Interview on KJV Onlyism

I had the privilege of being interviewed by Devin Pellew on his blogtalkradio program, Theology Matters. The topic was on King James Onlyism. I presented my testimony on how I got tangled up with it and then the reasons why I left. Also got to hit upon some of the main talking points of KJVO apologetics.

It was my first ever “official” interview on anything, so I was excited to have the opportunity. You can listen online or download the mp3. The actual interview starts about 30 minutes into the program.

Theology Matters 12/5/2013 on KJV Onlyism

 

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Interview on KJV Onlyism

  1. Fred,

    I listened to your interview almost two times. I wish I knew you when you were going through your journey of bible versions and calvinism. I would have loved to helped you. I think you hit the nail on the head when you described yourself as “unstable.” I believe your instability is what drew you away from the KJB. I found your interview misleading. First there are and were many KJB defenders and believers who believe in the 5 points of Calvinism. Joey Faust’s book is great for getting detailed information on this. By the way Will Kinney is a calvinist and so is Pinto and Hills. (Actually I would say Hills is no longer a calvinist seeing he is dead and in heaven.) You failed to mention those 3 men in your interview. You were very misleading when you spoke about our sister Riplinger. She is very clear about her speculations between ww westcott and bf westcott. You should have just quoted her footnote or just read her response in Blind Guides or even read an excerpt from your old blog. I wish you had that book when you questioned her findings in college. It would have answered your concerns. I have checked her out and she is right on. I will say this though her book can be confusing to some both pro and anti KJB. My stepfather who is a KJB believer had some concerns about her book, but realized it was his mistake and not hers. I have read many NABV critiques. I am not ignorant of the accusations.
    Around minute 68 you mentioned a book entitled The Dark Side of Calvinism by a guy named Laurence who had a falling out with Peter Ruckman. If your talking about Laurence Vance (Ruckman sells his great books minus his excellent book on Christianity and War plus according to Vance there is no falling out I asked him myself about 5 or so years ago.) then I am curious to where this book is. Can you send me a photo of the cover? Can you send me a photo of the page you were speaking about when it came to the number 5?

    Mr. Pellew said, “As a former KJV- onlyist, Fred has some great insight and research to share on this topic.” I would beg to defer.
    In a nutshell your interview was “sloppy.” Right or wrong you were just “sloppy.” I believe that was a word you used before somewhere else.

    Peace

    David

  2. David writes,
    I think you hit the nail on the head when you described yourself as “unstable.” I believe your instability is what drew you away from the KJB.

    If you listened to the interview twice like you said, you will recall that though I was “unstable” and “immature” it was as I was growing and sanctified by the Spirit, being rooted and ground in the faith and the Word of God, that I began to question the conspiracy theories of KJVO apologists like yourself, “sister” Riplinger being one of the worst of conspiracy theorists. So I am not sure how you think my unstability led me away, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

    continuing,
    First there are and were many KJB defenders and believers who believe in the 5 points of Calvinism. Joey Faust’s book is great for getting detailed information on this. By the way Will Kinney is a calvinist and so is Pinto and Hills.

    Indeed, in fact, practically the entire KJV translating team were Calvinists, which makes your disparaging of the faith even more ironic. But needless to say, the vast, vast majority of KJVO believers are anti-Calvinistic spreading deceit and lies against those who are Calvinists, even inventing an alternative history about the theology and the adherents. BTW, Pinto denies being KJVO, so he would probably take umbrage at you identifying him as such. I btw, agree with you and believe he is, but that is another discussion.

    continuing along,
    You were very misleading when you spoke about our sister Riplinger. She is very clear about her speculations between ww westcott and bf westcott.

    Well, maybe go back and listen a third time and more carefully, because I noted that she “speculated” with her identification of WW Westcott, yet still heavily suggested that the WW Westcott was BF Westcott who wrote for the Theosophist society. Go back and read her note on that subject (unless she has changed it since). Moreover, it is just pure fantasy when she insists Westcott and Hort were even involved with Theosophy and essentially libels their character.

    I have checked her out and she is right on.

    So you have no concerns with her being divorced twice, originally going by her initials, GA to hide the fact she was a woman, and the fact she has absolutely no expertise to even address this issue at all?

    Around minute 68 you mentioned a book entitled The Dark Side of Calvinism by a guy named Laurence who had a falling out with Peter Ruckman. If your talking about Laurence Vance (Ruckman sells his great books minus his excellent book on Christianity and War plus according to Vance there is no falling out I asked him myself about 5 or so years ago.) then I am curious to where this book is. Can you send me a photo of the cover? Can you send me a photo of the page you were speaking about when it came to the number 5?

    Curious that you think there isn’t a falling out, because folks who are more aware of the situation say otherwise. But I could really care less. Needless to say, in the first edition of his anti-Calvinist rag, Vance opens his fifth chapter with a long odd ball study on the number 5 and how it represents death and how the 5 points of Calvinism equate death. In later editions, he had it removed, I imagine to not make him look like a wacko. The librarian at Southern Seminary who sent me the scans of the first edition of that opening chapter even spoke with him on the phone about it when he called looking for some unrelated info and she told me how he just started rambling on and on about numerology and other bizarre related things. I have your email, so I’ll shot you a copy.

    Fred

  3. Fred

    I did listen. I just don’t agree it was the Spirit that led you away. Obviously I know that you believe that, but I could say the same thing and of course your going to disagree.

    You said “Indeed, in fact, practically the entire KJV translating team were Calvinists, which makes your disparaging of the faith even more ironic.”
    I am not disparaging the faith. It is ironic because King James was anti-calvinist yet he showed much grace. Being a calvinist doesn’t make you untrustworthy. If you want to get down to it no one agrees 100%. My point was that you were wrong about giving the impression that calvinist were not in the KJB camp. You are proven wrong in Joey Faust’s book.

    You said, “Pinto denies being KJVO.” I never used the term KJVO. I used the phrase “KJB defenders and believers.” I know his stance. He does defend the KJB. As you and I well know he would be classified as a TR man.

    In regards to our sister Riplinger, I will say that she was careful with her words and you were “sloppy.” I read her note either yesterday or Friday. Do you even have Blind Guides? In Blind Guides she clarifies her footnote statement. And about her divorces well it is sad that she had to go through something like that. I would never want to be in her shoes. I have many sins in my life that I regret and I am sure you do also.

    As to Vance, well numerology is a fascinating study, either way I brought Vance up because you said he wrote a book called, The Dark Side of Calvinism. You still have not satisfied my curiosity as to where this book is??? Are you mistaken in the title?

    In regards to my last post on your other article, have you read Hazardous Materials?

    Get Joey’s book brother.

    Your brother In Christ Jesus,

    David

  4. Interesting brother! You had time to respond to an article from dorightchristians.com, but not me. I am glad you have a job and I am glad you have a family. If it means anything I do likewise. I have 3 little kids and a wonderful wife.

  5. That was one paragraph and that guy is a moron. So far I’ve had a bit more respect for you than him, so I tend to take my time responding because I just don’t want to throw out one liners to you.

  6. Thank you. I hope your respect does not disappear. I mean well. Most of my Christian friends don’t agree with me on the Bible issue. I have lost way to many to this battle and I am tired of it.

  7. Stop the sun and call the police, one combox commenter didn;t get answered as fast as he demands.

  8. I posted this response to David under another article, so I apologize if it isn’t completely in line to the questions he asked above, but I figured seeing there are many similarities, I just cut-and-pasted it. BTW, the book is “The Other Side of Calvinism,” The “Darkside of Calvinism” is Calvary chapel apologist, George Bryson’s book.

    David writes,
    The problem is that you miss out on great books like Hazardous Materials by Sister Riplinger and the two books I recommended.

    “Sister” Riplinger, again, is not qualified either ethically or theologically, to comment on such matters. I have actually looked through her Hazardous Materials book and it is just as bad if not worse in his mishandling of facts, putting for guilt by association arguments, and ad hominem attacks as NABV was. Her insinuation that Charles Dodgson/Lewis Carrol, for instance, was Jack the Ripper and a child molester is profoundly absurd. Read this review http://strictandparticular.blogspot.com/2010/05/book-reiew-cleaning-up-hazardous.html of Kirk DiVietro rebuttal to Riplinger (he’s a fellow KJV Onlyist) and you can see the extreme errors that Riplinger puts forth as truth. Also this post by the same author, http://strictandparticular.blogspot.com/2009/08/meet-ivor-gail-riplingers-friend.html

    continuing,
    There is no book that I know that focuses on the history of the debate from a strictly KJB side.

    Really? None before Joey Faust? David Cloud has at least a couple. I know he has one I read that specifically address James White. It’s terribly argued and Cloud refuses to debate White on the issue, but he covers the history of the debate from a strictly KJV side. Also D.A Waite has a number of titles at his publishing ministry that covers this material. His “classic” work, “Defending the KJV” is probably one of the more “scholarly” KJV titles available. And what about David Sorenson’s “Touch Not the Unclean Thing”? Again, my question had to do with what original info Faust brings to the discussion that hasn’t already been mentioned or hashed out from previous titles.

    I would further imagine Mcelroy’s book isn’t particularly new either. Just looking at the table of contents listed at Riplingers website, all of those subjects I have seen covered in a number of other books that are probably more than 20 years old now. Sam Gipp’s Answer Book covered a number of the subjects Mcelroy covered.

    So again, my question is for you to present a compelling example of originality with either one of those books you mention. Pick something that you considered truly profound and unique.

  9. Fred,

    Well even though you made a mistake with the title of the book and you were corrected by the man interviewing you I still don’t think that discredits you.

    I will ask you again, “do you even have Blind Guides?”

    Did you edit my post done on Dec. 8 at 6:47pm?

    I am starting to question your integrity.

    You stated on another article

    “David writes,
    Are you saying that you have only read pro KJB books from 2001 and older?

    Yes. And the problem with that is…? I have read practically every major KJVO book that has been published before 2000 or 2001.”

    How can this be true if you read Hazardous Materials which was published after 2007?

    Also this quote above of me is misleading.
    “continuing,
    There is no book that I know that focuses on the history of the debate from a strictly KJB side.”

    Notice what I say in full.

    “There is no book that I know that focuses on the history of the debate from a strictly KJB side. If so let me know.”

    What are the books that David Cloud wrote about the history of the
    KJB debate?

    I have not read David Sorenson’s book. I need to buy it.

    I will buy Jack’s and Joey’s books for you. That will answer your question.

    As far as Charles Dodgson, well let’s just say I would not let him near me daughters.

    David

  10. David writes,
    I will ask you again, “do you even have Blind Guides?”

    No. Like I wrote, I only have looked through it. I don’t own it. That book came out AFTER Riplinger had pretty much discredited herself with me and I wished to have nothing more to do with her.

    Did you edit my post done on Dec. 8 at 6:47pm?
    I am starting to question your integrity

    Yes, Because what you wrote I thought was unkind and unnecessary and was ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. What you addressed is not a sin issue, but one of self-control.

    How can this be true if you read Hazardous Materials which was published after 2007?

    I never said I read that book. I have merely looked it over and read second hand reviews of it. The two links I supplied to the Strict and Particular Baptist site is someone I know through social media and is a reputable Christian writer. I trust his assessment of it.

    “There is no book that I know that focuses on the history of the debate from a strictly KJB side. If so let me know.”

    All of the books I have noted deal with the history of the debate from a strictly KJV side. Unless you have a special definition of what constitutes one being “KJV.” Go to Cloud’s Way of Life website and look at his book store. There you will find his work.

    I will buy Jack’s and Joey’s books for you. That will answer your question.

    Okay. If you buy them I’ll certainly look them over, maybe even review them here at my blog. You can send them to GTY in care of me, Fred Butler. Address is PO Box 4000, Panorama City CA 91342. I’ll let you know when I get them.

  11. Fred,

    Well “Blind Guides” is a must for those who have questions about NABV. Your missing out.
    In regards to “Hazardous Materials,” well I think most would agree that you did read/look at it. I think I caught you in a little lie. Did you read it all? No. But did you read it? Yes.
    You even said, “I have actually looked through her Hazardous Materials book.”
    Yet you said this later, “I never said I read that book. I have merely looked it over and read second hand reviews of it.”
    How did you look at her book without reading it?

    Also the fact that you edited my post is wrong. Just reject it, but don’t edit my stuff. That was plain wrong. Gluttony is a sin. It totally is a sin issue. Plus, who are you to say anything about so called “unkind,” words? You called a fellow brother a “moron.” I dare you to use that word at a special education school. Talk about unkind and hypocritical.

    When your done reading Joey’s book you will never again believe that a 7th Day Adventist started, so called “KJV-Onlyism.”

    Thank you for letting me send you the books.

    Peace,

    David

  12. David writes,
    In regards to “Hazardous Materials,” well I think most would agree that you did read/look at it. I think I caught you in a little lie. Did you read it all? No. But did you read it? Yes.
    You even said, “I have actually looked through her Hazardous Materials book.”
    Yet you said this later, “I never said I read that book. I have merely looked it over and read second hand reviews of it.” How did you look at her book without reading it?

    You’re being picayune. I never said I read it, I stated that I have looked through it. I distinguish between “reading” a book, that is, all of it carefully and thoughtfully, and “looking through” a book, or skimming through various sections or portions that I happen to be interested in. To say I have been caught in a lie is absurd.

    continuing along,
    Also the fact that you edited my post is wrong. Just reject it, but don’t edit my stuff. That was plain wrong.

    Sorry, but that is not the way it works. It’s my blog, I can edit comments as I see fit. I rarely, if ever do it, but if I believe it is necessary, I alone reserve that right. I was not going to let you condemn a fellow that I happen to know a little bit, who has a fruitful ministry where he is, just because of your misguided notions as to what constitutes gluttony. If you find it problematic that I can edit comments and do on extremely rare occasions, usually to remove the profanity from atheists, then don’t comment.

    continuing,
    Gluttony is a sin. It totally is a sin issue.

    Gluttony is a sin. Being overweight is not gluttony, and thus not a sin. In fact I will repost this article I put together in the last couple of years next week, but if you’d like to read through it now, learn a little bit about what gluttony is and is not. https://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/no-sympathy-for-the-fat-guy/

    BTW, if being 50 pounds overweight is gluttony and sin, at least 90% of Fundamentalist, KJVO pastors, evangelists, and preachers are in sin and are thus unqualified to do what they are doing. You should ignore them immediately.

    And,
    Plus, who are you to say anything about so called “unkind,” words? You called a fellow brother a “moron.” I dare you to use that word at a special education school. Talk about unkind and hypocritical.

    I do not consider the internet troll “Dr” Ach, to be a brother. If you read how he engages others, he has a crude, hamfisted and belligerent approach that is hardly characteristic of a saved man – most certainly a spirit-controlled man. It is one thing to be sarcastic when engaging your blogging enemies, it is quite another when you lie and make things up about them and when he is confronted, he merely doubles-down and digs a hole for any credibility he may have. He is a moron, and I have no guilt in saying so.

  13. Fred,

    Just be honest you read parts of Hazardous Materials. I never implied that you had to read it ALL to have read it. I was speaking plain.

    In regards to editing my post. Well I would recommend that you would put a note saying a post was edited. Your actions reminded me of how the communist would edit photos and the liberal and so-called conservative news media “edits,” quotes.

    I would say you are guilty of the same things that you accuse Dr. Ach. To be quite honest. I don’t care. If you call him a “moron.” Doesn’t mean much to me. I don’t care. I am sure he is a man and can handle it. Both sides always same the same thing about each other. It never ends.

    Overall I am learning that you are a very slippery person. You change the rules as we go.

    I looked forward to your “fat” article being posted. I read it ALL and found it to be nothing but justification for gluttony.

    One last thing. Way off topic. Can you send me any proof of T.U.L.I.P being taught by the early church fathers and ancient Jews? I am doing research on Calvinism and I can only trace it to the Gnostics and Augustine. Part of it seems to be found in the heretical sect of the Essenes also.

    Thank you,

    David

  14. David writes,
    Just be honest you read parts of Hazardous Materials. I never implied that you had to read it ALL to have read it. I was speaking plain.

    David, I was honest. I told you that I had only looked through it. Now you are becoming a bit ridiculous implying you have uncovered some ethical malfeasance on my part. That is just not the case.

    continuing,
    In regards to editing my post. Well I would recommend that you would put a note saying a post was edited. Your actions reminded me of how the communist would edit photos and the liberal and so-called conservative news media “edits,” quotes.

    Your complaints become more absurd with every comment you make. Me editing your comment in order to keep another guy from being unfairly criticized and hurt is equivalent to Communist news propaganda? Really? And you wonder why critics of KJV onlyism like me always point out their conspiratorial tendencies.

    Communists and liberals edit dissenters. I have not hidden your dissent. In fact, your dissent is extremely clear and documented. I merely took out comments that were unreasonable and unfavorable to a guy who isn’t even here to defend himself.

    continuing,
    Overall I am learning that you are a very slippery person. You change the rules as we go.

    Change the rules? What rules? We never agreed to any rules. As far as I am concerned, you are a guest at my blog. It is MY blog. If I want to edit comments for whatever reason such is my prerogative.

    Just so you know, I have been blogging for several years – since 2005 to be exact, and I have a fairly solid track record of being extremely gracious and fair to vocal detractors. That includes you my friend. You are not the exception. Anyone who is a long time reader of mine knows this is the case and would think your comparison with commies to be utterly laughable.

    Continuing along,
    I looked forward to your “fat” article being posted. I read it ALL and found it to be nothing but justification for gluttony.

    Well. When it comes online later this week, you need to demonstrate from the text how my definition of “gluttony” is wrong and how your insistence that it really means being 50 pounds overweight. Are you prepared to tell churches they need to exercise church discipline against such people and that no man can be qualified to pastor IF he is 50 pounds overweight?

    One last thing. Way off topic. Can you send me any proof of T.U.L.I.P being taught by the early church fathers and ancient Jews? I am doing research on Calvinism and I can only trace it to the Gnostics and Augustine. Part of it seems to be found in the heretical sect of the Essenes also.

    No one can send you proof about TULIP being taught by church fathers, because TULIP is an acronym developed in the 1600s in order to summarize doctrinal points that answered the Remonstrants’s complaint against the Calvinists.

    What can be shown, however, is that various church fathers taught that men were totally corrupted by sin, that election unto salvation was unconditioned upon a man’s works, Christ truly saved those for whom He died, God’s saving grace accomplishes the salvation of those to whom it is given, and saved men are spiritually changed and persevere in that salvation to which they are called by God.

    IF you are genuinely serious about learning about “Calvinism,” you need to deal with what the Bible teaches on these things. My pastor preached a series of messages on this subject that are accessible for free here, http://www.gty.org/products/audio-series/280. Also, Steve Lawson’s series on the history of the doctrine of Grace will be a help.

  15. Pingback: Reviewing “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?” [1] | hipandthigh

  16. Pingback: Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism | hipandthigh

  17. Sadly, I’m in a church that gets lumped in with the KJV-only folks. We are a reformed Presbyterian church, and the pastor and elders prefer the KJV. They say it is the best translation available, but are not against a better translation being made. It is hard to research the KJV being a better translation, because all you get is KJV-only stuff.

    Most of your talk dealt with that, and then you started a thought talking about reformed friends of yours that prefer the KJV and… And.. And… You lost your thought and went back to KJV onlyism. :)

    Can you point me to some info on where you were headed?

  18. Hey Nick,
    I don’t recall exactly the conversation during the interview. But there are certain Reformed types who would be what is called TR only. Meaning they believe the TR is the text the Church should use to translate the NT. For example, Edward Hills, but he thought the KJV was sufficient as a translation. Of course, he wrote in the 60s.

    If you go to James White’s site and search for ecclesiastical text, there is a position that is held by Doug Wilson that the TR represents the text that was kept in the church, hence the name ecclesiastical.

    The position, I believe, doesn’t take into the consideration the whole of sound, textual criticism that predated the dreaded eclectic text like the NA27 that is used to translate the major modern versions.

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s