up a copy of this book from Amazon.com.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
Alec Motyer has spent his life studying the riches of Isaiah, and I’m almost finished enjoying the fruits of his study so helpfully laid out in Isaiah By the Day: A New Devotional Translation (Christian Focus, 2011). In each of the daily readings in this book, Motyer presents his translation with commentary and offers a devotional in line with the text of that day’s passage. I came across a jewel of a quote about the Church, with special focus on denominations and how each local church is to be a picture of the whole Church. I thought it was a great way to look at things and offer it hear for your benefit as well.
The truth remains the same today: the Lord’s earthly people are themselves the temple in which he lives by his Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16), the locus and display of his holiness and beauty. Well may we mourn that our sinfulness, divisiveness, our failure in biblical distinctiveness, and our manifest lack of holiness have marred the image. Who, looking at today’s church–denominational or local–can see the likeness of Jesus? And this is not a matter only of denominational failure, though that is all too plain. The Bible knows nothing of our “denominationalism,” and if Isaiah’s wording promts us to put our hand to reform and renovation then its proper focus is the local church to which we each belong. When we look at the merest sliver of a crescent moon we don’t say, “Oh, there’s part of the moon.” We say “Look, there’s the moon.” In the same way each local church, however small–or in the eyes of onlookers, insignificant–is meant to be a mirror and image of the whole, an earthly replica of the heavenly reality where Christ is all. We should be able to look at the fellowships to which we belong and say, “There is The Church,” bearing the two oustanding marks of holiness and beauty: obeying the command, “Be holy because I am holy” (Lev. 19:2), and displaying the beauty of Jesus in all its gatherings, relationships and individual characters.
~ excerpted from p. 306, on Isaiah 63:15-64:12.
For a sample reading from this helpful book by Motyer, see this post.
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.
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)
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)
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.
That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
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.
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.
I’ve been involved in an online discussion recently on the topic of unity and separation. And I’m finding once again, that for many fundamentalists (surprise), even convincing them that unity with other believers outside a local church is not strictly optional is proving a hard sell.
I won’t bore you with the entire discussion (although some may find it helpful). I will however, take the occasion to share some thoughts on how Ephesians 3 and 4 make a strong case for the idea that unity with other believers is urged upon us in light of our mutual membership in the universal church, which is Christ’s body.
…I believe that in the world we find ourselves in, with its thousands of churches with no real interconnectedness and cooperation between most of them, intentional unity becomes somewhat odd and so a default isolationism sets in. The American situation of freedom from persecution, and good ol’ American individualism also prejudice us toward a self-existant, sufficient idea of our individual local church. Add the history of sectarian fights and all that fundamentalism has endured from all quarters, and I guess it’s little wonder that we have to defend the very idea of the “essential fact of unity” bearing with it a responsibility to act out that unity in visible ways.
Now tallying up the teaching on unity is a bit of a tall order, but just focusing on Ephesians 3 and 4 should suffice for my purposes. Given the setting I’ll just try to draw a brief sketch and not get too detailed.
Eph. 3:1-13 The inclusion of the Gentiles into the “one body” of the Church, (alongside Jews equally), is the mysterious “eternal purpose” of God. And through this new reality in the universal church, heavenly beings can see the manifold wisdom of God.
Eph. 3:14-21 Paul prays for the Ephesian believers individually to experience more fully and to know more deeply the love of Christ, together in a shared experience with all the saints. And he prays for Christ to receive glory in the universal church throughout all generations.
Eph. 4:1-3 On the basis of this cosmic purpose of the global and universal church, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to walk worthy of their calling (shared with all saints), and to bear with one another patiently aiming to maintain this unity of the Spirit (that God is working throughout the universal church as described previously) in a bond of peace. A bond between their brothers in their own city, and a bond which extends beyond even (by implication in the cosmic nature of Ephesians as the wider context).
Eph. 4:4-6 As a further ground for this activity of living together in light of the unity of the Spirit, Paul lists how unified the Ephesians are with all the saints, they share one Lord, faith, baptism and one Father God. God being over all and through all and in them all, as well as in all believers.
Eph. 4:7-10 As a practical reality working out from this existential unity, grace was given to Paul and the Ephesians, indeed to all of us, according to the measure of Christ’s gift that he gave to man in general. And this gift is tied into cosmic realities again as Jesus is ascended above all heavens, and filling up all things through this gift.
Eph. 4:11-16 The gift includes the offices of apostles and prophets and evangelists (all universal church offices, I would think), as well as pastor-teachers, and these men God has given the church (and by the way that means historical theology is important as the teachers of yester-year remain a gift to the church) are to equip all the saints for ministry-work and for mutual up-building of the universal body of Christ (as well as it’s local manifestations). All of this with the goal of all of us attaining to “the unity of the faith”, and knowledge of the Son of God.. leading to maturity and growth and experiencing the fullness of Christ, himself. Christ being the head joins the entire body, so it may grow and build itself up in love.
I would contend that yes, the local church is included in this picture. But everything about the context roots the local church reality in a context of global unity. And just as all believers want to have the fullness of Christ and true knowledge of the Son of God, so too, they should all have unity of the faith and work toward unity with one another.
Since Christ is head of the universal church, what right have we to act as if our own church is all that matters in a given locale? Why ignore other gospel preaching churches and seek to do everything on our own without recognizing and finding ways to celebrate our unity in the faith with these other believers? The mentality is wrong, not just the practice. Yes it’s easy to do nothing, given our current culture and background. It’s easy to focus on our own church and act independently of others. Easy, but is it right?
I am leaving for a trip, but wanted to leave you all with some good reading material.
Jeff Straub, professor of history at Central Baptist Theological Seminary here in Minneapolis has a couple posts stressing the importance of “churches working together”. Rather than seeing each church as an island completely independent and in need of nothing (which many local church only advocates do), his picture is closer to the biblical picture of churches working together.
I encourage you to check out his two posts. For those wondering, “local church” onlyism is the idea that there is little if any sense of the “universal church” idea in Scripture. Instead everything said of the church in Scripture is true of one local church ideally. In my opinion, this leads to the conclusion that cooperation between churches and unity and all that is just optional.
Here are the links to Dr. Straub’s posts. He makes the case that churches working together produce longer lasting fruit than churches doing it solo.
Anyone who goes by the title “The Bible Answer Man” must be impervious to criticism. The record shows that controversy did surround both of the men who bore that title over the last fifty plus years. A new book from the daughter of Walter Martin, the original “Bible Answer Man,” gives an insider’s perspective on the life and ministry of both Martin and his successor Hank Hanegraaff — as well as the controversies that enveloped them. The Bible Answer Man: Walter Martin and Hank Hanegraaff: Dr. Martin’s Daughter Reflects on CRI’s Founder, Its History, and Its Current President is self-published but fairly well edited. The content is intriguing and enlightening, part-biography and part-memoir, with some theological rabbit trails and a few controversies addressed head on.
Alec Motyer has spent his life studying the riches of Isaiah, and I’m almost finished enjoying the fruits of his study so helpfully laid out in 
The main point of the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism —