Brian posts: Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Heresy is defined as 1. religious opinion at variance with opinion or doctrine. 2. any belief or theory that is at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that KJV-onlyism, because it is at varience with orthodox, historical, established Christian doctrine (and also causes division within the church, btw), is heresy?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Brian, I'm saying that belief in an inspired Bible that we hold in our hands is the historic position. It is you conflicting multiversionists who now hold the position that "only the originals were inspired", and that today we do not have any inspired Bible.
Consider the following two items. 1. Confessions of faith of Christians in the past, and 2. the present state of most graduating seminarians, which I will post separately.
The Westminister Confessions of 1646, is probably the most famous Confession of Faith ever written. It says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." This is of course not a Baptist Confession, but it has had great influence among Baptists. This Confession says that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..." How could anyone make such a statement, unless they believed that they had reliable copies of the originals and reliable translations?
The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 says, "God saw to it that His word, which is with power unto salvation to everyone who believes, was entrusted to writing not only through Moses, the prophets and apostles, but also He has stood guard and watched over it with a fatherly concern to the present time that it not be destroyed by the cunning of Satan or by any other human deceit."
.If these people had no reliable text and no reliable translation, how could they make such a statement? If their Greek and Hebrew texts were not pure, and they had no pure translation, why would they make such a foolish statement?
The Midland Confession, 1655, was adopted unanimously by the messengers of the churches meeting at Warwick, England. This group of Baptists said, "We profess and believe the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the word and revealed mind of God, which are able to make men wise unto Salvation, through faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, and that they are given by inspiration of God, serving to furnish the man of God for every good work; and by them we are (in the strength of Christ) to try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth. II Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20."
We hardly see how the critics of the KJV can find any comfort in that statement of faith. Those who adopted the Midland Confession of 1655, believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures, they believed they had those Scriptures, and they believed that by those Scriptures they could "try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth."
In 1655, you can well know what English version they used, and they had never heard of the Westcott & Hort text, and we can thank the Lord for that.
The Standard Confession of 1660 (Baptist), said, "That the holy Scriptures is the rule whereby Saints both in matters of Faith, and conversation are to be regulated, they being able to make men wise unto salvation, through Faith in Christ Jesus, profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." While they mention no version, and said nothing about the originals, yet they believed that they had the holy Scriptures. We are confident that they were using the KJV.
The Second London Confession of 1677 (Baptist) says, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience. . ." We ask, how can the Holy Scriptures be a certain and infallible rule if we have no infallible Bible? To hear Dr. Rice and others tell it, all versions have errors in them, and if this be so, we are left in a tragic situation. The Second London Confession of 1677 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore authentical; so as in an controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
The Baptists of 1677 believed that the Scriptures were inspired of God, and that "By His care and Providence kept pure in all Ages." They believed that the Church in all ages could appeal to the pure Scriptures. That is quite different than some of our modern fundamentalists who talk about inspiration, but who are constantly finding errors in the Bible.
Which Bible were the Baptists of 1677 using? It surely wasn't the NASV, ASV, RSV or the Living Bible. Don't you suppose that it was the KJV of 1611?
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother tongue, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day."
What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized Version (KJV) of 1611.
The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was adopted in 1833, and it states, "We believe the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried."
Please note that they mention no "originals" and no version. There was one version that ruled supreme in the English language of 1833 and it was the KJV.
.
It Is Not Heresy To Believe In Divine Preservation
It all boils down to how big of a God we serve. Did He have the power and desire to preserve the Word in written form for us today, so that we are not left in the dark concerning what is the Word of God? Is His power so weak or His Divine purpose so unsure, that we must now search out all the manuscripts, all the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the versions, in order to say that we do have the Word of God mixed in with all the errors. If we are reduced to this state, may the Lord help us, for we are in absolute confusion unmatched in human history. If we are still looking for the Word of God, and do not have an infallible Bible, it should be obvious to all, that we never will have such a Bible. This means that God has not kept His promise, and where do we stand, if we have such a God?
This writer is convinced that we have God's Word in the English language, providentially preserved in the very form in which He wanted us to have it, and that it is the KJV. If this is ignorance, heresy or insanity, make the most of it, for this is where we stand.
.
John Owen (Puritan scholar) said: "The providence of God hath manifested itself as no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of His own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose. And hence the malice of Satan hath raged no less against the Book than against the truth contained in it." (Quoted in "The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament" by W. MacLean, M.A., page 7).
Dr. Alfred Martin said: "What is the use of the inspiration of the Bible, if no form of the Bible that we now have is inspired? Why should God have worked a stupendous miracle in order to preserve the writers of the Biblical books from error and make the autographs of their books completely true, if He intended then to leave the books thus produced to the mere chance of transmission from generation to generation by very human and often careless copyists?" (In a Moody Founder's Week Message, 1966. Quoted in Counterfeit or Genuine, by Fuller).
LeBaron W. Kinney, wrote in 1942, "When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering, and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God. We believe that no other English Version will ever take Its place. As a whole it is nearer to the original Greek and Hebrew than any other version. Every one of the various English versions claims to be nearer the original than the others. This could not be true of more than one of them." ("Hebrew Word StudiesAcres of Rubies" p. 9, published by Loizeaux Brothers).
The cry for a new version has come from the apostasy of the 19th Century, which has taken root in the 20th Century, even among God's people. The source of the new versions has been from the putrid fountain of German Higher Criticism, humanism, ecumenicalism and modernism. Have you ever met a modernist that preferred the KJV? I have not, and I don't expect I ever will. A modernist will prefer almost any version above the KJV. That should tell us something!
Not all advocates of the new versions are modernists by any means. But they have been drinking at the polluted fountains of modernism, Catholicism and ecumenicalism. They have adopted a position that is detrimental to the truth, and which will be used of Satan to lead countless numbers into error. No fundamentalist can be consistent in doctrine and practice while at the same time advocating the new versions which sprang from Westcott and Hort. Evangelicals who advocate the new versions, will soon slip into the camp of new-evangelicals, and from there into something even worse. When we abandon an absolute authority, we become the authority, or at least recognize the authority of some man who is a scholar, or at least claims to be one. Remember that God is a jealous God and that He has magnified His Word above His Name!
Some good men and some good schools have taken the wrong side in this struggle. Some are no doubt already sorry that they have taken the wrong stand. It is not too late to admit a mistake, and correct it. This is God honoring, and will mean so much at the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is our prayer that many will do that very thing!
Pastor E. L. Bynum