Before we consider this question, do you consider yourself to be “KJV Only?”  By this, I mean:

• Do you believe that God preserved His Word to us in the King James Version only?
• Do you believe that any other Bible translation is unreliable and must not be used?
• Do you believe that using the KJV only is a mark of a genuine Christian?

If you answer “yes,” you are KJV-only.  Now, there are others who would answer “no” while still using the KJV.  These people prefer the KJV, but they are not KJV-only.  For example:

• Someone who prefers the KJV while acknowledging the validity of other translations as equally the Word of God
• Someone who reads the KJV because it has been their lifelong Bible for memorisation and learning
• Churches which officially use the KJV for the sake of uniformity in discipleship and worship, not by conviction

Like most evangelical Christians, I believe God inspired His Word infallibly in the original writings, and that His Word has been reliably preserved in the totality of its copies, not exclusively in the King James Version.  I still teach from the KJV, but I am not KJV-only.

Why bother?

You might not care about this issue.  However, you should be aware that “KJV-only” is important to many independent Baptist churches, as evidenced in their statements of faith and preaching.  This is a divisive issue, notorious for endless arguments and accusations.  This has also become a test of fellowship, where some churches and Christians separate from those who are not KJV-only.

When Christians argue about the King James Version, the topic concerns whether the KJV is the only acceptable Bible translation or not.  My intention is not to start another debate on this point here.

Instead, I want to discuss what kind of error is “KJV Only” and how to respond to our KJV-only brothers.

Kinds of error in the New Testament

There are two main words for describing sinful crises in the church: apostasy and heresy.  ”Apostasy” refers to the total renunciation of the faith, while “heresy” normally refers to a faction or divisive movement, like the Sadducees or Gnostics.  Heresy is a teaching that claims to be Christian but subverts the faith.  While I would not classify KJV Only as apostasy, there are elements of KJV Only that are clearly subversive to the doctrine of inspiration and to biblical Christianity in general.  Peter Ruckman’s teachings are one example.

In the New Testament, there were also unnecessary disagreements which threatened to divide the church.   Paul appealed to the Corinthian church “…that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions (Greek: schismata) among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1:10)  Overall, the KJV Only position is schismatic, promoting an unjustified division within the Church.  The division is unnecessary because Christians should be able to agree on the Bible’s inerrancy and preservation, without upholding one English translation as the litmus test for Christianity.

If you disagree with the KJV Only teaching, how should you view those who follow it?  Rather than scorning them all as heretics, keep in mind that there are various kinds of people who were in error in the New Testament.   For example:

1. Apollos was an eloquent preacher of the Scriptures, yet he needed Priscilla and Aquila to explain the Word more accurately to him.  Although he was initially ignorant in some part, he was teachable.
2. Others had misinterpreted the Bible’s teaching, while wanting to avoid sin.  In I Corinthians 5:9-11, Paul corrected the church’s misunderstanding regarding associating with the sexually immoral etc.
3. Peter was guilty of being inconsistent toward the Gentiles, and Paul confronted him.  Peter’s error was temporary and his identity as a Christian was never in question.
4. The apostles also referred to those who are deceived and living in error.  For example, Paul called the Galatian church “foolish” and “bewitched” in their thinking.  (Gal. 3:1)
5. The churches were affected by deceivers — infiltrators who purposefully sought to dissuade believers from the truth.    (source: Robert Sheehan)

How to respond

Teach the truth. In all of the above examples, the right responses included admonition and / or instruction.  If you desire to avoid needless schism in the Church, you should understand the KJV Only issue and be able to apply the truth.  Don’t pass it off as a “waste of time.”  At least be able to refer others to a helpful resource on Bible preservation.  At the same time:

Keep the main thing the main thing. What is the Bible’s “main thing”?  The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the glory of God!  If you are going to commit yourself to Bible study and discussion, spend it on promoting the Gospel, both to Christians and non-Christians.  The attention you give to the KJV issue should be proportionate to God’s exaltation of His glorious Son.

Ben Kwok

As a long-time blogger, I’ve often had to assess my motives at this juncture. I could say something in a less controversial way and get some people to read it. Or I could say the same thing in a more controversial way and get twice as many people to consider it. Which should I do?

Listening to National Public Radio on the way home from university the other night, a reporter said something that struck me and gave me new insight on this matter.

Here’s what he said:

“Controversy makes people think.”

Immediately I thought “Yes! Exactly! That’s a thought I’ve been needing to put into words for years.”

Of course it’s important that we understand the weaknesses of saying things in a more controversial way (and there are plenty). And it’s important that we use controversy thoughtfully and wisely.

But this is a huge part of why I still blog even after realising that controversy and blogging will always spend a lot of time together. Controversy makes people think. And that is what InFocus is about. Developing readers, thinkers, and theologians.

So keep an eye out! You never know what kind of controversy I might stir up next. [If using emoticons wasn't a major violation of the manly blogger code of practice, I'd probably put a ";" next to a ")" right about now...]

Seriously though, that’s part of why I come out with the occasional controversial post.

And for what it’s worth, if someone says something controversial and it makes you think, don’t be afraid to put your thoughts in comments. Whether or not you agree with the writer, you will both likely benefit.

Perhaps you have encountered a similar situation.  In fact, the world constantly questions what you believe.  Our faith is challenged by teachers, co-workers, the online anonymous, entertainers, and non-believers close to us.  This is God’s instruction:

“always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (I Peter 3:15)

We must be ready to provide a reasoned defense of what we believe.   This instruction is to all Christians, not just egg-headed intellectuals or fiery types who love to argue.  Our readiness must be constant (“always”), with the ability to respond to all kinds of people (“anyone”).

In context, the verse specifically speaks to Christians who are being persecuted, or suffering for righteousness’ sake.  The implication is that suffering can provide opportunities to share your hope — when you are prepared.

One test of your preparation is your response to a difficult question.  Here are some common criticisms / questions I often hear:

• “The Bible is just a book of made-up stories.”
• “Science proves that the Bible is false.”
• “How do you know there’s a God?”
• “If God is real, then how can God allow suffering to exist?”
• “I don’t believe in life after death.  Once you’re dead, that’s it.”

The world is constantly posing these challenges in various forms.  How would you respond to these?  A biblical, reasonable response can help lead others a step forward in understanding truth.  An appropriate answer may also encourage another Christian.  We need to be ready.

Three helpful resources

(use with discernment)

William Lane Craig is one of the best philosophical apologists today.  A skilled debater and prolific author, Craig has provided many helpful resources for interacting with critics.

Stand To Reason focuses on training Christians in apologetics, specifically in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character.  Also browse their store for practical courses for churches.

The Centre for Public Christianity is an Australian evangelical ministry, offering Australian responses to critics and issues.  Interesting videos too.

While there has been a resurgence of Biblically based counselling over the last 30 years, many Christians, in my view, are still behind the eight ball in how they deal with the scourge of mental illness.

While we believe the Scriptures are sufficient for every spiritual malady and for equipping believers to be in experience, what they are in position before God, this does not mean the Bible promises instant solutions to the problems of living in this present world.

One of the first unequivocal references to mental illness in the Bible is found in Deuteronomy 28:28. Madness is promised as a judgment of God (along with a whole host of mostly physical diseases) if the Nation of Israel abandoned the commands of God while in the promised land. Significantly, mental illness is listed alongside many other common physical sicknesses and diseases.

If that text is used to show that mental illness is always a judgment of God for personal disobedience, then you also have to insist that every time anyone gets sick then that must also be a judgment of God. Jesus renounced such falsity in John 9 when healing the man who was born blind. Neither his parents nor he had sinned, said the Saviour, but rather God was working out his eternal purposes in their lives for His glory.

For a believer to deny the reality of mental illness, they must, at least logically, (though they may have never expressed it thus) first arrive at the position that every part of man is under the curse except his brain and bio-chemistry. The Apostle Paul dismisses such a position in Romans 8:22-23 when he says that ‘we also’ groan and are burdened in our earthly bodies (which last time I checked houses the brain) and so we wait for our future glorification.

I assist on a professional basis people who have diagnosed mental illnesses on almost a weekly basis. What has stopped many of those people from either taking their life or ending up in jail has been the skilled care of the medical profession. The medications and counselling available to them have been nothing less than medical saviours.

No it won’t get them to heaven, but it does relieve them of crushing and almost unshakable thoughts of the severest kind that literally leave them physically and emotionally debilitated.

God sends rain and sunshine on the just and unjust and has given us the intelligence to discover medical solutions to our present day maladies and diseases. It pleases God to see unnecessary suffering being alleviated just as Christ relieved the hurting and diseased while on the earth. While Jesus performed miracles to prove His deity; that He also healed out of loving concern for people and their problems is also uncontroversial.

Unfortunately pastors are often at a loss to explain or deal with anti-social, bizarre or destructive behaviours (for no logical or apparent reason) apart from simply branding such conduct as ‘deliberately sinful’.

Many so-called ‘biblical’ or ‘nouthetic’ counsellors give them every encouragement to label such actions as simply sinful choices, without appreciating the fact that while mankind is sinful, the Bible also says we are weak and fragile (Psalm 103:13-15).

It is interesting that when David was on the run from Saul he decided to pretend he was mad so King Achish would show him mercy and not kill him (1 Samuel 21:10-15).

It is ironic to me that a pagan king a couple of thousand of years ago had more compassion for the mentally ill than some believers do today.

For that reason many people, including believers who sincerely love the Lord, are left groping in the darkness and are ashamed to go and get professional help.

As one writer skilfully noted, all diseases from the ‘neck down’ are acceptable in churches. But whatever you do, just don’t have any in the head.

I hope this little broadside will provoke us to study this issue more and bring some compassion to the table if we have opportunity to minister to the mentally ill. Or, if we are struggling with mental health issues, to go and get some medical help.

The Gospel saves and transforms all people, whether mad, bad or sad (or any combination of the three). But God has not promised to remove every aspect of the First Adam’s curse until the Second Adam reigns with all the ransomed throng in the heavenly city.

The good news is there is grace and at times medicine to be had while we wait for that Day.

Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. 1 Thessalonians 5:14

.

.

.

Some think that in Sixteen Eleven (1611),
The Bible came down (again) from heaven,
They shout “The KJV it is!
It’s translators were really wizz”
But is this doctrinal leaven?

Before the KJV was on the scene,
The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme,
Of course, there was strident opposition,
To this new transition.

Westcott & Hort compiled a text,
That their opponents thought was basically hexed,
Some verses and words were missing,
Was this really Satan hissing?
The debate is now sore vexed.

It has often been forgot,
The KJV translators thought a lot!
Variants and differences they did consider,
Yet the Word of God did not wither,
So why is our strife so hot?

Later came the modern versions,
Often labelled as mere perversions,
The battle’s begun!
But will it be won?
Or is this another heretical excursion?

Jesus and Paul spoke so clearly,
The words of God they loved so dearly,
Wycliffe and Tyndale believed the same,
Accuracy and clarity was their aim,
Can this truth be put any more simply?

God’s Word will surely stand,
None can ever stay His hand!
Whether in the KJV,
NKJV or (even) ESV,
Bend not to unreasonable demand.

The KJV has oft been revised,
Why should this cause any surprise?
Language changes over time,
Good translations must be refined,
Inerrancy will not capsize.

Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay.”

.

I’ve always taken the word “certain” to be a verb. But I’ve just realised, perhaps it’s intended to be an adjective.

What do you think?

Pro-life speaker Bruce Coleman (Choices Of Life) spoke in our school this week, regarding the value of life and the Christian response to abortion.  Several students expressed thanks for the informative and practical presentation, which also prompted me to do some research.

Some online statistics I gathered:

• Australia’s abortion rate is high in comparison to other developed nations.
• There are around 90,000 abortions in Australia each year, or two aborted lives for every five live births.
• There are 800 abortions each week in NSW.
• A woman seeking abortion is most likely to be aged in her 20s, single, childless, well educated and employed.
• The vast majority of abortions relate to convenience, not to medical purposes, rape or foetal deformities.
• According to one survey of around 4000 Australians, over 80% believed abortion is a right.  In the same survey, over 75% of Australians with religious views supported the right to abortion.  Even among evangelical Protestants surveyed, over 50% were pro-abortion. (2003 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes)

If you are pro-life, you are in the minority.  If you actually participate in promoting the right to life, you belong to an even smaller minority.  One thing is certain: it’s hard to face these statistics without wanting to do something.

Afterward, I chatted with several Christians who were keen to learn more concerning how the claims of the Bible and of science can be compatible.  I think most Australians would simply assume that the Bible and science cannot truly agree, or else consider the Bible to be irrelevant to science.  So there is considerable pressure on Christians in schools, workplaces and from the media on this issue.  A few thoughts:

• Scientifically-minded Christians can provide a valuable ministry in assisting the church to see ways in which “the heavens declare the glory of God.”  Since scientific theories and concepts are subject to revision, Christians also need up-to-date arguments which can honestly present opponents’ viewpoints and reasonably refute them.
• At the same time, God declared the church, not science, as a pillar and buttress of the truth.  So while creationist ministries can be helpful, the church is designed and primarily responsible to support the truth of God’s Word.  Science is a valuable tool toward that end, but science cannot replace the testimony of a Spirit-led, Christ-centred body of believers who speak the Word and love one another.
• Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, denounces the “lamentable ignorance” of young earth proponents and attempts to disparage the Bible in the light of science.  How should Christians respond to people like Dawkins?  We must thoughtfully, graciously, and boldly proclaim Christ to them.  Jesus is “folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called…Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”  (I Corinthians 1:23-24)

EXTRA: Dr Francis Collins directs the Human Genome Project and professes to be Christian.  He supports theistic evolution, but his testimony is interesting: “Why this scientist believes in God”

As we got ready to set up for the assembly there was classical music playing over the school’s loud speakers as children finished lunch and moved to classes. When I was a ‘boy’ it was always loud and piercing ‘bells’ that went off as we were herded around like cattle.

How interesting that the powers that be in the state education system chose classical music to settle and prepare students for the last couple of hours of school. There were many other styles that could have been chosen, such as jazz, rap, hard rock and heavy metal.

For some reason they chose classical instead.

Now obviously there were other music styles that could have fulfilled their objectives. And yes there are some classical pieces that are far from settling.

And no I am not advocating a ‘classical music only position’.

My point from this little anecdote is simply: If the world understands that music is not neutral, then why do some Christians persist promoting this fallacy?

As early as the days of Moses, particular music styles have been known for their violent and disturbing message. Note this passage:

And Moses turned and went down from the mountain, and the two tablets of the Testimony were in his hand. The tablets were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other they were written. Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets. And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp.” But he said: “It is not the noise of the shout of victory, Nor the noise of the cry of defeat, But the sound of singing I hear.” So it was, as soon as he came near the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing. So Moses’ anger became hot, and he cast the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. Exodus 32:15-19

So let’s engage in discussions on this subject from the right starting point: music is not neutral, but like other mediums of communication made by God, music can be used for good or evil.

Simeon related this exchange with Wesley. Simeon began the conversation:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

Taken from the biography of Simeon by HCG Moule, (IVF) 1948, pp79-80