Monday, September 14, 2009

The Doctrine of the Bible

In an ironic twist, the doctrine of the Bible frequently comes under attack by those who claim to love it most. Dave Doran addresses one particular manifestation of this in this recent article. I am sure the publication in question awaits me at my office when I get there tomorrow. I can hardly wait.

Now this topic of Bible versions is one that I don’t address here at my blog often because 1) I think it is mostly nonsense … a house of cards and cotton candy, and 2) I don’t want the comments about it from what are probably well-meaning people who have been misinformed about the issue. (Notice I didn’t say I don’t want comments from people who disagree, although I will not let my comment section become your personal vendetta.)

Doran rightly says that one cannot embrace the doctrine of “hardcore” King James Version Onlyism with “without doing damage to the biblical doctrine of inspiration.”

Now it is important to note that Doran’s comments (and mine) are not directed at people who prefer the KJV, or who prefer the Majority Text or even the Textus Receptus (two different versions of the Greek text underlying the NT). They are not directed at people who think that some modern versions are poor translations, or translate from a poor text, or that some modern versions could do a better job of translating some passages of Scripture.

They are directed at people who claim for an English version what should only be claimed for the original—namely the inspiration of the Spirit. The claim that the Holy Spirit directly inspired the KJV, or that the KJV is word perfect (or letter perfect or even punctuation perfect as some claim) is outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. One who makes such a claim has, by definition, departed from the faith once for all handed down to the saints. They should be exposed as false teachers and separated from. They are not fundamentalists. They are not orthodox.

What we, as people of the Book, have to realize is that the danger from within is just as great as the danger from without. When one embraces a faulty doctrine of Scripture, it is no more worthy when it embraces one single English version than when it denies inerrancy. Faulty bibliology is faulty, no matter how well intended it is, no matter how deadly the error that it is intended to refute, and no matter how sincerely one believes it. You cannot enhance the authority of Scripture by destroying its authority.

Listen folks, the use of modern versions is not destroying Christianity. It’s not watering it down. So quit saying it is. I guarantee throughout history more bad messages have been preached from the KJV than from modern versions, if for no other reason because the KJV had a three hundred year headstart (and it is the version used by people who are King James Only who are notorious for bad preaching that has nothing to do with the text).

So let’s get serious about the Word and quit making up doctrines.

If you use the KJV, fine. I don’t care. Preach the KJV (which incidentally will keep you from preaching KJVOnlyism.)

If you think I am a heretic, or weak, or compromised because I use a modern version, fine. I do care, but it doesn’t bother me. I will sleep well tonight.

But please don’t destroy the faith of fellow believers by telling them that they can’t trust their Bible because it isn’t the KJV.

I have had the misfortune of sitting across the table from people whose faith was jeopardized when someone told them they couldn’t trust their Bible because it wasn’t the KJV. It is not a pretty sight. It made me mad.

And it reminds me, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). God help those who mislead his children about his word.

Or to quote someone else, “Keep your stinkin’ feet out of my drinking water.”

2 comments:

Kent Brandenburg said...

How many English inspirationists do you think read your blog? I couldn't defend their position from scripture, but I was wondering who you thought might be the audience of your post.

In light of your mention of Hyles, consider this post I just wrote at Jackhammer:

http://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/the-apology-owed-to-jack-hyles-and-jack-schaap-pt-1/

Mark Ward said...

I appreciate all you said, Larry. And, I bet you're surprised to hear that from me - because you know where I stand on the text issue.

Listen - you're right on! I'm sick and tired of people worshiping a version. Some have made a particular version a literal 'idol.' That's strong - but, true.

I firmly believe the text is still the issue, and I believe the Textus Receptus was the received text of the early church - therefore, I use the KJV. However, we have people that come to our church and have different versions. That's ok. They'll get their heart right in time and change (HA).

Seriously, this idolizing of a version has got to go in our fundamental circles. We're dividing the church when we criticize people for using another version. If someone comes to my church with another version other than the KJV - and they ask me to take that version and lead them to the Lord - I can.

If I'm on an airplane and someone pulls out a version of the Bible that I don't use and asks me to lead them to the Lord - I'll do it. And, I won't shake up their faith and give them a big dissertation on why they're 'using a wrong version.' If they ask me what version I use - I'll tell them.

God doesn't inspire a particular version - he inspires His Words. And, I believe the KJV is a wonderful preserved version that we should value and hold dearly in our hands. And, I won't openly rebuke and tear down someone who comes to my church with a different type of version of the Bible. That battle is not worth loosing people over.

So, enough said on my part. Now, you know where I stand.