|
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM, AND BIBLICAL PRESERVATION
Jeffrey Khoo
Whither Biblical Fundamentalism?
Without a present, existing,
tangible, and identifiable, infallible and inerrant Scriptures in the
original languages, Biblical Fundamentalism is as good as dead. If there
is no such a truth as an infallible and inerrant Scripture that is pure
and perfect in every way today, “then is our preaching vain, and your
faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; … ye are
yet in your sins. … If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of
all men most miserable” (1 Cor 15:14, 15, 17, 19).
But Bible-believing and
Bible-defending Christians can praise God that Biblical Fundamentalism is
not dead. This is because God has indeed given His people such a perfect
Bible not only in the past but also today! He has promised the perfect
preservation of His Word in the Old Testament (Ps 12:6-7) as well as in
the New Testament (Matt 5:18, 24:35). Biblical Fundamentalists have such a
perfect Bible in the original languages which is the sure and certain
foundation of their faith and practice. This perfect Bible is none other
than the 100% inspired, 100% preserved, 100% sufficient, and 100%
authoritative Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament underlying the
Reformation Bibles which is best represented today by the Authorised or
King James Bible. The biblical doctrine of the special providential
preservation of the Scriptures assures us of this. There is a perennial
need to contend earnestly for the once-for-all-settled faith that is found
in the forever infallible and inerrant Word of God (Ps 119:89, Jude 3).
The biblical doctrine of the
100% preservation of Scripture is the truth, “for we can do nothing
against the truth, but for the truth” (2 Cor 13:8).1
Nevertheless, Satan, having lost his battle against the Verbal Plenary
Inspiration (VPI) of Scripture in the last century, in this new century,
seeks to attack the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of Scripture in
every way he can, even making use of those within the fundamentalist camp.
Neo-Fundamentalism and the Imperfect
Preservation of Scripture
The latest book to cast
doubt on God’s verbally and plenarily preserved Word in the God-breathed
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words underlying the Authorised Version is this
misnamed book called God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for
Us edited by James B Williams and Randolph Shaylor with various
contributors who are associated with Bob Jones University (BJU).2
Bob Jones III on the back cover wrote, “Like a clean-edged sword,
God’s Word in Our Hands cuts through the current confused and
schismatic clatter on the subject of biblical preservation. These
conservative and God-fearing authors do the Church great service by
presenting us with soul-thrilling evidence of the reliability and
durability of the eternal Word.”
The authors of this book
might well be “conservative” and “God-fearing,” but I fear we might be
looking at a case of “having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof” (2 Tim 3:5). In this critique, I will show that Bob Jones III’s
glowing endorsement of this book is entirely misleading: (1) The book is
not a clean-edged sword as claimed because it misinterprets and misapplies
the double-edged Sword which is God’s Word itself. (2) It creates more
confusion and schism on the subject of biblical preservation because it
misrepresents the Pro-KJV and Preserved Text position, and promotes the
modernistic and ecumenical modern versions that are based on the corrupt
Critical Text. (3) The data are not at all soul-thrilling because they are
based on man’s subjective and fallible interpretation of so-called
“evidence.” (4) It does not edify the faith of believers in God and His
Word because of its deistic view that not every jot and tittle of
Scripture is preserved, that some words are already lost and remain lost;
and also its agnostic thinking that though God’s inspired Word is
preserved somewhere out there, no one can be sure of precisely where.
As Biblical fundamentalists,
we reject the postmodernistic mindset of uncertainty, and neo-deistic view
of the imperfect preservation of Scripture. Based on God’s explicit
promise of Biblical preservation (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35), and the
certainty of faith (Heb 11:6) that believes in God’s special providential
preservation of His very own words to the jot and tittle, we can tell for
sure where the inspired words are exactly preserved. God does not play
hide and seek with His people (Prov 22:20-21). He desires His people to
know the precise location of His inspired and preserved words. Faith in
God and His Word is the key to knowing where His very words are and how He
has supernaturally worked in history. But it is unfortunate that
neo-fundamentalists have chosen rather to follow the pride of human
intellectualism that is based on false rules of textual criticism leading
to a dead end of unbelief. As much as they hope to have, they really do
not have an infallible and inerrant Bible in their hands as claimed. Even
with all their clever human reasoning and textual critical prowess, they
are still unable to produce a Bible that they can assuredly say, “This is
the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant!” Herein we see the weakness
of man, but the greatness of God!
Misinterpretation and Misapplication of God’s
Word
In BJU’s previous book—From
the Mind of God to the Mind of Man3—its writers undermine
the doctrine of the perfect preservation of Scripture,4 sharing
the same view as their partners-in-crime, namely, the writers of One
Bible Only?5 from Central Baptist Theological Seminary
which is again proudly listed in this sequel. In the latter book, Edward
Glenny said, (1) “the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the
ancient church,” (2) “we might have lost a few words through negligence,”
and (3) “not only is Scripture without a verse to explain how God will
preserve His Word, but no statement in Scripture teaches that God did
preserve perfectly the original text of Scripture.”6 What a
faith-shattering declamation of God’s forever infallible and inerrant
Word! Can these words be from the pen of a fundamentalist? These men
cannot be acknowledged as true fundamentalists. They give Biblical
Fundamentalism a bad name. Until they recant and repent of their error,
they deserve to be known as neo-fundamentalists or neo-deists.
Now in this book—God’s
Word in Our Hands—the writers admit that the Scriptures do teach the
doctrine of Biblical preservation. One might think they are at last on the
right track, but no, they undermine the doctrine the very next moment when
they say that though the doctrine is taught in the Scriptures, it is
not clearly taught.
Their “bottom line” on
Matthew 5:18 is particularly disturbing. One feels like he has come face
to face with the old serpent. In the same way the serpent tempted Eve in
the Garden (Gen 3:1-4), so do the neo-fundamentalists of this book with
their twisted interpretation and application of Matthew 5:18. Satan’s
deadly strategy of seduction usually begins with a friendly “Yes!” Then he
creates doubt, “Did God really say this?” Finally, he goes for the kill
with a deadly “No!”
Such a lethal hissing of the
snake is found on page 106. First the Yes! “Is our Lord here guaranteeing
the preservation of all the written words of Scripture?” The reply is “an
emphatic ‘yes.’” Next, the doubt, “Although … preservation is not His
main point, it is nevertheless the point … What He does not do,
however, is give even so much as a hint as to how or where preservation
will take place.” Finally, the No! “The conclusion one must reach is that
this passage does not teach that those words are preserved in one
particular manuscript or lineage of manuscripts alone. Neither does this
passage guarantee that all the words will be always available at all
times.”
Let us analyse the above
fallacious interpretation and application of Matthew 5:18. The editorial
committee that penned those words began by agreeing emphatically
that all the written words of Scripture are preserved. But know
that what was said is not the same as what was meant. This is revealed at
the end when they denied that “all the words will be always
available at all times.” In other words, some of God’s words can be and
have been lost. Now, if some of God’s words can be and have been lost, how
can the promise of Matthew 5:18 be true, and how can it be so emphatically
stated at the outset that God guarantees the preservation of all His
written words? Furthermore, the statement that the preservation of
Scripture is not the main point and yet the point is
contradictory and confusing, if not deceptive. This
“Yes, Yes-No, No” interpretation and application of Matthew 5:18 has the
Satanic stamp all over it. What is the real bottom line? It is this:
BJU and the neo-fundamentalists do not believe that God will and is able
to preserve perfectly all of His inspired words to the last iota, that all
of His inspired words will always remain available and accessible to His
people all the time until the end of time.
The only Christlike response
to such an unfaithful treatment of Jesus’ words must come from the very
words of the Lord Himself who told Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but those that be of men” (Matt 16:23).
May these fundamentalist
brethren return to the godly path of Christ-honouring and faith-centred
exposition and application of God’s forever infallible and inerrant Word.
“Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom 3:4).
Confusion and Schism in Fundamentalism
BJU and the
neo-fundamentalists are upset with the confusion and schism that surround
the present controversy over the preservation of Scripture and the KJV.
They say “it unnecessarily detracts from the main purpose for the church’s
existence.”7 How does a clear and bold declaration that the
church has a 100% inspired and 100% preserved Scripture detract from the
main purpose of the church’s existence? On the contrary, it enhances and
ensures the witness and testimony of the church, and gives believers the
solid and immoveable foundation they need to evangelise the lost, and
edify the saints. It is those who cannot confess that there is a perfect
Bible today, who say that the Bible today is not infallible and inerrant,
who say that the Bible today contains mistakes that are destabilising and
destroying the church. What is the main purpose of the church’s existence?
Is it not to glorify God? How does the neo-fundamentalist and neo-deistic
position that God has not perfectly preserved His Word and that there is
no perfectly preserved Scripture today glorify God? Those who say they do
not have God’s perfect Word today, or say they cannot tell where the
perfect Word is are the ones causing the confusion, not those with a clear
and definite position.
The Far Eastern Bible
College has a declared position that affirms in no uncertain terms the
present perfection of Scripture: “We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary
Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) of
the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and
infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the supreme and final
authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7, Matt
5:18, 24:35).” As regards the Hebrew OT, Greek NT, and the KJV, “We
believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament underlying
the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of God, infallible
and inerrant. We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be the Word
of God—the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation
of the Bible in the English language, and do employ it alone as our
primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of
the English Bible.”8 How does such a position detract from the
main mission of the church? We are simply reaffirming good old Reformed
and Reformation doctrine and practice over against the modernistic and
postmodernistic views and methods as found in neo-evangelical churches,
and now in neo-fundamental churches.
No matter what clarification
is made by Biblical fundamentalists, neo-fundamentalists are bent on
confusing the issue by repeatedly making false and dishonest claims like
these: KJV fundamentalists “advocate the inerrancy of a particular
translation;” “Problems arise when we make any translation the exclusive
revelation from God;” “It is troubling that so many … attempt to prove God
has promised us a perfect English translation;” “They have overlooked the
supreme significance of the original languages and have staked their claim
on the King James Version of the Bible as the God-inspired Bible for this
present age.”9 This may be the position of Peter Ruckman (who
ironically received his PhD from BJU), but certainly not the better known
and sound defenders of the KJV like E F Hills and D A Waite. The above
accusations are both confusing and damaging because the original
language text is the issue, not the KJV per se nor any foreign
language translation as alleged.10
Why do those who believe in
the perfect preservation of Scripture believe that the KJV is the English
Bible for today? Is it because they feel the KJV is as perfect and as
inspired as the original language Scriptures? Of course not! Such
misrepresentations do not reflect well on these BJU men and
neo-fundamentalists. It does look like their position is so weak that they
must resort to such low blows to make themselves look good.
Let it be known once and for
all that the KJV of 1611 is the logical choice for faithful English Bible
users because they do believe and can see that God has indeed kept His
promise to preserve His words perfectly in the original languages
throughout history and especially during the great Protestant Reformation.
The KJV is the best English Bible today precisely because it remains the
most accurate and faithful translation of the divinely inspired Hebrew
and Greek Scriptures that God has supernaturally preserved throughout
the ages. All foreign language Bibles including the English must be judged
by this perfect rule of God’s totally inspired and fully preserved words
in the original languages, and not vice versa. Any foreign language Bible
if accurately translated and based on the perfectly preserved text can
rightly be held up like the KJV as the Word of God, yea, even the very
Word of God.
It is neo-fundamentalism’s
tragic compromise with modernistic, rationalistic, and ecumenical textual
critics and their modern perversions of the Bible that is causing the
confusion and the schism within Biblical Fundamentalism today. Biblical
fundamentalists loyal to their Lord and His Word have no choice but to
separate from these neo-fundamentalists, and expose them for their
hypocrisy.
Man’s Subjective and Fallible Opinions
Many names do not the truth
make. No man is perfect save the Lord Jesus Christ, and no book is perfect
save the Holy Bible.
Biblical fundamentalists
believe that the Holy Scriptures, infallible and inerrant, are the final
and supreme authority of Christian faith and practice. It is unfortunate
that BJU and company, despite their “conservative and God-fearing”
profession, do not practise what they preach. In their vain attempt to
bolster their untenable position on Biblical preservation, instead of
simply believing what Scripture explicitly teaches about its own
preservation, and applying that truth in their ministry, they cite a list
of fundamentalists who had likewise thought and taught wrongly concerning
the preservation of Scripture. They quote James Brookes, B H Carroll, C I
Scofield, James Gray, R A Torrey, John Straton, William Erdman, A T
Robertson, W B Riley, Richard Clearwaters, Noel Smith, John R Rice, and
speak as though they are the only rightful representatives of
fundamentalism, and there is consensus among fundamentalists over the text
and translation issue.11
Are we supposed to be
impressed by big names? Why do they forget many other fundamentalists like
Ian Paisley, Carl McIntire, E F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, O
Talmadge Spence, Jack Moorman, David Cloud, Arlin Horton, Dell Johnson,
Thomas Strouse, M H Reynolds Jr, Dennis Costella, David Sorenson, Arthur E
Steele, S H Tow, and Timothy Tow, who have written and spoken strongly in
favour of the continued use of the KJV because of its faithfulness
to the 100% inspired and 100% preserved Hebrew and Greek Texts on which it
is based as opposed to the corrupted text and versions? I wonder where Bob
Jones Sr and Bob Jones Jr stood on the KJV issue. Did they not strongly
uphold the KJV as the fundamentalist’s Bible? Why were they not mentioned
in this BJU book? This silence is telling! I do not believe that the late
Bob Jones Sr and Bob Jones Jr would have allowed this shift from the KJV
towards the modern versions that we see happening in BJU today.12
BJU’s departure from the KJV
today is due to her unequal yoke with Westcott and Hort. For decades, BJU
has promoted the false theory and text of Westcott and Hort in the
classroom, though not at the pulpit. The new generation of BJU graduates
are now asking, “If the Westcott and Hort text is superior to the Textus
Receptus, why then should we continue to use the KJV? Since the modern
English versions are based on the superior Westcott and Hort text, it only
makes sense that we replace the KJV with the modern versions.” Is it no
wonder that James B Williams and company are so upset with Biblical
fundamentalists who continue to promote the KJV and decry this falling
away from the KJV that they see in BJU? If BJU does not repent of this
wayward trend that she has embarked on, her legacy would be similar to the
many Bible-loving and God-fearing institutions that once were but are no
more. I personally hate to see this happen, but with this sequel it does
look like the writing is already on the wall. Why does history have to
repeat itself?
It needs to be reiterated
that the issue has to do with the original language Scriptures, not the
translations per se. We must not put the cart before the horse
which only confuses the issue and hinders any progress towards knowing the
truth. It must also be pointed out that many a fundamentalist today are
seriously in error to think that the infallible and inerrant Scriptures
lie only in the autographs (which no longer exist)13 and
not in the apographs (which exist today).14 Another grave error
is the view that there is no such thing as an infallible and inerrant
Bible today because the apographs have not been perfectly preserved by
God. It is taught that since the disappearance of the perfect autographs,
God’s people only had imperfect apographs as their Scriptures, which are
the imperfect Scriptures we possess today with words added, subtracted,
changed, missing or even lost.15
As already said, God’s
Word in Our Hands is a book that does not live up to its name. The
reason: a flawed Bibliology! Their constant appeal to human authority
instead of biblical authority keeps telling me, “Let man be true, but God
a liar!” (contra Rom 3:4).
Agnostic with Deistic View of Biblical
Preservation
On a front page of God’s
Word in Our Hands we find this statement of faith: “We believe that
the Bible teaches that God has providentially preserved His written Word.
This preservation exists in the totality of the ancient language
manuscripts of that revelation. We are therefore certain that we possess
the very Word of God.”16 Is this not a wonderful statement?
Should we not give it a loud Amen? A superficial and simplistic reading of
this statement might lead one to think that BJU and company now believe
they have a 100% inspired and 100% preserved Scripture they can hold in
their hands and say, “This is the very Word of God!” Upon further
investigation, we discover that this is far from true. In the confusing
world of theology today, what counts is not what is said but what is
meant.
Now, let us analyse the
above statement to see what is meant. They say, “We believe that the Bible
teaches ….” But if one were to ask them whether the Bible clearly and
directly teaches the doctrine of preservation, they would answer in the
negative: The Bible does not give explicit but only “implicit teaching” on
preservation.17 An “implicit teaching?” How can such a
vital doctrine as the preservation of Scripture be “implicit?” Is it God’s
nature to keep His words uncertain and unclear to us? If the teaching on
the preservation of the saints is explicit (Matt 10:22, Mark 13:13, John
10:28, Rom 8:30-39, Phil 2:12-13), how can the teaching on the
preservation of the Scriptures be implicit? If we cannot be sure of God’s
perfect preservation of every single one of His inspired words, how can we
be sure of God’s perfect preservation of every single one of His saints,
that none would be lost? Surely, we cannot! By saying that the Bible does
not teach clearly the preservation of Scripture, these neo-fundamentalists
have not only undermined the perspicuity of Scripture and the preservation
of the saints, but even more so the omnipotence of God.
They say, “God has
providentially preserved His written Word.” Although they say that God has
“providentially preserved His written Word,” they do not believe that He
did it supernaturally. According to them, the Bible “does not
support supernatural preservation.”18 In their mind, only the
inspiration of Scripture was supernatural, not its preservation; God was
careful in inspiration, but somehow careless in preservation. Does this
make sense? Is it not contradictory to speak of God in such a way? Why
would God want to inspire His words supernaturally without wanting to
preserve them in the same way? They oppose my citing of Psalm 12:6-7 to
prove the VPP of God’s inspired words, but fail to interact with the
faithful exegesis of the divine intent in the infallible and inerrant
Hebrew text offered by Biblical preservationists.19 Instead
they cite commentator after commentator, commentary after commentary as
though these commentators and commentaries are infallible and inerrant.20
It has to be pointed out
that when these neo-fundamentalists say that God has “providentially
preserved” His written Word, they mean His general providence and not
special providence. There is a significant distinction between the two.
General providence refers to God’s indirect intervention in the
maintenance and sustenance of all things through the laws of nature
(Ps 104:10-30). Special providence, on the other hand, speaks of God’s
direct intervention in the protection and preservation of certain
things through extraordinary acts of miracles (Ps 91:1-16). The
providential preservation of the Scriptures falls under the latter
category. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of God’s preservation
of Scripture in terms of “His singular care and providence.”21
In other words, God Himself, in His very own inscrutable ways without the
limitations inherent in secondary causality, guarantees that every iota of
His written words would be “kept pure in all ages.” E F Hills wrote, “If
we believe that the New Testament Scriptures are the infallibly inspired
Word of God, then it is logical for us to believe that God has preserved
this written Word by His special providence.”22
The rejection of the
special providential preservation of Scripture has led
neo-fundamentalists to conclude that preservation “exists in the totality
of the ancient language manuscripts of that revelation.” Ask them
precisely where in the sea of over 3,000 Hebrew manuscripts, and over
5,000 Greek manuscripts is the “very Word of God” that we possess today,
and they would shrug their shoulders and say, “I don’t know and I can’t
tell.” But they are sure of one thing, that some of the inspired words of
God could be lost at any given period of time. They say, “God’s promises
for the preservation of His words do not apparently necessitate the
availability of that written Word at every moment in history. It is
therefore possible for a portion of His words to be unavailable [or lost]
at a point in time.”23
Since the inspired Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek words could be lost, it is no wonder they think in
terms of the “ancient language manuscripts of that revelation.” Who are
they trying to fool? Note the words “ancient language” instead of “original
language,” and “revelation,” instead of “words.” This is not by
accident. By “revelation” they mean only doctrines are preserved,
not words. And when they say “ancient language” they mean to
include the ancient translations like the Septuagint (Greek version
of the Hebrew OT).24 This surely contradicts what Jesus said in
Matthew 5:18. Just as heaven and earth have been continually existing and
never at any moment “unavailable,” so also the divinely inspired words
(not just “that revelation”) of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
even to their jots and tittles, not the translated words in any version
ancient or modern.
Having such a faulty view of
biblical preservation, it is no wonder that neo-fundamentalists are ever
ready to correct the Hebrew text on the basis of a translation like the
Septuagint25 even when there is absolutely no evidence of a
scribal error in the original text.26 For instance, in 1 Samuel
13:1, every single Hebrew manuscript reads “a year” (shanah) which
the KJV correctly translates as “Saul reigned one year.”27
But neo-fundamentalists insist that “one year” is a scribal error even
though all the preserved Hebrew apographs since the time of the inspired
autographs read precisely so, “one year.” The logic of faith would lead a
sincere Bible believer to stick to the inspired and preserved Hebrew text,
but not Harding who says, “On account of my theological conviction
regarding the inerrancy of the autographa, I believe the original Hebrew
text also reads ‘thirty,’ even though we do not currently possess a Hebrew
manuscript with that reading.”28 This is amazing! Harding is
prepared to believe that “thirty” is the “inspired reading” even when
there is absolutely no such “inspired reading” to begin with! It is like
saying, “I believe in the resurrection of Christ even when no such
resurrection ever took place.” Is this not foolish faith?
If the Bible contains such
scribal errors as they say when there is absolutely none in the Hebrew
Scriptures past and present, then these must be errors committed not by
the copyist or scribe, but by the writer of the inspired words himself!
Unwittingly, these neo-fundamentalists have denied the verbal
inspiration of Scripture, and might as well throw out their doctrine of
“inerrant autographs.” It goes without saying that the problem with these
neo-fundamentalists is in their rejection of the plain words of Scripture
that teach not only its 100% inspiration but also 100% preservation.
It is no wonder that based on their flawed belief of an imperfect
Scripture which they hold in their hands, they are prepared to use a
corrupt translation to correct the inspired and preserved Hebrew text in
places like 1 Samuel 13:1. In so doing, are they not like the Ruckmanites
whom they accuse as heretics?
Although these
neo-fundamentalists do not believe they truly have a perfect Bible today,
they try to reassure themselves and their readers that they actually do:
“We are therefore certain that we possess the very Word of God.” Taking
into account that what they say is not what they mean, this is but an
empty and vain affirmation. It is a delusion. It must be underscored that
they do not believe in the 100% perpetual, permanent, and perfect
preservation of the divinely inspired Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and
Greek New Testament words of the Holy Scriptures. They do not believe
that “soon after the invention of printing this written Word was placed in
print and became the Textus Receptus, being immediately received by
believers everywhere and made the basis of faithful translations such as
the King James Version.” Why this unbelief? It is because “conservative
scholars, by and large, have been so brain-washed by naturalistic
propaganda that they hesitate to follow this logic of faith. Some of them
go to the extreme of denying that the Bible teaches the special,
providential preservation of the Scriptures. According to them,
apparently, it is theoretically possible that the true New Testament text
has been lost.”29
Hills’s words continue to
ring true and accurately describe the neo-fundamentalists of the BJU
mould, “there is a growing number of conservative Bible teachers who go
around saying that all New Testament texts and versions are good enough
and that controversy concerning them is much ado about nothing, a tempest
in a teapot. They justify this position by maintaining that the object of
God’s providential preservation of the Scriptures was not to preserve the
precise words of the original Scriptures but merely the substance of their
doctrine, their essential teaching. According to these teachers, the
substance of doctrine, the essential teaching, is found in all the New
Testament manuscripts, even the worst, and in all translations, even the
most inaccurate. Hence, they conclude happily, there’s nothing to worry
about. Choose any version you please.”30 This is precisely the
tragedy we see in BJU and other fundamentalist colleges and churches
today.
Achilles’ Heel of Neo-Fundamentalism
The neo-fundamentalists say
they are sure that the Bible is preserved for us. However, their very own
words incriminate them. The Bible to them is only 99.9% preserved, not
100%. They believe that some of the inspired, original language words have
been lost and still nowhere to be found.
These neo-fundamentalist
writers want their readers to believe that they do believe in Biblical
preservation when they in fact do not. Their past denial of Biblical
preservation as a fundamental doctrine taught in the Scriptures and their
present affirmation of the same without recanting and repenting of their
error are deceptive and create confusion all the more. It is important to
realise that it was the Textus Receptus KJVists and not the Critical Text
modern versionists who first championed the sorely neglected doctrine of
the VPP of Scripture of true Fundamental Protestantism as expressed in the
Presbyterian Westminster Confession (1645) and Baptist New Hampshire
Confession (1833).
What kind of Bible do we
have in our hands? According to BJU and neo-fundamentalists, what we
have in our hands is a once-upon-a-time inspired, but not
happily-ever-after preserved Bible. Since the Bible today is not
without spot and blemish, it may no longer be deemed infallible and
inerrant, or perfect in every way, not in any manuscript, family of
manuscripts, text or translation. “If the foundations be destroyed, what
can the righteous do?” (Ps 11:3).
This is the Achilles’ heel
of neo-fundamentalism: (1) The Bible though 100% inspired is not 100%
preserved. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 100% perfect Bible
today, not in any text, not in any translation. (2) The 19th-20th
century Westcott-Hort and Critical Text is superior to the 16th-17th
century Traditional Text or Textus Receptus. Therefore, the Reformers and
the Reformation saints have all used the wrong Bible. (3) The KJV is good,
but the modern versions are better. Therefore, replace the KJV with the
modern versions.
The above neo-deism spells
the death knell for BJU. We can see the neo-evangelicals cheering the
neo-fundamentalists on to the finish line. If they do not stop their
undermining of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures underlying the KJV, they
will sooner or later deny not only the VPP but also the VPI of Scripture.
What a fellowship, what a view so blind, leaning on the ever-lethal
arms of liberal scholarship!
Unless Biblical
fundamentalists are fully committed to the twin doctrines of the VPI and
VPP of Scripture, and wholeheartedly defend the traditional and preserved
text on which the KJV is based, they will gradually melt and blend into
the neo-evangelical and liberal crowd. The backsliding and downgrading is
already taking place. The warning is hereby sounded. “He that hath ears to
hear, let him hear” (Matt 11:15).
Notes
1 See Jeffrey Khoo,
Kept Pure in All
Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the Doctrine of Providential
Preservation (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2001); “A
Plea for a Perfect Bible,” The Burning Bush 9 (2003):1-15;
KJV
Q&A (Singapore: Bible Witness Literature Ministry, 2003).
2 James B Williams and Randolph Shaylor,
eds, God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us
(Greenville: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003). Besides Bob Jones
University, other schools that contributed to this book include Central
Baptist Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary,
Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, Northland Baptist Bible College, Faith
Baptist Bible College, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Maranatha
Baptist Bible College, and Temple Baptist Seminary. All the above schools
bear a pro-Westcott and Hort or Critical Text, and pro-modern versions
disposition that undermines the Textus Receptus and the King James
Version. Thankfully, there is an antidote for the above poison, and
ironically from the same publisher, which is Ian R K Paisley’s, My Plea
for the Old Sword (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald International,
1997).
3 James B Williams, ed, From the Mind
of God to the Mind of Man (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald
International, 1999). See my critique, “Bob Jones University and the KJV:
A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,” The
Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-33.
4 Randolph Shaylor, who has become the managing editor of
God’s Word in Our Hands, on page 22 of the prequel, From the Mind
of God to the Mind of Man, said that the Bible nowhere teaches nor
implies that the copies of Scripture are inerrantly and infallibly
inspired. On page 25 of the same book, he quoted errant Warfield for
support saying that only the autographs are inspired, not the apographs.
5 Roy E Beacham and Kevin T Bauder, eds,
One Bible Only? (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001). See my critique, “The
Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or ‘Yea Hath God
Said?’,” The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47.
6 Beacham and Bauder, One Bible Only?,
116, 121, 123.
7 Williams and Shaylor, God’s Word in
Our Hands, xiv.
8 Hutcheson rightly observed, “The
orthodox Christians in the nineteenth century used that greatly revered
translation which had been handed down to them. Since its appearance in
1611, the King James Version had gained prominence as the primary English
translation and had been blessed of God over the previous two hundred and
fifty years.” God’s Word in Our Hands, 4. Pro-KJV advocates are
saying that we should continue in this good and faithful tradition, and
should reject the modern English versions today because they are
significantly different from the good old KJV. If the modern English
translations are also based on the preserved instead of the corrupted
text, and are translated literally rather than loosely, then there would
be no problem, but this is simply and truly not the case. See “A Survey of
English Bible Translations,” in
Kept Pure in All Ages, 69-100.
9 Williams and Shaylor, God’s Word in
Our Hands, xv, 27, 111, 195.
10 See David H Sorenson, Touch Not the
Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation, 3rd ed
(Duluth: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001).
11 Although it is regrettable that the VPP
of Scripture was not discussed in The Fundamentals (1910-1915)
edited by Dixon, Meyer and Torrey, it is heartening to note that L W
Munhall did allude to it in his chapter on “Inspiration” when he wrote,
“The attitude of Jesus toward the Old Testament and his utterances confirm
beyond question our contention. He had the very same Old Testament we
have today” (The Fundamentals [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990 reprint],
168, emphasis mine).
12 One proud BJU graduate that I know of
had assured me personally that the BJU alumni had pledged to protest in
unison the day they see their alma mater abandoning the KJV. If this is
true, then I really hope it would come soon for the sake of their school.
13 John Hutcheson wrote, “The pioneers of
the [fundamentalist] movement argued for the inerrancy of the autographs
alone” (Williams and Shaylor, God’s Word in Our Hands, 27).
14 See my paper, “Sola Autographa
or Sola Apographa?: A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority
of the Holy Scriptures,” The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
15 Williams and Shaylor, God’s Word in
Our Hands, 94, 106, 110, say that Biblical preservation does not mean
“a perpetual activity of sustenance,” “that all the words will be always
available at all times,” “that an absolutely perfect copy would be
produced.”
16 Ibid, iii.
17 Ibid, 83.
18 Ibid.
19 Khoo, “The Emergence of
Neo-Fundamentalism,” 29-31; Suan-Yew Quek, “Did God Promise to Preserve
His Words? Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7,” The Burning Bush 10 (2004):
96-99; Thomas Strouse, “The Permanent Preservation of God’s Words, Psalm
12:6,7,” in Thou Shalt Keep Them, ed Kent Brandenburg (El Sobrante:
Pillar & Ground, 2003), 29-34.
20 Williams and Shaylor, God’s Word in
Our Hands, 86.
21 Westminster Confession of Faith,
I:VIII.
22 Edward F Hills, Believing Bible
Study (Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1977), 36-7. Emphasis
mine.
23 Williams and Shaylor, God’s Word in
Our Hands, 124 (parenthesis mine). For instance, on page 375, Downey
says that a Hebrew word has been lost in Deuteronomy 8:3 and recovered in
the Greek translation.
24 Williams in his prequel (From the
Mind of God to the Mind of Man, 4, 7), castigated those who defend the
KJV as God’s preserved Word in the English language, calling them
“unqualified,” “immature,” and “a cancerous sore.” He says the KJV ought
not to be exalted, but in this sequel of his, he exalts the ancient
translations and puts them on par with the original language Scriptures!
What hypocrisy!
25 See Prabhudas Koshy, “Did Jesus and the
Apostles Rely on the Corrupt Septuagint?,” The Burning Bush 10
(2004): 93-5.
26 According to Harding and Shaylor, the
Septuagint can be used to correct the Hebrew text “even though we do not
currently possess a Hebrew text with that reading” (God’s Word in Our
Hands, 26, 414).
27 The year is calculated not from the
time of Saul’s birth but his appointment as king. Matthew Poole commented,
“[Saul] had now reigned one year, from his first election at Mizpeh, in
which time these things were done, which are recorded in chap. xi., xii.,
to wit, peaceably, or righteously. Compare 2 Sam. ii.10” (A Commentary
on the Holy Bible, vol 1 [Mclean: MacDonald Publishing Company, nd],
542).
28 Williams and Shaylor, God’s Word in
Our Hands, 361, emphasis mine.
29 Hills, Believing Bible Study,
37.
30 Ibid.
Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo is academic dean of the Far
Eastern Bible College.
- Published in
The Burning Bush,
Volume 11 Number
2 (July 2005)
Top
/ Back
|
