Riplinger’s Mythology Regarding Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate
Today, I was able to copy down the passage I was writing about yesterday in such a piecemeal fashion.
Again, the following is from page 788 of Gail Riplinger’s In Awe of Thy Word . . .
Myth 3
Wycliffe Used a Corrupt Latin Vulgate
The verse comparison charts in this book dispel the myth that Wycliffe and his followers used a corrupt Bible translated from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.
The myth that Wycliffe had no access to the original languages is discounted by Wycliffe himself who said that he had access to Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts which were in “complete agreement” with the Old Latin text he followed. He adds, “[T]he Jews were dispersed among the nations, taking with them their Hebrew manuscripts. Now this happened . . . that we (Christians, not Wycliffe and his fellow editors, specifically–CHK) might have recourse to their manuscripts as witnesses to the fact that there is no difference in the sense found in our Latin books and those Hebrew ones” (Truth, p. 157). He also makes reference to manuscripts being “corrected according to the Greek exemplar.” Once Jerome’s text was corrected, there was “complete agreement of his translation [Wycliffe’s] with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts” (Truth, pp. 143,157 et al.).
Now, I ask you, do not Wycliffe’s words, as quoted in this paragraph, sound like generic statements stretched illogically by Riplinger to provide pseudo-proof of the point she’s attempting to make?
Can’t wait until I get my hands on Wycliffe’s On the Truth of Holy Scripture! Notice the excerpt from the introduction and table of contents provided by Medieval Institute Publications on their website:
“Wyclif sought the restoration of an idealized past even if that meant taking revolutionary steps in the present to recover what had been lost. His 1377-78 On the Truth of Holy Scripture represents such an effort in reform: the recognition of the inherent perfection and veracity of the Sacred Page which serves as the model for daily conduct, discourse, and worship, thereby forming the foundation upon which Christendom itself is to be ordered.”-from the Introduction
Contents
Part One: The Veracity of Scripture
Part Two: The Authority of Scripture
Part Three: The Divine Origin of Scripture
Part Four: Scripture as the Law of Christendom
Part Two: The Authority of Scripture
Part Three: The Divine Origin of Scripture
Part Four: Scripture as the Law of Christendom
In other words, the scope of Wycliffe’s book as outlined by MIP lends no credence to the idea that Wycliffe was commenting about the materials he had at hand in his own personal effort to translate the Word of God into English. Yet this is exactly how Riplinger uses Wycliffe’s words. Radical King James Onlyists like Riplinger, don’t want their readers to think critically, but they are compelled by true scholarship to look like they do by providing footnotes that, when examined, only serve to demonstrate how weak their case is.
Riplinger Fails Pop Quiz
An Independent Baptist ministry student who is also a dear friend of mine showed me a new book he’s begun reading. It’s new to him, although I’ve known about it for quite some time. The book is Gail Riplinger’s massive In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, It’s Mystery and History Letter by Letter. No, I haven’t read the book yet, but knowing the track record of inaccurate documentation Gail and most KJV-onlyists like her have, I decided to give her a pop quiz of sorts.
Ever heard of lucky-dipping? That’s what R. C. Sproul calls the practice of opening the Bible and picking a verse at random, expecting God to have a message for you. Well, I decided that in order to conduct this quiz on Mrs. Riplinger, I’d pick the first piece of documentation that I saw that was used in an attempt to legitimize any of the fallacious Ruckmanite, extreme KJV-only claims that she may have catalogued in her book.
The “lucky” footnote happened to be found on page 788 of her book. Now, I had neither the time nor the opportunity to transcribe the passage in question, but I took a few notes on a few sentences and will attempt to reconstruct the gist of what I saw on the page in relation to Riplinger’s attempt to disprove the supposed “myth” that John Wycliffe translated St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate in his effort to make the Word of God accessible to the common people, as he knew it was for the first century recipients of the New Testament.
First, Riplinger attempts to document that “Wycliffe had access to Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts which were in ‘complete agreement’ with the Old Latin [purportedly followed by] Wycliffe” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 788).Then Riplinger claims that Wycliffe refers to manuscripts being “corrected according to the Greek exemplar.” “Once Jerome’s text was corrected,” writes Riplinger, “there was ‘complete agreement’ of his translation [Wycliffe’s] with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.” (ibid)
Riplinger’s citations offered to “document” the claim that Wycliffe “corrected” the Latin Vulgate in order to bring it into “complete agreement” with the Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence before translating it come from pages 143 and 157 of whichever edition Riplinger owns of Wycliffe’s 1378 work entitled, On the Truth of Holy Scripture. Unfortunately, I have yet to locate the text of Wycliffe’s book online, and have not yet gone to the library to request a copy of it through the interlibrary loan process, which is about as speedy as applying for a job with the federal government. Well, perhaps a little more expeditious than that. If any of my readers are able to locate the online text yourself, I’d appreciate the link.
Undeterred, I thought today to look at less radical KJV-Onlyist, Dr. David Cloud’s Way of Life Literature website and see if he ever reviewed the book. His review of New Age Bible Versions was excellent, and is part of the reason I had the audacity to assume that her bad scholarship is so pervasive that it would be statistically likely that I find a sample of documented misinformation on the first try. Although Dr. Cloud hadn’t bothered to do as extensive of a review of this book as he did for NAVB, he did write a page length treatment of the very question I’m attempting to examine!
In Dr. Cloud’s “Friday Church News Notes” dated August 12, 2005 (vol. 6, issue 32), under the title, “WHAT ABOUT GAIL RIPLINGER’S NEW BOOK?” he writes, “Her newest book again contains many good things in defense of the KJV but it is interspersed with serious mistakes so that it is impossible to have confidence in her research or conclusions at any point. For example, in chapter 22 she claims that John Wycliffe did not use the Latin Vulgate as the basis for his translation but that he used Hebrew, Greek and Old Latin sources. She says it is a “myth” to say that Wycliffe used the Latin Vulgate. As a matter of fact, a careful comparison of the Wycliffe Bible with the Latin Vulgate and the Old Latin demonstrates that Wycliffe consistently used the Vulgate, with only a very few exceptions. I have done extensive research into the textual basis of the Wycliffe New Testament and it contains most of the textual corruptions found in the Vulgate. For example, the Wycliffe Bible omits “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever” in Mat. 6:13, “to repentance” in Mat. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17, “spoken by Daniel the prophet” in Mk. 13:14, “get thee behind me Satan” in Lk. 4:8, “the Lord” from 1 Cor. 15:47, “in Christ” in Gal. 3:17, and “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, to mention only a few of its textual errors. In most of these instances, these things are omitted in the Wycliffe and the Latin Vulgate but are NOT omitted in the Old Latin, so that it is obvious that Wycliffe was indeed following the Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek Text or the Old Latin. Mrs. Riplinger gives so much seeming documentation that the average reader is convinced that her scholarship is sound, not being in a position to see that she frequently misuses her quotes and reaches conclusions not supported by the facts given in the documents that she cites as her authority.”
Boy, can I call ’em, or what? Thanks to the Lord for sending me to the right note, and thanks to Dr. Cloud for doing more homework than the average IFBx KJV-Onlyist!
New Dimensions in "Evangelical" Liberalism
Charismatic preaching that uses an excessive number of exclamation points is geard to appeal to emotion. This tendency entered the Baptist world through revivalism before that. The goal is to provoke the hearers to respond in an uproar of “praise,” rather than to proclaim truth to which the people of God may respond in proper repentance, faith and adoration.
Many Baptist preachers wish their congregations would get excited and shout about the truth (much of which they continue to preach), but fear they are dulled to it, while, if my Baptist preacher friends would notice, much of the “shouting” going on in the congregations of other churches isn’t always in response to “the truth.” At best, it’s often a response to peripheral issues which have little to do with the truth. Pessimistically, I’d say much of it is in response to errors ranging from minor to major. On the extreme, there is rank heresy being foisted on Christian congregations by those who make a living knocking traditional Christianity. Most of the time, those who habitually “knock traditional Christianity” do so by belittling the foibles and failures of traditional Christians. They knock our unbiblical traditions. Fair enough. However, sometimes they take things way too far and begin rewriting Christian theology.
Case in point, Carlton Pearson.
For the sake of this cause, Carlton Pearson has sacrificed two very important doctrines: the existence of hell, and the exclusivity of Christ, not to mention the sufficiency of Scripture, considering the source of his information is the “conversation” Pearson had with “God” while waiting to be seated in a restaurant.
Read the following passage from Media Spotlight by Pentecostal Fundamentalist, Albert James Dager. Al Dager is one of those early influences which sparked an interest in me to begin searching for the truth behind Christian movements and activities in the world outside my fundamental Baptist enclave. While I have great nostalgia for him and his ministry and it’s influence on my theological thought process, and would certainly recommend some of his articles, naturally, nowadays I have quite a few theological differences with him, and would definitely not recommend all of them. Dager would probably fall well into the same category in which a Dave Hunt would be found.
Recently, I looked up his website and noticed an article he wrote back in 2005 when Joel Osteen began sending shockwaves through the Christian community by famously attempting to avoid declaring the exclusivity of Christ–the fact that one can only come to God the Father by salvation through Jesus Christ. Dager reprinted much of the transcript of Osteen’s interview by Larry King. But he didn’t stop there, he pointed out a few other “Christian leaders” who’ve been toying with the truth in their own ways in the media. These include Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Billy Graham and Joyce Meyers. But Carlton Pearson blew my mind. This guy at least used to claim to be an evangelical. But if I heard someone else preaching what Pearson preached once on TBN, I’d call him theologically liberal. Well, it looks to me like many evangelicals are no longer on what Spurgeon called the “downgrade.” It looks like they’ve already landed at rock bottom and are subsequently preaching a false gospel.
In “Joel Osteen: Another Victim of Larry King,” Dager writes about Carlton Pearson:
Then there are those who preach a new kind of universalism—called “inclusion”— which says every one is already saved; they just need to be told so. One example is self-proclaimed “bishop” Carlton Pearson, who appeared on a Trinity Broadcasting Network “revival” meeting in which he claimed God told him there is no hell. He told of going into a restaurant and declining the offer to sit in the bar while waiting for a table.
The Spirit of God spoke to me and said, “I’m over there.” He said, “Look at them drinking. The ones that are drinking themselves—you know why they’re drinking?”
I said, “No.” My quick answer: “Well, because they’re just sinners on their way to hell, glory to God!”
He said, “They’re drinking because you have not convinced them that I like them. Go over there and tell them. They’re trying to drink their guilt away. “I’m talking about the Church.You have not convinced them that we love them. You have judged them, and criticized them, and put them down, and sent them to hell. You don’t have no hell to send them to!
I said, “No.” My quick answer: “Well, because they’re just sinners on their way to hell, glory to God!”
He said, “They’re drinking because you have not convinced them that I like them. Go over there and tell them. They’re trying to drink their guilt away. “I’m talking about the Church.You have not convinced them that we love them. You have judged them, and criticized them, and put them down, and sent them to hell. You don’t have no hell to send them to!
“They’re just—tell them my blood! They’re already bought; they just don’t know. I paid for their sins! They’re justified! They’re accepted! Tell them that I love them!… “You have convinced them—[you] in the religious world—that I don’t have good will toward them; that I’m angry, and I’m a judge, and I’m going to send them to hell! Tell them I have good will; I’m pleasantly disposed toward them!”
…I’m sitting in front of my television, eating my dinner with my new baby girl—she’s about three months old or some thing, Majesty—watching the news. The Tutsies and Hutus are returning from Zaire to Rwanda, and they’re dropping by the thou sands on the road—flies caked in the corners of their eyes, and of their mouths, and sores all over their bodies, and they’re gaunt and drawn and starving to death. And I sat there with a plate full of food, and my baby in my arms, and I said—and I’ll be honest with you, I was angry—I said, “God, how can You call Yourself God, and let those people fall like that and just suck them right into hell?”
He said, “Oh, that’s what you think I’m doing?”
Now this is in my mind, God is speaking. I said, “Well, that’s what I’ve been taught.”…
He said, “Oh, you think I’m pulling them right into hell.” He said, “Do you believe that my Son died for them?”
I said, “Yes.”
“Do you believe that His blood can cover their sins?”
I said, “Yes.” “Well, if you think they’re all going to hell, if you go over there and tell them, do you think that that would save them?”
I said, “Yes.”
He said, “Well how come you’re not on the first thing smokin’ to get over there?”
And I got mad. I said, “God, don’t put that guilt trip on me.”
I said it. I said, “Don’t put—don’t do it; I cannot save every body.”
He said, “Ex actly. I am the Savior.”
He said, “I’m not sucking them right into hell! They’re already in hell; can’t you see it? I’ve prepared a place for them.”
I said, “Wait a minute; wait a minute! They didn’t hear my message and respond to my ‘Just as I am’ song and altar appeal.”
He said, “My blood covers. While they were yet sinners I died for them. I was wounded for their transgressions; I was bruised for their”—we have not preached the full Gospel!
We don’t understand the finished work of Christ. We think they gotta all come in our way—our church, our altar call, our four spiritual laws. I don’t believe that any more. Now maybe you all don’t want me to come back, but I believe that Jesus covers sins. We are to tell them, “You’re justified! You’re forgiven! You just don’t know it! He owns you; He bought you!”
The devil has convinced you; he said “All of your righteousness is as filthy rags.”
… [God said], “Stop tell ing them to get saved, and start telling them they are saved.”
Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute now, wait a minute; they couldn’t be saved.
“What do you think I died for? You have n’t been preaching the Gospel right. You’ve been preaching your gospel, not Mine. Tell them that while they were yet sinners I died for them.”
… I said, “Wait, wait, wait, Lord, you’ve got to send somebody to hell! You know, we’ll have another Jerusalem council to try to—wait a minute Lord, some of these people gotta go to hell! You’ve gotta find a way for some of them!”
We would argue. If you found out that everybody was going to Heaven you’d lose your religion.
“Somebody gotta go to hell, God, please!”
Now that’s not the love of God in our hearts.
Now that’s not the love of God in our hearts.
Speaking of sinners who consider themselves unworthy to be in a church, Pearson tells them to forgive themselves:
First of all, accept God’s love. I’m not going to tell you to stop sinning first, because you don’t know how to do that by yourself. Accept God’s love; accept His deliverance. Stop judging yourself. You see, you can’t expect God’s forgiveness if you don’t forgive yourself.5
Notice that Pearson attributes God’s Word to Satan: “The devil has convinced you; he said, ‘All of your righteousness is as filthy rags.’”
How ungodly is that? To take a biblical truth, spoken by one of God’s greatest prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and attribute it to Satan. That in itself should convince us that Pearson was not hearing from God. And if not from God, then what demon gave him this “gospel”?
Pearson’s doctrine of “inclusion” states simply that we do not need to tell people to get saved; we need to tell them that they are already saved. If this were true, that would have been the apostle Paul’s response to his jailer: Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.” (Acts 16:29-31) Why did Paul and Silas not simply say, “Don’t worry, you’re already saved”? Paul further states that God desires that all men would come to salvation. Nowhere does he, or any one else in Scripture, say that every one is already saved, and all that is needed is for them to be told about it.
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men—for kings, and for all that are in authority—so that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowl edge of the truth. (1 Tim o thy 2:1-4)
Why is it necessary to pray for anyone to be saved if all are al ready saved? I don’t write these things in order to feel superior to these men. God knows I must guard my self from fall ing into error. Don’t we all wish that everyone would be saved? Who among the saints wouldn’t want to believe in universal salvation? But that is our humanity speaking. It is not the Spirit of God.
We do the lost no favor by suggesting to them that they are already saved, or that they can believe whatever they want, and live how ever they choose, with out suffering the consequences deemed appropriate by the holy God who created them.
Why is it necessary to pray for anyone to be saved if all are al ready saved? I don’t write these things in order to feel superior to these men. God knows I must guard my self from fall ing into error. Don’t we all wish that everyone would be saved? Who among the saints wouldn’t want to believe in universal salvation? But that is our humanity speaking. It is not the Spirit of God.
We do the lost no favor by suggesting to them that they are already saved, or that they can believe whatever they want, and live how ever they choose, with out suffering the consequences deemed appropriate by the holy God who created them.
Read more about the heresy of Carlton Pearson straight from the horse’s mouth–or, rather, the heretic’s own website.
Theological and Doxological Meditation #33
Justification
Q. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace,
wherein he pardoneth all our sins (Ephesians 1:7),
and accepteth us as righteous in his sight (2 Corinthians 5:21),
only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us (Romans 5:19),
and received by faith alone (Galatians 2:16).
#520, The Trinity Hymnal
Jesus, thy blood and righteousness
my beauty are, my glorious dress;
‘midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,
with joy shall I lift up my head.
Bold shall I stand in thy great day;
for who aught to my charge shall lay?
Fully absolved through these I am
from sin and fear, from guilt and shame.
When from the dust of death I rise
to claim my mansion in thge skies,
ev’n then this shall be all my plea,
Jesus hath lived, hath died, for me.
Jesus, be endless praise to thee,
whose boundless mercy hath for me
for me a full atonement made,
an everlasting ransom paid.
O let the dead now hear thy voice;
now bid thy banished ones rejoice;
their beauty this, their glorious dress,
Jesus, thy blood and righteousness.
Praying in Agreement
I know I haven’t posted anything new since Monday, but I have been a little busy surpringly introducing one of my most frequent commenters, Michael, whose online identity is natamllc, to his own theological tradition. I know many of my readers have corresponded with Michael in the past. Hope you don’t mind the “face time” on my blog, Michael! But I thought our conversation was interesting enough to share, and to draw others into.
Our discussion began back on Tuesday, January 16, about T. D. Jakes’ Oneness theology. When Michael suggested we “agree” in prayer for Jakes’ repentence from Oneness modalism to orthodox Trinitarian theology, at the risk of “quenching the Spriit” I just couldn’t leave well enough alone for the sake of “unity.”
Perhaps I wasn’t as charitable as I advocate one ought to be in the face of non-essentials, but sometimes, some of us Calvinists believe in confrontation with a view toward greater unity in the long run.
For a little background, go back and read “Unity at the Expense of the Truth,” and notice our comments there, and then check out the comment thread in the previous post entitled, “Theological and Doxological Meditation #32.”
This is a call to my fellow Reformed bloggers, with special experience with charismatic theology. Critique my criticism of praying in agreement. Did I over react? Did I explain myself well? Did I miss the mark? Michael and I are both out to learn more!
Theological and Doxological Meditation #32
Benefits of Redemption
Q. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. They that are effectually called do in this life
and sanctification,
and the several benefits which in this life
do either accompany or flow from them.
#526, The Trinity Hymnal
Joseph Humphreys, 1743; alt.
Blessed are the sons of God,
they are bought with Christ’s own blood;
they are ransomed from the grave,
life eternal they shall have:
With them numbered may we be,
here and in eternity.
They are justified by grace,
they enjoy the Savior’s peace;
all their sins are washed away,
they shall stand in God’s great day:
With them numbered may we be,
here and in eternity.
They are lights upon the earth,
children of a heav’nly birth;
one with God, with Jesus one,
glory is in them begun:
With them numbered may we be,
here and in eternity.
"And God saw that the light was good."
Perhaps you’ve noticed over the past several weeks on my sidebar a link to a website that was in the works. This morning I checked the link and noticed they’re getting a lot closer. We’re not yet able to download anything, but we are given a glimpse of the good things to come. Just like the image at left, the light is slowly beginning to trickle in. We need a restrained, incremental approach of so much great material, because we may just be blinded by the light, otherwise.
Okay, enough of the imagery. I’ve been eagerly awaiting my opportunity to introduce you to the teaching ministry of my friend, Dr. Thomas Rufus Browning (I hope he doesn’t mind his middle name getting publicity). Dr. Browning is the father of my other friend, Gage Browning, who had heretofore been operating the blog, “Experimental Calvinism.”
Now what I’m about to say is not my merely borrowing some Madison Avenue marketing slogan, it was not focus-group tested, it’s the unvarnished truth . . .
The ministry of
Dr. Tom Browning changed my life!
But it was more indirect than it was direct. A few years ago, I had lots of contact with several members of his old church, who had the distinct privilege of being used by God to perform brain surgery on my four-point Arminian, dispensational-premillennial, King James Only, Independent Fundamental Baptist convictions.
I had looked into Calvinism on my own off and on for years before running into these guys. Michael Horton of Modern Reformation Magazine and The White Horse Inn Radio Show, was the first actual Calvinist I’d ever heard explain in detail what the Bible teaches about the doctrines of grace and their positive effect on the believer’s evangelism, but that was before MR or WHI, Horton was running his old group called CURE (Christians United for Reformation). I ordered CURE’s newsletter, and read it as much as I could, but, being a teenager at the time, the material was a little over my head. I knew this was really cool stuff, but my attention was eventually diverted back to other things. But the seeds were planted.
Years after that, I had a Presbyterian friend in the army with whom I formed quite a bond, and he worked on me non-stop, like a good Calvinist should. I gained a lot of respect for Calvinists at that time, though I was at that time resisting what I was learning. But I knew Calvinist lay people knew their Bibles and they knew theology, which was more than I’d ever seen in my IFB environment, except among the preachers to a greater or lesser degree. But the seeds were watered.
Then a few years after that, God opened the door to work with a print shop full of Calvinist bull dogs who went to Tom Browning’s church! I would walk in at 7:30 (okay, more like 8:00 or 8:30 on most days) and those bulldogs would latch onto my ankle and mercilessly not let go until the end of the work day. It was okay, because they already knew arguing theology was my favorite sport. But of course, being good bosses, they didn’t latch onto my ankle until I walked up to them and stuck it out to them, pulled up my pant leg and whistled, if you will! One of my bosses had a veritable library of White Horse Inn tapes and he generously loaned them to me all the while prophesying, “Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated!” Late in the process, Gage joined the staff and entered the group brain surgery being performed on me. After a few years of employment at what I call “The Reformation Station,” I was at long last assimilated! God gave the increase. To him alone be the glory!
My life has not been the same, since the light of the Reformation began to pierce my darkness. God is at work in my family and church, God’s truth is marching on!
Dear readers, my advice to you is to get yourself over to “Post Tenebras Lux,” partake of the teaching ministry of Dr. Tom Browning and you’ll see what adventures (not Mis-adventures) a real Captain Headknowledge can take you on!
is about to take the blogosphere by storm!
(this was an unsolicited, shameless plug for Post Tenebras Lux. Absolutely no money changed hands–however, greater faith in the sovereignty of God did change hands, and this is my way of passing it on to you!)
Jerry & Jimmy: History Repeats Itself
Jerome’s fourth century Latin Vulgate was enforced by the medieval Roman Catholic Church as the only acceptable version to be studied to the exclusion of original language sources. Roman Catholic clergy studied Latin and gained some knowledge of Scripture, but were chiefly schooled in theology with little critique of it in light of Scripture. They accepted tradition and papal decrees as equally legitimate sources of divine revelation intended by God to inform the faith and practice of the Church.
The Renaissance emphasis of “ad fontes” brought original language scholarship into vogue among some Roman Catholic scholars. Comparison of the Latin Vulgate with original language sources led many to criticize the Latin translation, and comparison of medieval church tradition with Scripture and patristic writings also led them to criticize Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. Numerous calls for Reformation were diligently suppressed for centuries until the civil government began to side with the views of the Reformers in the sixteenth century, with an eye on the economic and nationalistic advantages that they saw could result as well.
Generally speaking, the modern fundamentalist proponents of the exclusive use of the King James Version of Holy Scripture repeat this history. Like medieval Roman Catholicism, many modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists similarly discourage or exclude all critical comparison of their favored translation with original language sources. This is inconsistent with the work of the Protestant Reformers who risked and sacrificed so much for years for the right and privilege to translate the original language sources of Scripture into the language of the common man. This rejection of modern translation of even the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the King James Version leaves the English Bible less readable to the common man, ministers and laity alike, who are not well-versed in reading the often archaic English of a version translated almost four centuries ago.
Modern extreme fundamentalists seem to refuse to learn the lessons of even their own Protestant heritage, and in this way, among others, repeat the mistakes of history. Fundamentalist discouragement of critical thinking and study is a tyranny comparable to that of medieval Roman Catholicism, while exposure to the views of the broader evangelical community in regard to textual critical and translational issues will inevitably prove both enlightening and liberating to the truth-seeking fundamentalist. Words Martin Luther directed toward the tyranny of the medieval Roman Catholic Church apply well to modern Protestant fundamentalist King James Onlyists: ” 90. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy. ” Although King James Onlyists don’t have the civil authority to literally force their followers to abstain from modern biblical scholarship and modern Bible translations, and do, in fact, offer reasons for this expectation, the social pressure exerted in their preaching and personal relationships, likewise “makes Christian people unhappy” who seek to honestly examine for themselves the competing claims of both sides of the English Bible Version debate.
Consider the following passage from William Tyndale: A Biography by David Daniell (copyright 1994 by Yale University). On page 287, Dr. Daniell writes, under the heading of Scripture as a Whole Book:
” . . . that there was a language called Hebrew at all, or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the ordinary population. Religion was in Latin: the Mass was in Latin; all the other services, like baptism, were in Latin; everything the priest did was in Latin; the Psalms in the Mass were in Latin; the Bible-readings in the services, such as they were, were in Latin; the Bible, when visible, was a big Latin volume; some priests, and most laymen, had only a few words of Latin, if that.”
This was the passage that opened my eyes to the way the extreme King James Only movement repeats the history of the medieval Roman Catholic Church in placing obstacles between the laity and the Word of God. Indeed, considering the common discouragement of critical thinking and research among modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists, it is almost as if the fact that there is a language called Hebrew at all (or Greek, for that matter), or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the followers of King James Onlyists.
Funny how history repeats itself. From St. Jerome (Jerry) to King James (Jimmy), there is nothing new under the sun.
Illustration of Tyndale by www.reformationart.com
The Old King James!
Here’s a little ditty I came up with about 12 or 13 years ago, back when I was a flaming King James Onlyist who was currently reading through Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions for the second time straight. Now, for those of you who don’t know, that’s unusual for me. I’m a slow reader, but I found the steam to plow through almost 700 pages of mediocre writing and even worse scholarship twice in a row! Truly, New Age Bible Versions was, I repeat was, one of the landmark (no pun intended) experiences in my theological journey. Of course, my first wife had just left me at the time, so I guess that’s where I found all the free time.
There’s another product from that little “sabbatical” of sorts related to my zeal for the Old King James that I intend to share with you one day, but for now, I’ll introduce you to one of my masterpieces. The song, “The Old King James,” is written to the tune of a song featured in the movie which is my namesake, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. The original song is entitled, “Me ol’ Bamboo.” It was an entertaining song and (dare I say it? There are Baptists reading this!) dance routine featuring Dick Van Dyke, portraying inventor Caractacus Potts, who is hiding out from a hostile pursuer whom he’d just victimized at the fair with one of his lame-brain inventions.
This period of “divorce recovery” was early in my membership at my previous church, as well. At that period of my life, I was a subscriber to Peter Ruckman’s “Bible Believer’s Bulletin,” and an avid reader of his books, so when I found out that this new church I was considering went to camp every year on the week when the camp director welcomed Ruckman to preach, I signed up without any more ado! One summer, after I wrote this song, I even had the privilege of forming a quartet and performing this song in the presence of the man himself–The king of the King James Onlyists! The speed-readin’ German with the mouth that puts Luther to shame! The one, the ONLY (God is gracious!), Dr. Peter S. Ruckman!!! I didn’t have the heart to look behind me on the platform where he sat after we sang our song, but my good friend with the guitar said Ruckman was slapping his knee and cracking up.
After the good Doctor ended his sermon, and the chapel service concluded, a young lady representing one of the youth groups in attendance approached me for a copy of the song so that they may edify themselves in their faith in “The Bible God uses and Satan hates” back home. I hope they’re still enjoying it! And I hope my KJV-Onlyist readers enjoy it as well, and for those of you who are not of that persuasion, I think you may find it likewise serves as quite a parody, if you ‘ve got the stomach for it. So, may I now introduce to you . . .
The Old King James
by John D. Chitty, circa 1994-5
(sung to the tune of “Me ol’ Bamboo,” from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)
A new king named James Stuart
came to England long ago,
He called a group together
to see how to run the show.
They said, “Let’s make the Bible
to be cherished far and wide!”
In seven years came the Old King James,
we call the Authorized!
Oh!
The Old King James, the Old King James,
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
The Scribes and Pharisees may think
their versions fill the bill,
But nothing else will ever better
manifest his will!
The Bible’s quick and powerful,
and sharper than a sword,
To make a wayward sinner come
and call upon the Lord!
Oh!
The Old King James, the Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
In the word of a king
is the power to win souls!
Any less authority
is likely full of holes!
God said it! So believe it!
Now, you know that it is true:
“For God so loved the world,
he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son to die for you!”
Oh!
The Old King James! The Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign!
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
The Reformation Bible
keeps sound doctrine as it is!
It don’t delete the message
like the Catholic Bible did!
The Authorized King James Bible
is what it claims to be:
The Word that God inspired,
translated and gave to me!
Oh!
The Old King James! The Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
Unity at the Expense of the Truth
I infrequently read some of the more prominent Reformed blogs out there. This morning I decided to read the Calvinist Gadfly and while I was at work I wrote up this response to a question he raised in his post and emailed it home to myself to post it later. When I went to do so, I discovered that he just recently stopped taking comments due to his busier schedule this year. So, to get the whole story, read his post “The Trinity is the Gospel.” And then come back here and read my comment below. . .
In answer to your question, “why [do] some, who should know better, want to participate in ministry with T. D. Jakes?” My answer is the general fact that the American Evangelical concept of Christian unity has devolved from the orthodox concept of interdenominational Christian unity: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” To quote my first year Bible Doctrine teacher at Baptist Bible College, who without documentation quoted Harold John Ockenga as representative of all Neo-Evangelicals, “The Bible is the Word of God, but love is more important.”
Whether or not that quote is out of context is another whole discussion. But it is what the fundamentalists feared (probably both with and without just cause, depending on individual cases) about the “emerging” Neo-Evangelicalism of the ’40’s and ’50’s, and seems to be more true now than ever before, especially in the case of the aligning of Oneness Pentecostalism with post-modern, contemporary American Evangelicalism. It’s nothing a little Reformation couldn’t help. Thanks for your contribution.
Whether or not that quote is out of context is another whole discussion. But it is what the fundamentalists feared (probably both with and without just cause, depending on individual cases) about the “emerging” Neo-Evangelicalism of the ’40’s and ’50’s, and seems to be more true now than ever before, especially in the case of the aligning of Oneness Pentecostalism with post-modern, contemporary American Evangelicalism. It’s nothing a little Reformation couldn’t help. Thanks for your contribution.
It’s reasons like this that I’m currently promoting the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in my sidebar and in a previous post.
What A Relief!
Having read a biography of John Calvin last year, I learned that the French spelling of his name is Jean Chauvin. Come to think of it, I don’t believe I ever finished that book. Well, I’m sure I’ll get around to it someday. Anyway, as that last name bounced around in my head for a few months, at some point, the word, “chauvinist” came up, up there, too.
RED FLAG!
Knowing that Calvinism isn’t all that popular in the world, I began to wonder if the epithet, “chauvinist,” was some sort of derogatory association between Calvinists and some alleged disrespect for women. The world loves to impugn general Christianity with such a fault, even though those of us in the know are aware that Christianity is the source of liberation for women in the home, the church and society.
Is to be a Calvinist to also be a chauvinist?
I finally just got around to checking the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary to see what I could see in regard to the etymology of the word “chauvinism.” Here’s what I learned:
Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard’s play La Cocarde tricolore (1831).
Boy, was I relieved! It’s not referring to John, but Nicolas!
Whew! As if there weren’t enough bad associations with my theological persuasion! God is gracious!!!
illustration by www.ReformationArt.com.
UPDATE:
In case any of you missed it, go back up and click on the link that reads, “the source of liberation for women.” It’s incredibly awesome! I just have to point it out because it’s even more awesome than this silly post in which the link was included!
Theological and Doxological Meditation #31
Effectual Calling
Q. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit (2 Tim 1:9),
whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery (Acts 2:37), enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ (Acts 26:18), and renewing our wills (Ezk 36:26),
he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ,
freely offered to us in the gospel (John 6:44).
#458, The Trinity Hymnal
Augustus M. Toplady, 1740-1778
What tho’ I cannot break my chain
or e’er throw off my load,
the things impossible to men
are possible to God.
Who, who shall in thy presence stand,
or match Omnipotence;
unfold the grasp of thy right hand
and pluck the sinner thence?
Faith to be healed I fain would have,
O might it now be giv’n;
thou canst, thou canst the sinner save,
and make me meet for heav’n.
Bound down with twice ten thousand ties,
yet let me hear thy call;
my soul in confidence shall rise,
shall rise and break through all.
Thou canst o’ercome this heart of mine,
thou wilt victorious prove;
for everlasting strength is thine,
and everlasting love.
The Three "R’s"
In case you need a reminder of the source of your life and strength to serve God.
Rest in the Gospel of redemption in Christ . . .
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
(Matthew 11:28)
Renew your Gratitude for redemption in Christ . . .
Wretched man that I am!
Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
(Romans 7:24-25)
But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
(1 Corinthians 15:57)
Rely on Grace for power to love and obey as one redeemed in Christ . . .
But by the grace of God I am what I am,
and his grace toward me was not in vain.
On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them,
though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
(1 Corinthians 15:10)
Amazing Grace on the Silver Screen
I’m a movie buff. It may not be a mark of quality to some of you. One side of my brain is all theology, but the other side is all pop culture. I’m an armchair theologian, but before I moved to the armchair, I was a couch potato. I didn’t even have to leave the room! That’s why I’m looking forward to the February 23rd release of the new movie about William Wilberforce, called Amazing Grace! I think I’ll have to see it twice, once as the couch potato, once as the armchair theologian . . .
Make sure you go by the movie website and take in all that it has to offer. I had to write you because one of their offerings was a free, downloadable pdf of John Newton’s Olney Hymns! In the film, Wilberforce will have some interaction with John Newton (played by Albert Finney–he’s the only one I’ve heard of in the film), hence the title, and hence their thinking to post a copy of his hymns for us to enjoy. Save your copy today, and enrich your theology and your doxology!
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
Thoughts on Meditation from Tabletalk
Share this: