Archival Series: Kevin Bauder, There He Goes Again, Redefining Fundamentalism

Pastor Marc Monte

In his recent essay, “Another One Bites the Dust,” Dr. Kevin Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, analyzes the unfortunate trend of the dissolution of Fundamentalist institutions of higher learning.  Dr. Bauder is a brilliant man and prolific writer who has bequeathed a wealth of thought-provoking material to the Lord’s church.  His book, Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order, is a poignant defense of the Baptist position concerning both the polity and the practice of Baptist churches.  This author uses Dr. Bauder’s book and he recommends it widely.

Dr. Bauder’s recent article seeks to address reasons for the demise of many prominent Fundamentalist colleges and seminaries.  Going beyond the standard arguments of cultural shift and constituency alienation (both of which, he postulates, are legitimate issues), Dr. Bauder presents additional, not-often-considered factors pertinent to the death of these institutions.  His analysis deserves thoughtful consideration as Fundamentalist institutions move into the “brave, new world” of the 21^st Century. 

In such a thoughtful article, it is unfortunate that Dr. Bauder could not resist his penchant for trashing what he describes as the “King James Only orbit.”  It appears to this avid Bauder reader that the good professor harbors unreasonable angst toward fellow fundamentalists who hold to a view of manuscript evidences different from his own.  His classification, “King James Only orbit,” paints with a broad brush, thereby unfairly dismissing legitimate theological positions within that orbit.

More than most men, Dr. Bauder understands that precise theology is nuanced theology.   For example, Dr. Bauder would not accept the tenants of every form and presentation of Calvinism.  He would be careful to distinguish his brand of Calvinism from others, emphasizing the nuances of his position as opposed to others.  This author contends that the same careful, nuanced approach should apply to the “King James Only orbit.”  There are some within the “orbit” who hold to a false theory of double inspiration.  There are others, however, who simply appeal to the Textus Receptus manuscripts as their authority, rejecting other differing manuscripts as spurious.  Such a view is not heterodox.  It is a legitimate, nuanced theological position.  To hold such a position does not place one outside the fundamentalist theological sphere.  Indeed, the Lord’s church held to the infallibility of those apographs (manuscript copies) for over 1800 years.  Only in the late 1800’s did the text of the New Testament suffer significant destabilization with the publication of newly discovered, variant manuscripts.

Dr. Bauder’s most jarring and politically charged statement appears with his textual position playing loudly in the background:

“The King James Only crowd likes to boast that schools like Pensacola Christian College and West Coast Baptist College are thriving, and that may be true. These colleges, however, are not representative of fundamentalist institutions, and their prosperity does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.” (Emphasis added.)

Herein, Dr. Bauder grievously errs. To say that Pensacola and West Coast are not “representative of fundamentalist institutions” redefines, once again, fundamentalism.  Neither school denies nor do they adulterate any point of the classical fundamentalist credo.  Their doctrinal statements are readily available for anyone’s inspection.  In addition, both schools practice personal and ecclesiastical separation, the hallmark of fundamentalism. The fact that these schools specify allegiance to a specific Greek text in no way diminishes their fundamentalist credentials.  In addition, both schools have a strong fundamentalist heritage.  In the case of Pensacola, it has flourished within the sphere of fundamentalism for decades.  Many fundamentalist churches recommend both Pensacola and Bob Jones as options within the fundamentalist realm.  Dr. Bauder’s needlessly divisive statement lacks both theological and historical support.

The second portion of his statement is even more troubling:  The prosperity of these colleges “does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.”  Frankly, this author could scarcely believe a man of Dr. Bauder’s intellectual stature would make such an all-encompassing, condemnatory statement.  To claim disagreement with a nuanced theological issue is one thing; but to claim that these schools do “not do anything to help normal fundamentalism” demeans the work and dedication of sincere servants of Christ.  His statement slanders thousands of pastors who recommend Pensacola and West Coast, classifying godly men as somehow as not “normal.” And his statement simply isn’t true.  Thousands of fundamentalist pastors find in these schools a place of believing scholarship for their students.  Both of these schools have sent out thousands of Christian workers into the harvest fields of the world.  Both of these schools proclaim and defend the “faith once delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3).  Both take missions, church planting, and evangelism seriously and both have seen stellar success in these areas.  Both are filling the fundamentalist pulpits of America with men sound in the faith and zealous for the redemption of the lost. 

Succinctly stated, Dr. Bauder’s declaration is both irresponsible and indefensible. 

While Dr. Bauder has presented much good analytical material in his article—material that deserves thoughtful consideration—he has, once again, marred his work with an unnecessary rant against Christian people—fellow fundamentalists—who love and serve the Lord.  He seems bent on making enemies where he could have found friends, and, in so doing, he repeats an error plaguing fundamentalism from its inception—an error which increasingly alienates intelligent young men and women from the fundamentalist movement.


Ps. Marc Monte
Faith Baptist Church, Avon
Originally Published on March 9, 2015.

For a continuation of this discussion from Pastor Monte, please see:

An Antecdotal Answer to the Demise of Fundamentalist Schools

Related Reading:
We’re Not Convinced Kevin Bauder is a Help to Fundamentalism

Previous Articles by Ps. Monte:

Muddying the Clearwaters 

Bauder’s position differs markedly from the strong stance of R.V. Clearaters. “Doc,” as he was called, had no trouble “calling a spade and spade.” Bauder struggles with that…. For reasons known only to himself, Bauder mocks those whose doctrinal concerns include bibliology, the blood atonement and sovereignty/free will.

Kevin Bauder: It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know

“If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be the guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading.  It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.”

 Genuine Integrity Demands a Simple Admission 

What troubles [me], however, is the nagging feeling that Jeff Straub was attempting to convey more than just mere admiration for stands well taken. His not-so-subtle mention that both of these pastors are entrenched in the SBC appears to lend tacit approval to the denominational organization…. Dr. Clearwaters was not one to speak well of the “denominational machine.” Genuine integrity demands a simple admission from institutional leadership that they are moving from the separatist principles of their founders.

Related Reading:
A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

Kevin, while reading your articles I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching, and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching.  Make no mistake, old fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching is exactly why I founded Central Seminary.  My burden was to train men with an air-tight understanding of the Scriptures, with the ability to stand in pulpits across the land and preach, “thus saith the Lord,” with the desire to start churches and win souls to Christ.  To the contrary, I did not start the school over which you [Bauder] preside, for men to flounder in unbelief, for them to wonder for decades where they stand, or for them to be given to counseling, teaching and academic idolatry.  I often told the men I was training, “We use the mind here, but we do not worship it.” Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate that you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings…away from the testimony upon which [Central Seminary] was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.

Piedmont/TTU: A Predictable Pattern of Mergers With Only One Survivor

What Do NIU, Pillsbury and (NOW) TTU Have in Common?

Archival Series- Kevin Bauder: There He Goes Again, Redefining Fundamentalism

Pastor Marc Monte

In his recent [3/6/15] essay, “Another One Bites the Dust,” Dr. Kevin Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, analyzes the unfortunate trend of the dissolution of Fundamentalist institutions of higher learning.  Dr. Bauder is a brilliant man and prolific writer who has bequeathed a wealth of thought-provoking material to the Lord’s church.  His book, Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order, is a poignant defense of the Baptist position concerning both the polity and the practice of Baptist churches.  This author uses Dr. Bauder’s book and he recommends it widely.

Dr. Bauder’s recent article seeks to address reasons for the demise of many prominent Fundamentalist colleges and seminaries.  Going beyond the standard arguments of cultural shift and constituency alienation (both of which, he postulates, are legitimate issues), Dr. Bauder presents additional, not-often-considered factors pertinent to the death of these institutions.  His analysis deserves thoughtful consideration as Fundamentalist institutions move into the “brave, new world” of the 21^st Century. 

In such a thoughtful article, it is unfortunate that Dr. Bauder could not resist his penchant for trashing what he describes as the “King James Only orbit.”  It appears to this avid Bauder reader that the good professor harbors unreasonable angst toward fellow fundamentalists who hold to a view of manuscript evidences different from his own.  His classification, “King James Only orbit,” paints with a broad brush, thereby unfairly dismissing legitimate theological positions within that orbit.

More than most men, Dr. Bauder understands that precise theology is nuanced theology.   For example, Dr. Bauder would not accept the tenants of every form and presentation of Calvinism.  He would be careful to distinguish his brand of Calvinism from others, emphasizing the nuances of his position as opposed to others.  This author contends that the same careful, nuanced approach should apply to the “King James Only orbit.”  There are some within the “orbit” who hold to a false theory of double inspiration.  There are others, however, who simply appeal to the Textus Receptus manuscripts as their authority, rejecting other differing manuscripts as spurious.  Such a view is not heterodox.  It is a legitimate, nuanced theological position.  To hold such a position does not place one outside the fundamentalist theological sphere.  Indeed, the Lord’s church held to the infallibility of those apographs (manuscript copies) for over 1800 years.  Only in the late 1800’s did the text of the New Testament suffer significant destabilization with the publication of newly discovered, variant manuscripts.

Dr. Bauder’s most jarring and politically charged statement appears with his textual position playing loudly in the background:

“The King James Only crowd likes to boast that schools like Pensacola Christian College and West Coast Baptist College are thriving, and that may be true. These colleges, however, are not representative of fundamentalist institutions, and their prosperity does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.” (Emphasis added.)

Herein, Dr. Bauder grievously errs. To say that Pensacola and West Coast are not “representative of fundamentalist institutions” redefines, once again, fundamentalism.  Neither school denies nor do they adulterate any point of the classical fundamentalist credo.  Their doctrinal statements are readily available for anyone’s inspection.  In addition, both schools practice personal and ecclesiastical separation, the hallmark of fundamentalism. The fact that these schools specify allegiance to a specific Greek text in no way diminishes their fundamentalist credentials.  In addition, both schools have a strong fundamentalist heritage.  In the case of Pensacola, it has flourished within the sphere of fundamentalism for decades.  Many fundamentalist churches recommend both Pensacola and Bob Jones as options within the fundamentalist realm.  Dr. Bauder’s needlessly divisive statement lacks both theological and historical support.

The second portion of his statement is even more troubling:  The prosperity of these colleges “does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.”  Frankly, this author could scarcely believe a man of Dr. Bauder’s intellectual stature would make such an all-encompassing, condemnatory statement.  To claim disagreement with a nuanced theological issue is one thing; but to claim that these schools do “not do anything to help normal fundamentalism” demeans the work and dedication of sincere servants of Christ.  His statement slanders thousands of pastors who recommend Pensacola and West Coast, classifying godly men as somehow as not “normal.” And his statement simply isn’t true.  Thousands of fundamentalist pastors find in these schools a place of believing scholarship for their students.  Both of these schools have sent out thousands of Christian workers into the harvest fields of the world.  Both of these schools proclaim and defend the “faith once delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3).  Both take missions, church planting, and evangelism seriously and both have seen stellar success in these areas.  Both are filling the fundamentalist pulpits of America with men sound in the faith and zealous for the redemption of the lost. 

Succinctly stated, Dr. Bauder’s declaration is both irresponsible and indefensible. 

While Dr. Bauder has presented much good analytical material in his article—material that deserves thoughtful consideration—he has, once again, marred his work with an unnecessary rant against Christian people—fellow fundamentalists—who love and serve the Lord.  He seems bent on making enemies where he could have found friends, and, in so doing, he repeats an error plaguing fundamentalism from its inception—an error which increasingly alienates intelligent young men and women from the fundamentalist movement.


Ps. Marc Monte (Originally published March 9, 2015)
Faith Baptist Church, Avon

For a continuation of this discussion from Pastor Monte, please see:

An Antecdotal Answer to the Demise of Fundamentalist Schools

Previous Articles by Ps. Monte:

Muddying the Clearwaters 

Bauder’s position differs markedly from the strong stance of R.V. Clearaters. “Doc,” as he was called, had no trouble “calling a spade and spade.” Bauder struggles with that…. For reasons known only to himself, Bauder mocks those whose doctrinal concerns include bibliology, the blood atonement and sovereignty/free will.

Kevin Bauder: It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know

“If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be the guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading.  It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.”

 Genuine Integrity Demands a Simple Admission 

What troubles [me], however, is the nagging feeling that Jeff Straub was attempting to convey more than just mere admiration for stands well taken. His not-so-subtle mention that both of these pastors are entrenched in the SBC appears to lend tacit approval to the denominational organization…. Dr. Clearwaters was not one to speak well of the “denominational machine.” Genuine integrity demands a simple admission from institutional leadership that they are moving from the separatist principles of their founders.

Related Reading:
A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

Kevin, while reading your articles I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching, and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching.  Make no mistake, old fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching is exactly why I founded Central Seminary.  My burden was to train men with an air-tight understanding of the Scriptures, with the ability to stand in pulpits across the land and preach, “thus saith the Lord,” with the desire to start churches and win souls to Christ.  To the contrary, I did not start the school over which you [Bauder] preside, for men to flounder in unbelief, for them to wonder for decades where they stand, or for them to be given to counseling, teaching and academic idolatry.  I often told the men I was training, “We use the mind here, but we do not worship it.” Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate that you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings…away from the testimony upon which [Central Seminary] was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.

Piedmont/TTU: A Predictable Pattern of Mergers With Only One Survivor

What Do NIU, Pillsbury and (NOW) TTU Have in Common?

I Agree With the King James Version

“The Levites caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.  So they read in the book in the law distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”

(Nehemiah 8:7-8)

Dr. Rick Flanders

Something was missed by the church-going public when ecclesiastical authorities, biblical scholars, and religious publishing houses began producing new English versions of the Bible more than a century ago.  That important factor was the change in the text of the scripture from the traditional wording that has been followed for centuries.  The new Bibles did not just give us updated language; they gave us (beginning with the Revised Version of 1886) significantly altered readings, re-wording passages in the original, as well as re-translating them into more current English.  So the Lord’s Prayer, both in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, was shortened.  The end of the book of Mark, which includes one statement of the Great Commission (Mark 16:15), is removed from credibility.  The classic story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53 through 8:11) is questioned as to its validity.  And hundreds of other verses are omitted or radically altered.  So the new Bibles were significantly different from the old Bible.

It wasn’t surprising then when a grassroots challenge to the new Bibles rose up about fifty years ago.  The surprise was that there had not been a significant protest over the text issue from the Bible-reading public much sooner.  But thousands of books, pamphlets, and articles have been published in the past half-century in defense of the King James Bible and in protest against the textual changes in the new Bibles.  It has been proven that the new texts are considerably different from the traditional text, that the changes are not justified by the evidence, that the Bible promises that its wording will be preserved providentially, and that a Christian’s approach to the Biblical text will have important affects upon his life.  The defense of the old Bible has been a good thing overall.

The “King James Version” issue is valid.  There is good reason for churches to keep the old Bible for preaching, teaching, memorization, and quotation.  There are also valid reasons for individual Christians and families to maintain the King James Version as their standard English Bible.  However, in the conflict, many foolish and harmful things have been said on the right side.  This development has complicated the discussion and done some damage to the Cause.  The false impression has been given by some unwise statements that the exact English wording of the Authorized (King James) Version was dictated from heaven during production of the translation in the early seventeenth century.

We know that God has promised to preserve the very wording of the Bible books, which He gave to the prophets in the original languages.  Every Christian should remember the New Testament’s teaching about how the scripture was inspired.  Read again Matthew 4:3-4, First Corinthians 7-13, Second Timothy 3:15-17; and Second Peter 1:20-21.  The Bible came from God, word for word, through human writers, and is the infallible Word of God.  In the languages of the prophets it is divinely inspired, and in any accurate rendering into another language it is also inspired.  Certainly He providentially assisted the good men who worked at translating these words into English, but the promises of exact and direct inspiration cannot reasonably be applied to every translation choice and word spelling of the English version.  Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18).   That, of course, is one of the great promises of the divine preservation of scripture, and it applies obviously to the words in the original languages.  English does not have jots and tittles (although Hebrew does), and so the promise of Jesus is for the original languages.

Saying unwarranted things about the English translation can be the source of many problems. Our overstatement of the case can actually provoke reaction against the truth.   Missionaries from the church will struggle with requirements that the English be the final authority in countries where the people speak other languages.  What if the Spanish translation is not exactly the same as the English in every place?  The truth is that whole books put into two different languages cannot be precisely alike in every definition, every implication, and every possibility on every page.  Words in another tongue are not always capable of exact duplication of meaning.  Isn’t it better to compare both translations with the traditional Hebrew and Greek?  Young people from the church will have problems with double-inspiration when they figure out in college that people they love have been saying without scriptural warrant that both the original scriptures and the English translation were dictated by God Himself.  The truth is that the translators of the King James Version had the correct a balanced view of their own work and the product of their work.  They never claimed that they produced our English Bible by having the words given to them as they were given to the prophets in the original tongues.  We create problems when we make claims for the English Bible that the 1611 translators did not make. 

Fortunately the translators wrote a preface to the Authorized Version for the first edition in 1611.  It is titled “The Translators to the Reader,” and is available for us today.  The translators of the King James Bible were good men, dedicated churchmen, and genuine scholars.  They took the responsibility of putting the Bible into English seriously.  The king of England chose highly qualified men to do the job of producing a standard Bible for English-speaking people through the translation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and the revision of older popular English versions.  Their work became the most revered book in the language, as well as the standard English Bible without any serious completion for more than three centuries.  In their lengthy preface, the translators defended their work and its product, and made many things clear about their views in regard to the Authorized Version and how it came to be.  We need to be reminded of at least five points they made.

1.     THE BIBLE IS PERFECT

The translators saw their task as a great privilege as well as a monumental responsibility.  As they wrote the preface and defended their work, they emphasized the importance of the work because of how important the writings are which they were putting into the language of the people.  The scriptures comprise the written Word of God, which is the source of everything good in society.  “What piety without truth?” they asked rhetorically.  “What truth, what saving truth, without the word of God?  What word of God, whereof we may be sure, without the Scripture?”  The Bible is the collection of sacred writings which have been penned under divine inspiration and preserved in purity for all generations.  The translators of the King James Bible, it is clear from the Preface, had no doubt about the truth, the divine origin, and the purity of the scriptures.  It is the “sure” Word of God.  Unlike many Bible translators in modern times, these men had no doubts about the divine origin and accurate preservation of the Bible.  This is why it was vital that the translation into English be faithful and accurate.

2.     TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE ARE GOOD

God gave His Word in three ancient languages, Hebrew, Syriac (Aramaic or Chaldean), and Greek.  However the translators were convinced that translating it into the common tongues of the people of the world was not only a good thing but also something critical to man’s wellbeing.  “Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.  But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand?  How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?...the godly learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin… but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only, but also by the written word translated.”  It is foolish to say (although some who ought to know better do) that we would be better off if the scriptures had been left in the original tongues, and men had to learn Hebrew and Greek to read them.  As far as the meaning of the words is conveyed from the original through the language into which it was translated, a translation is the Word of God.  It is also foolish to say that translations are precisely identical to the writings in the original languages.  Translation is a wonderfully good thing for the purpose of getting the Word to the world, but it is not the same as inspiration, the process by which the Holy Spirit moved the prophets to write down the very words of God.  It is the duty of those gifted, trained, and called to put the Bible into the tongues of the people.

3.     TRANSLATION FROM THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES IS BEST

Of course, the translation of the scriptures from the original languages into the other tongues of the world went on long before the King James Version was produced.  Some of the translations were made directly from the original languages, and some were made from other translations.  The so-called “Latin Vulgate” produced by Jerome, for example, was translated from the Hebrew Old Testament and from the Greek New Testament, rather than from the Greek translation of the Old Testament or one of the previous Latin versions of the New Testament scriptures. The translators remark, “S. Hierome [St. Jerome] maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein he did excel; because he translated not the Old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew.  And in what sort did these [translators of older versions] assemble?  In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh?  At no hand.  They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening, and no man shutting; they trusted to the Lord…If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.  These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty themselves into the gold.  Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original, tongues; Saint Hierome, fountains.”  The best translations will come from the original texts, our translators insisted.  This is why they announced on the title page that their work had been “Translated Out of the Original Sacred Tongues.”  The King James translators would not have insisted that Bibles put into new languages on the mission field be translated from their English text.  They would have recommended (if possible) translation from Hebrew and Greek.  And I agree with them!

4.     ALTERNATE TRANSLATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE

The 1611 King James Bible included alternative translations of some words in the margins, giving the reader the opportunity to consider other ways certain words in the original might have been correctly put into English.  The marginal notes were not suggesting textual revisions, but rather translation alternatives.  And changing a sentence or a word from one language into another always involves making choices.  There is not always only one right word in the second language for the word in the original.  Also some words are particularly difficult to translate.  The Preface states, “It hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we resolve upon modesty…There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once…so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places…Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?”  They were giving us their honest opinion, along with alternative views, of how the text can best be rendered.  So other choices put in the margins were appropriate.  It was their honesty and humility that motivated them to do this, and also to put the words into italics which they had inserted for continuity in English although they did not appear in the original.  They were being honest with us and giving us the opportunity to make the best interpretation.  We must remember that the supreme issue in the modern version controversy is the text.  We fight for the purity of the traditional text, and not always for the validity of a particular way of translating it in a certain place.

5.     GOD HELPED US IN OUR WORK

“Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.”  The translators assured us that they had done their very best to put the Bible into English, using the minds and the training God had given them, and asking the Lord to help them.  They described their work in terms of “honest and Christian endeavors.”  God helped them as He helps us do our service for Him.  They did not claim that God had dictated the words of the English version, as the prophets “were moved by the Holy Ghost” (Second Peter 1:2).  The miracle of divine inspiration was reserved to the prophets.  Certainly Providence gave the King James translators remarkable success in their work.  Albert Barnes, the remarkable commentator of the early nineteenth century, said of the King James Version,

“No translation of the Bible was ever made under more happy auspices; and it would now be impossible to furnish another translation in our language under circumstances so propitious.  Whether we contemplate the number, the learning, or the piety of the men employed in it; the cool deliberation with which it was executed; the care taken that it should secure the approbation of the most learned men, in a country that embosomed a vast amount of literature; the harmony with which they conducted their work, or the comparative perfection of the translation, we see equal cause of gratitude to the great Author of the Bible that we have so pure a translation of his word.”

But to talk as if the precise translation choices and even the spelling of the words (which, by the way, has been improved, updated, and revised several times over the years) were divinely inspired is to go beyond what the godly translators claimed for themselves.

When Ezra the priest brought a copy of the Law of Moses to be read before the congregation of pilgrims that had gathered before the water gate of the restored city of Jerusalem, he had the reading in Hebrew translated and explained in the common tongue of the empire by certain godly Levites who “caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8).  This reading and interpreting of the Word of God had a powerful effect on the people.  When the holy scriptures were put into English, first by Wycliffe, then by Tyndale, then by later revisers, and then by those who gave us the King James Version, the world was powerfully effected as the learning of truth made men free.  There are many reasons for Christians in our turbulent times to keep the treasure they gave us, but also to regard their work of translation with them same reserve and humility as they did.

Dr. Rick Flanders

Revival Ministries

Kevin Bauder: There He Goes Again, Redefining Fundamentalism

Pastor Marc Monte

In his recent essay, “Another One Bites the Dust,” Dr. Kevin Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, analyzes the unfortunate trend of the dissolution of Fundamentalist institutions of higher learning.  Dr. Bauder is a brilliant man and prolific writer who has bequeathed a wealth of thought-provoking material to the Lord’s church.  His book, Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order, is a poignant defense of the Baptist position concerning both the polity and the practice of Baptist churches.  This author uses Dr. Bauder’s book and he recommends it widely.

Dr. Bauder’s recent article seeks to address reasons for the demise of many prominent Fundamentalist colleges and seminaries.  Going beyond the standard arguments of cultural shift and constituency alienation (both of which, he postulates, are legitimate issues), Dr. Bauder presents additional, not-often-considered factors pertinent to the death of these institutions.  His analysis deserves thoughtful consideration as Fundamentalist institutions move into the “brave, new world” of the 21^st Century. 

In such a thoughtful article, it is unfortunate that Dr. Bauder could not resist his penchant for trashing what he describes as the “King James Only orbit.”  It appears to this avid Bauder reader that the good professor harbors unreasonable angst toward fellow fundamentalists who hold to a view of manuscript evidences different from his own.  His classification, “King James Only orbit,” paints with a broad brush, thereby unfairly dismissing legitimate theological positions within that orbit.

More than most men, Dr. Bauder understands that precise theology is nuanced theology.   For example, Dr. Bauder would not accept the tenants of every form and presentation of Calvinism.  He would be careful to distinguish his brand of Calvinism from others, emphasizing the nuances of his position as opposed to others.  This author contends that the same careful, nuanced approach should apply to the “King James Only orbit.”  There are some within the “orbit” who hold to a false theory of double inspiration.  There are others, however, who simply appeal to the Textus Receptus manuscripts as their authority, rejecting other differing manuscripts as spurious.  Such a view is not heterodox.  It is a legitimate, nuanced theological position.  To hold such a position does not place one outside the fundamentalist theological sphere.  Indeed, the Lord’s church held to the infallibility of those apographs (manuscript copies) for over 1800 years.  Only in the late 1800’s did the text of the New Testament suffer significant destabilization with the publication of newly discovered, variant manuscripts.

Dr. Bauder’s most jarring and politically charged statement appears with his textual position playing loudly in the background:

“The King James Only crowd likes to boast that schools like Pensacola Christian College and West Coast Baptist College are thriving, and that may be true. These colleges, however, are not representative of fundamentalist institutions, and their prosperity does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.” (Emphasis added.)

Herein, Dr. Bauder grievously errs. To say that Pensacola and West Coast are not “representative of fundamentalist institutions” redefines, once again, fundamentalism.  Neither school denies nor do they adulterate any point of the classical fundamentalist credo.  Their doctrinal statements are readily available for anyone’s inspection.  In addition, both schools practice personal and ecclesiastical separation, the hallmark of fundamentalism. The fact that these schools specify allegiance to a specific Greek text in no way diminishes their fundamentalist credentials.  In addition, both schools have a strong fundamentalist heritage.  In the case of Pensacola, it has flourished within the sphere of fundamentalism for decades.  Many fundamentalist churches recommend both Pensacola and Bob Jones as options within the fundamentalist realm.  Dr. Bauder’s needlessly divisive statement lacks both theological and historical support.

The second portion of his statement is even more troubling:  The prosperity of these colleges “does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.”  Frankly, this author could scarcely believe a man of Dr. Bauder’s intellectual stature would make such an all-encompassing, condemnatory statement.  To claim disagreement with a nuanced theological issue is one thing; but to claim that these schools do “not do anything to help normal fundamentalism” demeans the work and dedication of sincere servants of Christ.  His statement slanders thousands of pastors who recommend Pensacola and West Coast, classifying godly men as somehow as not “normal.” And his statement simply isn’t true.  Thousands of fundamentalist pastors find in these schools a place of believing scholarship for their students.  Both of these schools have sent out thousands of Christian workers into the harvest fields of the world.  Both of these schools proclaim and defend the “faith once delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3).  Both take missions, church planting, and evangelism seriously and both have seen stellar success in these areas.  Both are filling the fundamentalist pulpits of America with men sound in the faith and zealous for the redemption of the lost. 

Succinctly stated, Dr. Bauder’s declaration is both irresponsible and indefensible. 

While Dr. Bauder has presented much good analytical material in his article—material that deserves thoughtful consideration—he has, once again, marred his work with an unnecessary rant against Christian people—fellow fundamentalists—who love and serve the Lord.  He seems bent on making enemies where he could have found friends, and, in so doing, he repeats an error plaguing fundamentalism from its inception—an error which increasingly alienates intelligent young men and women from the fundamentalist movement.


Ps. Marc Monte
Faith Baptist Church, Avon

For a continuation of this discussion from Pastor Monte, please see:

An Antecdotal Answer to the Demise of Fundamentalist Schools

Previous Articles by Ps. Monte:

Muddying the Clearwaters 

Bauder’s position differs markedly from the strong stance of R.V. Clearaters. “Doc,” as he was called, had no trouble “calling a spade and spade.” Bauder struggles with that…. For reasons known only to himself, Bauder mocks those whose doctrinal concerns include bibliology, the blood atonement and sovereignty/free will.

Kevin Bauder: It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know

“If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be the guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading.  It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.”

 Genuine Integrity Demands a Simple Admission 

What troubles [me], however, is the nagging feeling that Jeff Straub was attempting to convey more than just mere admiration for stands well taken. His not-so-subtle mention that both of these pastors are entrenched in the SBC appears to lend tacit approval to the denominational organization…. Dr. Clearwaters was not one to speak well of the “denominational machine.” Genuine integrity demands a simple admission from institutional leadership that they are moving from the separatist principles of their founders.

Related Reading:
A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

Kevin, while reading your articles I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching, and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching.  Make no mistake, old fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching is exactly why I founded Central Seminary.  My burden was to train men with an air-tight understanding of the Scriptures, with the ability to stand in pulpits across the land and preach, “thus saith the Lord,” with the desire to start churches and win souls to Christ.  To the contrary, I did not start the school over which you [Bauder] preside, for men to flounder in unbelief, for them to wonder for decades where they stand, or for them to be given to counseling, teaching and academic idolatry.  I often told the men I was training, “We use the mind here, but we do not worship it.” Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate that you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings…away from the testimony upon which [Central Seminary] was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.

Piedmont/TTU: A Predictable Pattern of Mergers With Only One Survivor

What Do NIU, Pillsbury and (NOW) TTU Have in Common?