A RESPONSE - Part 3 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 - In the following letter by Dr. Ron Minton, only the first half of it has much to do with his position on the King James Version, so my comments on the second half of his letter will be rather sparse. His statements will be preceded by his initials, and my remarks will be preceded by mine (MDO).


RM - June 6, 1997
From: Prof Ron Minton
To: BBC President Leland Kennedy
Subj.: Your May 23, 1997 letter

Dear Dr. Kennedy:

I wanted to thank you for practical guidance and advice over the past ten years that I have taught at the Graduate School. It is clear that God has used you to revive our school in several ways.

In responding to your May 23 letter, I offer the following thoughts. I love our schools and want the best for them.

I want to again apologize for the confusion that was displayed on the pastor's e-mail list. This was my fault. I accept full responsibility for my actions and problems that may have resulted.


MDO - It is always commendable when a man accepts responsibility for his actions. However, what Brother Minton primarily regretted was not his TEACHING on the King James Bible issue, but rather for participating in the pastors email list and for making some misstatements concerning the importance of local church autonomy in comparison to the deity of Christ in the May 21, 1997 meeting.


RM - It is a real shame that some cannot discuss such serious matters without causing a fuss. Also, many do testify that I never once belittled the KJV or the BBC position on such matters.


MDO - Having participated regularly on that list from its beginning until now, I would be interested in knowing who those people might be who would give such a testimony. I believe ALL of the men who are strong KJVO would testify that Brother Minton did indeed belittle the KJV. In private communications to me he actually compared my thinking on the subject with the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon mentality concerning their writings (see Part 1 of my response). I do not have a cult mentality. I simply believe my King James Bible.


RM - Still, if I would not have remained on the list after you advised me to get off, a lot of problems would have been avoided. However, I was able to help a number of pastors and missionaries and advised about a dozen on the college or programs in the grad school (The KJV issue was rarely discussed until it was publicly opened for such by the list moderator.) I have learned a lesson on this. You have my word that, apart from the classroom, I will not openly discuss this issue again without prior approval of the Graduate School leadership.


MDO - Question: Why is it necessary that a BBGST professor refrain from discussing an issue on the Internet of vital concern to BBFI pastors? As a teacher in one of our institutions, certainly he should have the school's position firmly entrenched in his own heart. Secondly, he should have the wisdom to be able to communicate that on a pastors list in such fashion so as to bolster the faith of the pastors in the quality of education on such matters their students will receive who are sent to BBC.

Perhaps Dr. Kennedy thinks Brother Minton is unable to clearly communicate that position. If that is the case, he certainly needs to study the issue and/or adapt his own position. Perhaps Dr. Kennedy is afraid pastors will use his posted notes to misrepresent him and the college. The truth is, when Dr. Minton had the opportunity to present his position in DETAIL before the state representatives, nearly one out of three of those men concluded that they should recommend the college staff call for Brother Minton's resignation.

I don't think the problem is the danger of misrepresentation. The real danger is that Brother Minton will write enough so that he reveals that he does NOT hold to the inerrancy of the King James Bible and that he does NOT promote an unshakable faith in it as the word of God. Brother Kennedy and Brother Dailey are in sympathy with Brother Minton's position, so they have no desire to remove him from the staff. If they did so, he might actually be replaced by — horrors -- someone who actually BELIEVES every word of the King James Bible he USES. That would be a disaster! -- to those who think the "historic BBFI position" is one of correcting the King James Bible ("a better translation would be," "a more accurate translation would be," etc.) with references to "the Greek."


RM - MY VIEWS ON THE KING JAMES VERSION

My views on these issues have not changed since my February 7, 1997 letter to you. I have always followed the school policy on the use of the KJV in and out of the classroom. This will not change. I have long defended the use of the KJV. My statements that follow are partly new and partly old, but they are my views of the KJV.


MDO - Notice that Brother Minton referred to following the school policy on the USE of the KJV in and out of the classroom. He also defends the USE of the KJV. What does that mean? Do his statements have anything to do with a BELIEF in the KJV? I defend anyone's right in America to USE the Living Bible, but I don't BELIEVE Ken Taylor's work. I USE over TWO DOZEN versions (to show their inferiority to the Authorized Version), but I only believe one: THE KING JAMES BIBLE. I don't believe it has any shortcomings or weaknesses. I believe it is the infallible, inerrant word of God. Is that a hard stand to take?


RM - I think that truth and honesty must be the most important factors in all we do and believe. The truth is, the King James Bible is a translation. It is an excellent translation and the best in a long line of good ones, but it is still only a translation.


MDO - Anyone who reads the above statement with an open mind can tell that its intent is NOT to give the reader an "unshakable faith" in the King James Bible as the word of God. Rather, its intent is to contrast the King James Bible and the word of God, making them two different things. The BBFI resolution of 1979 did not say "the King James Bible is only a translation." The BBC policy statement of 1983 (Article X) did not state that "the King James Bible is only a translation." Both decrees clearly said that "the King James Version is God's Word preserved (the BBC policy used the word, "intact,") for the English-speaking people."


RM - Note that the KJV translators themselves said in the preface to the 1611 KJV concerning earlier translations, "... We acknowledge them to have been raised up of God ... we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good." Every translation in every language is to be compared to and measured by the Hebrew and Greek from which it came. Also, every translation is indeed the Word of God to the extent it says the same thing as the original writings. The KJV said on this subject that if any part of theirs or any other translation "be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."


MDO - Again, it is obvious that Brother Minton's intent in the above paragraph is NOT to create an "unshakable faith" in the King James Bible. This time his remarks were designed to give permission and authorization for his practice as a professor to find things in the King James Bible which he felt to "be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original." He then could also be justified in taking those things in the King James Bible which he felt were in error and criticize them, for "the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."


RM - I firmly believe the KJV is the Word of God.


MDO - Ah! At last! A statement is made of what Brother Minton believes! However, when a person continues to follow Brother Minton, he will learn that when he says "the KJV is the Word of God," he does not mean the same as when he says that "the original writings of scripture are the Word of God." He believes the original writings were perfect. He does not believe that about the King James Version. As a matter of fact, Brother Minton would also call the NASB, the NIV, and translations in foreign languages from the "Alexandrian texts" (the texts behind the other versions) the word of God. As he states further...


RM - However, I do not believe it is the only English translation that is the Word of God. All believers (including those before 1611) who have had the Bible translated into their language have had the Word of God.


MDO - That would include those who have translations made from Alexandrian manuscripts, wouldn't it, Professor? Don't you believe that a man in Spain has the word of God even if his Bible was translated from Alexandrian manuscripts? And if all believers who have had the Bible translated into their language have the word of God, that statement is made without any exception for translators who used perverted manuscripts for their basis of translation. After all, believers have had the Bible translated into the English language MANY times. Some of those translations were produced by cults. Incidentally, there are few significant differences between the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New International Version of some college professors.


RM - I will list some reasons I use and recommend others use the KJV. I have never used any other translation except for comparison, research, and evaluation.


MDO - Notice again Brother Minton's reference to USING the KJV and recommending people USE the KJV. He did not say a word about BELIEVING in its infallibility or inerrancy.


RM - I do have somewhat of a strong stand for the kind of text behind the KJV.


MDO - For us King James Bible believers, SOMEWHAT of a strong stand for the kind of text BEHIND the KJV is not enough. It's good, but not sufficient. A man who is training "preacher boys" should take a STRONG stand, not SOMEWHAT of a strong stand, for the KJV ITSELF, not just the text behind it. What is needed is a professor who will tell his students that their King James Bibles are 100% SCRIPTURE, and that being scripture, they are PURE, PERFECT, and PRESERVED.


RM - I believe the following reasons to recommend the KJV are valid. Some are more weighty and significant than others.

  1. The King James Version New Testament text usually follows the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts. Many (including myself) consider this type of text to be the best.
  2. The KJV is an accurate, literal, and reliable translation. Any preacher or teacher can honestly and boldly proclaim that it is the Word of God.
  3. The Lord has used the King James Version in history like no other English translation. It has proven itself. It has been through five revisions, and each made a good Bible a better one. Its usefulness has not ended.
  4. Many people still use the King James Bible, perhaps more than any other translation in English. It is obviously meeting the needs of many churches and Christians today. For local church unity, especially for public readings of Scripture and congregational reading, it is advisable to use one translation.
  5. It is probably the most memorized, and the most familiar Bible in English.
  6. The King James is the most beautiful literary work of all English Bible translations, old or new.
  7. Most Christian reference books, commentaries, concordances, and study books of the past three centuries have been built around the King James Bible.
  8. The King James uses the old personal pronouns to distinguish the singular and plural in the second person. Second person personal pronouns that begin with the letter "t" are singular; those that begin with "y" are plural.
  9. The King James Version was done by a team of over fifty qualified translators. This insured that a system of checks and balances was in place.
  10. The King James Bible has endured over three centuries because of its quality. It superseded all others because it simply was the best.
  11. In the United States, the KJV is not copyrighted. This enables publishers to distribute it more economically and it allows everyone to freely use and quote long sections without permission.

I use it and recommend it because it is a genuinely faithful translation of what I consider to be the best Hebrew and Greek texts. I deny that it is inadequate for today's needs.


MDO - In all of Brother Minton's above commendations for the KJV and the text behind it, nowhere did he say that a person should use the KJV because he can rely on EVERY WORD of it as being the infallible word of God? NO! As a King James Bible believer, I tell people they should use the King James Bible because they can rely upon every word of every verse to say EXACTLY what God wanted it to say.

The next sections by Brother Minton on the special meeting last May, the fundamentals, the essentials, and his conclusion say little about the King James Bible. My only remarks will be in reference to Brother Minton's definition of the five fundamentals where he discusses the inerrancy of scripture.


RM - THE SPECIAL MEETING LAST MAY

At the May 21, 1997 meeting of the BBFI State Representatives I commented that I believe local church autonomy is more important than the inerrancy of Scripture or the deity of Christ. Since I did not have time to elaborate on my comments, I now realize I should not have spoken those words. My misstatement was made from the standpoint of preserving our identity as independent Baptists of the BBFI as we know it, not from a "theological" point of view. The deity of Jesus and Scripture infallibility are among the fundamentals. As far as I am concerned, the five fundamentals are not even debatable items. They are so much a part of us that we could never discuss them as to their relative importance of lack thereof. Every fundamentalist (and I put myself in this vein) should be willing to die for them. No one has ever hinted that I am soft on these doctrines. I am including a statement that shows what I believe about the fundamentals and "essentials." The essentials are areas that we must fight for in order to keep our independent Baptist identity.

THE FUNDAMENTALS

The five fundamentals of fundamentalism are (1) the inerrancy of Scripture, (2) the virgin birth and deity of Jesus, (3) the vicarious death and substitutionary atonement, (4) the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and (5) the literal and physical return of Jesus in the future.

These are the five fundamentals of true Christianity; there is no biblical Christianity without them. Now, from a Soteriological point of view, they are not the only vital doctrines. For example, the doctrine of grace is an element of salvation we cannot do without. The five fundamentals are totally without value if salvation is by works instead of grace. No person has ever been nor will anyone ever be saved by works. If salvation is not by grace, we cannot be saved; we are doomed for eternal hell; every other biblical doctrine is irrelevant.

The five fundamentals are not complicated. They can be briefly explained as follows.


MDO - Pay attention. In the next paragraph Brother Minton gives what he claims is a statement of what HE believes about the "fundamental" of the inerrancy of scripture.


RM - The inerrancy of Scripture means that there was absolutely no error or mistake of any kind in the original Scriptures that the Holy Spirit had the Bible writers produce.


MDO - Notice that Brother Minton will say about a book he has never seen ("the original Scriptures") that which he will NEVER say about the King James Bible: that they contained no error or mistake of any kind. Does he know that Paul wrote Romans without ever scratching through a word and rewriting it? No, he doesn't. He accepts that by faith. He has never seen the "originals" of Romans. Does he know for a fact that impetuous Peter never got ahead of God in his writing of his epistles and had to go back and recopy his letter, correcting his errors? No, he doesn't. He accepts that infallibility of 1 and 2 Peter by faith. Brother Minton does NOT have the same faith in his King James Bible as he does in the original writings; we King James Bible believers do. You see, as the 1979 BBFI resolution states, "We believe that the King James Version is God's Word preserved for the English-speaking people."


RM - Translations of the Bible are likewise the Word of God and authoritative to the extent they say the same thing as the originals. Spurgeon correctly noted that "mistakes of translation there may be, for translators are men. But mistakes of the original word there never can be, for the God who spoke it is infallible, and so is every word he speaks." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (39:195).)


MDO - To what extent does the King James Bible say the same thing as the originals? Brother Minton, never having seen the originals, has no idea. He just knows they must not always say the same thing, because, after all, in his view the KJV is "only" a translation. Everyone would agree with Spurgeon that "mistakes of translation there may be." However, King James Bible believers don't accept that there are mistakes of translation in their King James Bibles. Since Dr. Minton got into hot water because of his Internet posts about the King James Bible, he could have easily set things in place by saying that he did not believe there were ANY mistakes of translation in the KJV. He could have said the KJV is perfect, pure and preserved, and that it has no shortcomings, weakness, or mistranslations. I don't think you can pay him any amount of money to say that.

I have little to say about the remainder of Brother Minton's letter, which does not deal with the issue of the King James Bible. I will just give a short conclusion at the end.


RM - The virgin birth means that Jesus was supernaturally conceived in the womb of Mary. He was born of her while she was still a virgin, before she had marital relations with Joseph.

The deity of Jesus means that he is fully God. He has always been and will always be the Son of God, coequal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in holiness, power, majesty, and deity.

The vicarious death simply means that his death purchased our redemption. His death was not merely an example, it provided a substitutionary atonement for our sins. It satisfied the infinite holiness of God because Jesus, as the God man, paid an infinite sacrifice for sin. He is our substitute. The wrath of God was laid on him. We do not have to spend eternity in hell because of the vicarious death.

The resurrection was real. It was physical. He arose from the dead and is alive for evermore. Because he lives, we too shall live forever with him. The pre-tribulational and premillennial return will be physical and bodily just as his resurrection was physical. Jesus really is coming again.


THE ESSENTIALS

I also want to note a few of what I call essentials.

Theologically, these are not as important as the five fundamentals. That is, none will prevent eternal salvation for anyone. However, for us to keep our identity as fundamental Baptists, they are very important (especially in this day and age). These are local church autonomy, separation, creation, and a concern for Baptist distinctives. I will address these in reverse order, but will deal primarily with local church autonomy.

The Baptist Distinctives are currently being examined in detail by Dr. Mike Randall in the Baptist Bible Tribune. We do not need to discuss them here. His articles should be read by all our preachers, missionaries, and students.

Creation is a vital doctrine for us. We sometimes neglect Genesis, but if we do, it is to our peril. I firmly believe that the 24-hour, seven literal days, recent creation account in Genesis 1-2 is the foundation of all we believe. The fact that Jesus accepted and quoted from it proves it is true. I believe those evangelicals who reject or modify the Genesis account are accommodating to the modern scientific establishment. Science will change; Genesis will not change.

Ecumenism is a path to giving away the five fundamentals. One cannot be a separated fundamental Baptist and join with liberals, Roman Catholics, and new evangelicals for evangelistic crusades or any other doctrinal endeavors. Please not that I will contend for religious freedoms. We need to be good citizens to fight crime, immorality (such as the abominable partial birth abortion), and corruption of society, but we can never compromise any of our doctrines.

Local church autonomy is our most important essential doctrine for preserving the BBFI. I firmly believe this. Can we cooperate for missions? Yes, and we should. Can we cooperate to build strong colleges and graduate schools for educating our future leaders? Yes, and we must do so. Our churches should work together for church plantings, missions, education, evangelism, camps, and other needful areas such as communications. However, two things need to be considered.

First, local church autonomy is biblical. In Matthew 18:17, the local church handles its own problems. In Acts 6:1-6 we see the local congregation electing the church workers. In Acts 11:22 it was "the church which was in Jerusalem" that decided to send Barnabas to Antioch. In Acts 13-1,3, "the church that was at Antioch ... sent" out the missionaries. In 1 Corinthians 11:23 Paul delivered the ordinances to the local church. They are to guard and observe them. In the Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology, I teach both Church History and Ecclesiology. My study reveals to me that after time, Scriptural groups have gone denominational, and it has ultimately ruined them. I do not believe there is any biblical basis for denominationalism.

Second, history has repeatedly shown that denominational systems all tend to drift downhill doctrinally. If we do not maintain local church autonomy, we will gradually become denominational and eventually some board will regulate procedures and doctrine. Independent Baptist preachers understand and realize this danger. Entropy affects everything, even local churches and pure doctrine. Autonomy is one thing that helps assure we will not lose our most important theological doctrines.

CONCLUSION
What should we do? The pastors and churches within the BBFI should cooperate, but not compromise. Every preacher should teach the fundamentals, the essentials, and the Baptist distinctives to their congregations. This is vital to our health and survival. We should also cooperate, perhaps even more than we do, because we all need the fellowship of other independent Baptists. However, we must never allow anyone outside of the local congregation to dictate what we will believe or how we will conduct the church.

The BBFI has done mighty things for God. He wants us to do far more than what we have done. Local church autonomy is a must if we are to continue to obey his commands.


MDO - CONCLUSION. What should we do? We should practice the letter and spirit of the BBFI and BBCI written policy on the King James Bible. Let's teach our young people that it is the WORD OF GOD preserved in the English language. As the WORD OF GOD, let's undergird them with an UNSHAKABLE FAITH in it. Let's not refer to it as ONLY a translation, which may have errors, shortcomings, and in some places be less clear on great doctrines than are the NIV and NASB. Let's call it what it is: THE WORD OF GOD. Let's not argue over it; let's agree with it! Let's not doubt it; let's declare it!