You are here: Home / Errors

The KJV-Only Distraction

21 August 2010 By The Grinder 2 Comments

Back in the early 90′s, while I was attending a conservative Bible college in Michigan, I was first introduced to the KJV-Only debate. It was my classmate from Tennessee who leaned over my shoulder and asked, “Is that the Bible you’re reading or one of those modern perversions?” I had no idea what he meant. But I learned!

Now, 20 years later, I am glad to say that most of the steam for the backward movement has run out. But there are still proponents, and the debate inches on. I have observed a few things over the years about the nature of this particular debate. First, most KJV-Only proponents have never taken the time to learn the original languages (I am aware of some that are scholars – but precious few). Thus, when they blast codices and textual families, they are speaking about documents that they have never read and cannot read. Since this is a textual debate at its core, this is highly significant (devastating?).

Second, most of the KJV-Only debates that I have observed or in which I have engaged eventually turned petty and unhealthy – with the KJV-Only proponents primarily resorting to ad hominem attacks and throwing out labels like “blind heretics” for good measure. Of course, this can happen to any good, spirited debate. However, at least in my anecdotal experience, it usually happens during a KJV-Only conversation.  Once, I told a friend to watch his watch and tell me how long it will take for my opponent to call me ‘stupid’ or the like while we began to reason the arguments and positions. It took a mere 3.5 minutes. That is also telling.

Third, and most significant, the best arguments undergirding the narrow KJV-Only position are extremly thin, circular and require massive assumptions. The position is just lacking in meat, plain and simple. And when its proponents feel threatened because of this, they resort to insult to make up for it.

And I know that I am painting with broad strokes and making no attempt to support my claims. That is because this is not my attempt to comprehensibly debunk the KJV-Only movement. Rather, I said all that to turn your attention to a great short piece on the subject by Daniel Wallace.

You can also read James White’s weigh-in on the matter in his book, The King James Only Controversy. Better still are the two cents that D.A. Carson offered in ’78 entitled, The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Reason.

Filed Under: Books, Errors

Joel Hunter on Literal and Liberal Views of Genesis 1

26 July 2010 By The Grinder Leave a Comment

I have so many issues with what Hunter is saying here, I do not even know where to begin. He is politely demeaning to literalists (like me!), suggesting that we, though sincere, are refusing to use our full mental capacity. Hunter, where are you going?

Filed Under: Errors

Dr. Ergun Caner on Fraud and Deception

11 May 2010 By The Grinder 1 Comment

In this sermon, Dr. Ergun Caner states that fraud is “one who looks like something but is actually something else.” I would modify the definition a bit. A fraud is one who pretends to be something that he is not.

In words that will ironically come to back to haunt him, Caner said, “You can’t start an evangelistic enterprise based on deception… I just can’t imagine that type of lying, and that’s exactly what I call it.” Of course, he was commenting on the IMB’s Camel evangelism method to Muslims (and I think his assessment of Camel is completely off). But it now characterizes exactly what he himself has done.

I’ve examined a lot of audio and video evidence as to Caner’s claims, and my conclusion is that Caner has fabricated the entire story on which he has sold hundreds of thousands of books and which has propelled him to celebrity status. I grieve for Caner and for the damage this will do to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, his students and to Christianity. My prayer is that there will be genuine repentance, followed by a gracious restoration to fellowship (though not to a position of leadership at any level at the Seminary or within the church).

Filed Under: Errors, Sempiternal

The Subtlety of Egalitarian Hermeneutics

23 February 2009 By The Grinder Leave a Comment

How do egalitarians wiggle out of Paul’s clear charge for the wife to submit to her husband (Eph 5.22)? By an interpretive slight of hand, that’s how.

In a graduate counseling class, I’ve been debating with other students about Ephesians 5.22-33. The way that a person who is 1) committed to the authority of Scriptures and who 2) subscribes to an egalitarian philosophy of marriage – the way that that conflicted individual keeps Paul’s charge in Ephesians 5.22 from deterring him is to reach back to Ephesians 5.21 and say that Paul really meant mutual-submission in the marriage order. Of course, that is exegetical bunk. For one, the word submit always means to “align oneself under an authority” and is never reversed. Also, Paul’s supporting material is abundantly clear; Biblical submission mirrors ecclesiastical submission to Christ.

One of the assigned reads for the class is Jeff VanVonderen’s, Families Where Grace is in Place. I like the book, for the most part. But VanVonderen is a classic example of the interpretive subtlety I described above. And he extends it all the way: husbands submit to your wives, parents to your children, and masters submit to your slaves. Good luck in having order in those relationships!

Why is Paul’s clear teaching so hard to accept? I think it is because people 1) misunderstand biblical headship to be something like a dictatorship, and 2) feel that their modern ideas are better than the Bible’s.

What is worse is that on the academic bb where I’ve been debating for the class, I am the only student (out of about 100) that has an issue with egalitarianism. And this is a conservative seminary!

Filed Under: Errors

Mark Driscoll & The Emergent Church Movement (and yes, it is a movement!)

27 August 2008 By The Grinder 5 Comments

Click here to listen to Mark Driscoll describe his relationship to the Emergent Church Movement and the problems he has with current movers and shakers of the, uh, conversation. Mark makes several substantial points.

(HT: Steve Mooradian)

Filed Under: Errors, Theology

Careful, Brother!

25 August 2008 By The Grinder 2 Comments

The following is an excerpt from a letter to a friend. We have been debating an item of theology, which I consider important. He has adopted a view which falls outside of the bounds of what has historically been regarded as Christian, and thus my mild warning.

There is in the Christian academy (as there is in the church) a popular idea that everything that we have held to be true ought to be revisited and rethought. From that reconstructionist (or better, deconstructionist) vantage point several errors and heresies have arisen, such as the New Perspective on Paul and more recently, the hyper-Arminianistic view often referred to as Open Theology (also Openness Theology or Open Theism). This trend seems to me to be driven by three things: 1) a preference for all things new and novel, 2) a disregard for all things traditional and 3) a presumptuous lack of regard for the theological groundwork of our predecessors. Of course, as I have mentioned, I think it is dangerous to hold a view to be true merely on the basis of its historical acceptance, and I do believe that there are times when we are right to venture off of the reservation (thank God for Augustine, Luther, Calvin and so many others who did so). However, we must take caution when challenging to the extent that we depart from what has historically been the bounds of Christian theology. We do need Christian thinkers who hold to their views because they have good reasons to. And we need really good reasons when we must depart from the historic doctrine of the church. Historical theology has benefit, despite what theologians like N.T. Write say.

Filed Under: Errors, Theology