Hyperstasia rather than apostasia
I’m discussing the King James Only (KJO) error in a series of posts. I hope I’ve demonstrated how serious the error is, compromising as it does a root doctrine, the doctrine of inspiration. I’ve also suggested several steps in the way forward for pastors that could form a basis for consensus by independent Baptist societies if they so choose.
We should now say a word about the nature of the error. There are a lot of fellows in the “young Turk” mode on this issue who want to label the KJO error as a heresy. Having done so, all that is left is to pronounce an anathema and move on. That approach may seem simple and satisfying (in a fleshly kind of way), but one reason it fails is that the error isn’t clearly understood or appreciated for the kind of error it is.
Fundamentalism is a reactionary movement. As you no doubt know, it came forth in the throes of conflict with modernism. The modernists denied root level doctrines, sometimes with subtlety and craft. The fundamentalist Presbyterians listed five “fundamentals” that they desired all Presbyterians to affirm: 1) Inspiration, 2) Virgin Birth 3) Vicarious atonement, 4) Bodily Resurrection, and 5) Miracles. Some think this list is exhaustive, but it is not. Other doctrines, such as the Bodily Return, are likewise root level (or “fundamental”) doctrines.
The reason these doctrines are “fundamental” is their denial represents a departure from “the faith” (Jude 3), or the “apostles’ teaching” (Ac 2.42, cf. Rm 6.17). When someone denies a root doctrine, he cannot be a Christian. He may protest, “Lord, Lord,” but his denial of the Lord’s truth shows he never knew him. When that occurs, we must obey the Lord’s instructions on separation found in 2 Cor 6.14-18. That is, we separate from all ecclesiastical entanglements–organizational bodies of unbelievers must have no part with those of believers. This kind of error is called apostasy, a falling away (lit., “standing from”) the faith.
We are saying in this series that KJOism is a root level error. That makes the error very serious. However, we need to be clear that the error isn’t necessarily an apostasy. It falls under a different category.
An illustration from church history might help. When the Baptist movement began (early 1600s), the movement started by separating from the apostate English church. There was a century of struggle, mostly for survival, as the established church sought to repress the Dissent from Baptists and others. When the suppression waned in the 18th century, a period of decline set in. Among the General Baptists (Arminian), the decline was primarily due to apostasy. Unitarianism crept into many General Baptist churches. However, the Particular Baptists also declined, but not due to heresy. They declined due to hardening, otherwise known as Hyper-Calvinism. They became so committed to the logic of their system that they refused to offer a gospel invitation in a sermon or even in personal witness lest they should offer the gospel to someone who wasn’t elect. ((Note: I am stating this simply, there are many nuances to this history.)) When Andrew Fuller came along in the later 1700s, he had to first overcome his own theology of Hyper-Calvinism, and then withdraw from those who persisted in it. His book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation: Or, The Duty of Sinners to Believe in Jesus Christ (along with the efforts of others) prompted renewal and revival among British Baptists. This led to the subsequent Great Century of Missions, inaugurated by the labors of Fuller’s friend William Carey.
The error of the Hyper-Calvinists wasn’t apostasy (standing away from truth), but “hyper-stasy” (“standing beyond truth”, or perhaps “standing even more so on truth” — the idea behind my coined term is intensification rather than falling away from). Most of them, as we consider their doctrine, were genuine brothers in Christ who were caught in an error. For the church to progress in theological health, the “non-Hypers” had to withdraw, disassociate, and move on.
The KJO error is analogous, I think. Most, if not all, of the men who hold it are otherwise orthodox in their theology. As far as we can tell from their professions of faith, they are believers. They are brothers. Yet their hyper-partisanship of their pet issue causes great division and confusion in the church. They have over-intensified the doctrine of inspiration. They are applying it where it should not be applied. Sadly, just as the Hyper-Calvinists undermined the gospel by refusing to issue the gospel call, the hyper-inspirationists have undermined the Bible’s authority by restricting its power to a single translation.
Are those standing so intensely for the King James position likely to change? Given their insistence for conformity to their views as a test of orthodoxy, can we profitably work with them? If someone is a “hyper-biblicist,” perhaps it is best for us to simply disassociate and move on. If there ever was a case for applying 2 Thess 3.14-15, this is one.
2 Thess 3.14-15 If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
Remember, not apostates, but “hyperstates.” For the health of our churches and the success of our ministries, we need to move on.
— Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Previous Posts in this Series
Comments