A RESPONSE - Part 2 of 4
To Dr. Kennedy's Report on the Ron Minton Controversy
By Michael D. O'Neal, Pastor, Gospel Light Baptist Church
P.O. Box 3071, Albany, GA 31706 (912) 432-0039 Church / (912) 698-2127 House
Email: brothermike@brothermike.com
8/19/97
MDO- 8/19/97 - Immediately following Dr. Kennedy's remarks was a letter from Dr. Parker Dailey, Executive Administrator of Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology. The letter is an endorsement of Brother Minton. Additionally, it clearly shows the weakness of Brother Dailey's own position concerning Bible translations. In other words, the reason Brother Minton has been allowed to teach at BBGST is that his boss, Brother Dailey, holds the same position or worse. My response comments will be prefaced with my initials, and Brother Dailey's comments of endorsement will be prefaced with his initials (PD).
PD - June 13, 1997
Dr. Leland Kennedy
% Baptist Bible College
628 East Kearney
Springfield, MO 65803
Dear Dr. Kennedy,
I would like to speak to the controversy involving Dr. Ron Minton's position on the King James Version. I want to address the issue from the following three perspectives: as the Executive Administrator of BBGST; as a former pastor of a contributing church; and, as a pastor in the BBFI from its inception.
First, as the Executive Administrator of BBGST I am profoundly concerned that Dr. Minton be clearly and correctly positioned on the KJV for the sake of the students who sit under his ministry.
MDO - That's a genuine concern. It's a shame for a young man to get called to the ministry under a pastor who believes in the inerrancy of his King James Bible and then go for training at a school where his instructor is going to put doubt in his mind about the KJV's infallibility, insisting that it has shortcomings, and is in at least one place inferior to the NIV, NASB, and NKJV (See Ron Minton's comments on Titus 2:13 in Part 1 of my response).
PD - Second, I am concerned that his position be correct for the sake of those churches who faithfully support the school inasmuch as we have no desire to support error.
MDO - Fortunately, as independent Baptists, no local church, even if affiliated with the BBFI through support of certain missionaries, is required to support any particular school. Therefore, if a church has any doubt about the teaching of a man like Ron Minton, the church can choose to send its money elsewhere (as well as its ministerial students). At the present time, for instance, it is becoming more and more obvious that Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College and Baptist Bible College East both have stronger stands on the King James Bible than does Baptist Bible College in Springfield. Unless changes are made, pastors who are King James Bible believers and who prefer BBFI colleges are likely to shift their support and students to those two schools and away from BBC.
PD - Third, I want to review what I perceive to have been the path of the BBFI, its founders, and BBC for the first 25 years and how their position and Dr. Minton's relate to each other. I will make a statement and seek to buttress it with facts. Dr. Minton's position is similar to, if not identical with, the position held by our founders and by the mainstream of fundamental believers. This is evidenced in the following paragraphs.
MDO - The expression "our founders" may be too general a term, but certainly some of the founders of the BBFI had a position even weaker on the KJV than the one currently proclaimed by Brother Minton. I think that can be easily proven. Having said that, it does NOT excuse those errors. For instance, it is possible to prove that David and Solomon had many wives, that Abraham and Isaac lied, and that Peter cursed. No one would suggest that we should follow the bad examples of those good men. Where certain founding fathers of the BBFI like Noel Smith were weak, they certainly should not be followed in those areas.
PD - In the Bible Baptist Seminary (forerunner of BBC), I was taught by Dr. Aubrey Martin, a blind man, who had memorized the N.T. in KJV and ASV (1901) language. Repeatedly, Dr. Martin referred favorably to the ASV with never a reprimand from Dr. J. Frank Norris, founder of the school.
My own pastor, the late Dr. Wendell Zimmerman, in his pulpit ministry would occasionally say "At this point a better translation would be....." without any intimation of berating the KJV. It is well documented from sermons in the TRIBUNE that its founder and long-time editor, the late Dr. Noel Smith, often cited the ASV. To my recollection there was no reprimand forthcoming for such use.
Dr. Minton's position on the KJV is documented in his book MAKING THE BIBLE. As I study this book I find it consistent with views expressed by founders of this Fellowship. A documentation of that would be the message on the Inspiration of the Scriptures preached by Dr. Wendell Zimmerman in the Fundamental Congress in Detroit in 1963. I find Dr. Minton's position consistent with that held by such worthies as C.H. Spurgeon and Dr. B.H. Carroll. Outside of the Baptist family we could cite the position of such men as B.B. Warfield, R. Laird Harris, Wick Broomall, N.B. Stonehouse, Paul Woolley and Robert Dick Wilson as positions very similar to that of Dr. Minton. Of more importance is the fact that Dr. Minton's position conforms to the historic position of the BBFI.
MDO - It appears to me that the "historic position of the BBFI" on the King James Bible went through some modification, or at least clarification, with the resolution of 1979. There the King James Bible was called "God's Word," and the declaration was made that "students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the Word of God." That resolution was repeated almost verbatim in the fifth point of the 1983 policy statement of BBC composed by the institution's administration and trustees. However, Brother Kennedy, Brother Dailey, and Brother Minton, all seem to want to make a distinction between the Word of God (original manuscripts or at least some Greek and Hebrew manuscripts) in which students should have an unshakable faith and the Word of God (KJV) which is merely a "good" translation but which has shortcomings. The historic position on the KJV since 1979 is something which all three of the above men seem to forsake. This is not an attack upon them, merely a sincere observation.
PD - Dr. Kennedy, you and I and the overwhelming majority of pastors of the BBFI use and defend the KJV. And, we agree the KJV must be defended, not just because the official position of the BBFI mandates the use of the KJV in our schools, but, more importantly, because of its paramount position among all translations.
However, in the process of defending it we should not allow ourselves to be painted into the corner of extremism. We need not make claims for the translation that the translators could not make per their comments in THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READERS in the 1611 edition. I fear we have been slowly but surely pushed from the "old paths" of our founders to an unnecessary divisive position regarding the KJV. In my judgment, that push is the basic reason why Dr. Minton's position has been questioned.
MDO - I think the basic reason Dr. Minton's position was questioned is that he has repeatedly stated and insinuated that the King James Bible, as a translation, has shortcomings, which in some verses make it inferior to other versions, while maintaining a general superiority. Because this practice and profession of his seems to be contrary to the BBFI resolution of 1979 and the BBC policy of 1983, the questions and objections by pastors, state representatives, and trustees were certainly warranted.
PD - In conclusion, if our founders were right in the position held from the inception of the BBFI, let's get back to that "old path" and stay on it; if they were wrong, let's make the necessary corrections and move forward in fulfilling the Great Commission. It has yet to be convincingly demonstrated to me that Zimmerman, Smith, Vick, et al were wrong.
MDO - Whether or not Brother Dailey is convinced about the position of the aforementioned personalities, the fact is that the BBFI movement shifted sufficiently concerning the King James Bible as to necessitate the resolution of 1979. I believe the reason for this is that the Holy Spirit continues to bear witness to ONE BOOK in English -- the King James 1611 Authorized Version. The more a preacher puts faith in that Book, the more GOD testifies to him that THAT BOOK is God's inerrant, infallible, invincible, immaculate, and intact word of God.
PD - I reiterate a comment already stated in this letter and that is, Dr. Minton's position on the KJV is in harmony with our historic position.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Parker Dailey
MDO - History changed in 1979 for the BBFI on this issue. It appears to me that some fellows just need to "get with the program" -- GOD'S program. Let's believe the Book, God's word in English — the KJV. Let's magnify it (Ps. 138:2), glorify it (2 Thess. 3:1), and count its words to be the word of GOD (1 Thess. 2:13) and therefore to be pure (Prov. 30:50), powerful (Heb. 4:12), and preserved (Ps. 12:6). Let's proclaim it and practice it, as we seek to carry the gospel of the grace of God to all men.