The FBFI and the Text and Translation Debate

I have been asked to write about how the FBFI should view the boundaries of fellowship and other practical issues relating to the text and translation controversy. A necessary starting point for discussing this matter is what the FBFI has already said. Below is a review the history of FBFI text and translation resolutions, after which I offer some conclusions. If you would like to read the resolutions, they are available at the FBFI website: https://fbfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Complete-Resolutions-2010.pdf

Review of FBFI Resolutions on the Texts and Translations

The bulk of the FBFI’s resolutions on this topic come from two time periods, the first from 1979-1984 and the second from 1992-2001. The FBFI also published a resolution in 2008 giving its position on inspiration, illumination, preservation and translation of the Scriptures.

The Late 1970s and the Early 1980s: The Initial Debates

The first period of FBFI resolutions on the text and translation question (1979-1984) corresponds to the early stage of the controversy within Fundamentalism. In 1979 the FBFI issued two resolutions. The first (reissued with only minor changes in 1980 and 1981) condemned Bible paraphrases, naming the Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man, as well as versions with a theologically liberal bias, such as the Revised Standard Version. By contrast it mentioned the KJV positively, attributing to it a “unique and special place in the English-speaking world.”

A second resolution in 1979 dealt directly with the text and translation controversy prefacing its position with the observation that the true issues in debate were often obscured by “considerable confusion and misunderstanding” and that one should be “careful, intelligent and prayerful” in the way that one addresses the issue since it relates to the “Eternal Word of God.” It also denounced those who used “violent, unfounded accusations, vicious name-calling and destructive campaigns” in advancing their positions. The resolution went on to encourage people of good will who disagree to be gracious to one another while engaging in “further scholarly discussion,” saying that there were many good people and institutions on both sides of the debate. This resolution was reiterated both in 1980 and 1982.

In 1984 the FBFI issued a resolution restating its condemnation of paraphrases and of translations produced by theological liberals (also mentioning this time the New English Bible). This resolution went on to “deplore the rash of new versions which add to or delete from the Word of God, such as the New International Version, with special reference to those so-called ‘revisions’ which by footnote additions undermine the text.” The resolution reiterated earlier statements about the special place of the KJV but adding the phrase “providentially preserved by God”: “We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version, providentially preserved by God in the Englishspeaking [sic] world.” While giving the AV this special recognition, the resolution goes on to condemn the view that any translation “is given by inspiration,” (asserting that this view had “fostered a cult”) as well as the “practice of exalting any version or translation to the position held uniquely by the original writings.”

The Decade of the 1990s: Division within Fundamentalism

 Throughout the 1990s the FBFI issued another lengthy series of statements on the text and translation controversy. In 1992 the FBFI affirmed its belief in the verbal, plenary inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the Autographs and its rejection of “any theory of double inspiration.” In a companion resolution, the FBFI again condemned “bitter and divisive tactics” as well as “vicious name calling and destructive campaigns” by some and reiterated its call to speak and write about the issue in a scholarly, courteous and considerate way “between godly fundamental brethren.” In 1993, the FBFI repeated this position, adding that “any version must reveal faithfulness in translating the best manuscripts,” although the resolution did not elaborate upon textual theories. The following year the FBFI largely repeated its stated positions on the text and version controversy, concluding with another call for respectful dialogue between the many men “who love the Lord and are faithful to the Scripture on both sides of the debate.”

In 1995 the FBFI spoke extensively about the text and version controversy, issuing two lengthy resolutions. First, along with statements reiterating its earlier positions, the FBFI explicitly addressed textual theories, stating: “No particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of inspiration with equal strength without embracing the same belief about textual criticism.” Probably in response to certain publications of the time that attacked modern as heretical and even “new age” because they differed from the AV, the resolution went on to state that the only legitimate process is to compare versions with the original languages, not another English version, adding:

Some professing Fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God’s Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of Fundamentalism. Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of Fundamentalism must be rejected.

Second, the FBFI specifically and at length condemned the heretical teaching of Jack Hyles that the “incorruptible seed” of 1 Peter 1:23 today is the King James Bible, that no one can be saved apart from the words of the King James, and that anyone that is born again from reading or hearing from other translations is “born a child of the devil.” The resolution called such notions “absurd and unbiblical,” and called upon Fundamentalists to separate from Jack Hyles, “due to his divisive tactics and teachings” and his “long-standing pattern of arrogant and dictatorial demands for unquestioning loyalty to himself and his teachings, rather than to the Word of God.” The resolution concluded that such practice “reflects a cultic mentality” and is “a mere caricature of true Biblical Fundamentalism.”

In 1996 the FBFI also condemned as heretical the teaching that the King James Version is superior to the originals in that it contains “advanced revelation.” In a different vein, resolutions in 1996 and 1997 condemned the publishers of a revised NIV for its attempts at gender neutrality.

In 1998 and again in 2001 the FBFI issued what can be thought of as summary statements of its position on the text and translation controversy. In many respects, these statements echo earlier resolutions, but they also add some clarifications. For example, in 1998 The FBFI reaffirmed that, “infallibility, inspiration, and inerrancy are posited only in the autographa and are not to be ascribed to any manuscript or version of the Holy Scriptures.” In 2001 it stated that the principle of soul liberty applies to various positions on texts and translations, and that such differences are not grounds for breaking fellowship.

In both 1998 and 2001, the FBFI denounced the practices of some in the debate, arguing that they were divisive.  In the 1998 resolution, the FBFI, while “deploring translation attempts by those not committed to the integrity of the Holy Scriptures, also “condemned those who, in an attempt to defend a particular translation, resort to perverting and misusing statements of those whom they consider their opponents.” The 2001 resolution added that “those who repeatedly attempt to unnecessarily divide Fundamentalists over this issue and [who] refuse to repent” are schismatics and should be “rejected.”

2008: A Summary of FBFI’s Position on Texts and Translations

 In 2008, the FBFI issued another summary of its position on the issue. Because it is the most recent and perhaps the most comprehensive statement, I will reproduce it in full:

Loyalty to God and His Word: Resolution Affirming the Biblical View of Inspiration, Texts, and Translation

Whereas

• The Bible claims that it is plenarily and verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit in its original writings;
• The Bible claims that it will be preserved by God throughout the ages;
• The Bible claims that its Spirit-indwelt readers will be illumined by the Holy Spirit as they read;
• The practice of translating the Scriptures into common languages was affirmed by the practice of Jesus Christ and the practice of the New Testament Church;
• The Bible makes no claim to the specific manner by which it would be preserved, or to further inspiration or perfection through any translators in any language;

The FBFI affirms the orthodox, historic, and, most importantly, Biblical doctrine of inspiration, affirming everything the Bible claims for itself, and rejecting, as a violation of Revelation 22:18–19, any so-called doctrine, teaching, or position concerning inspiration, preservation, or translation that goes beyond the specific claims of Scripture.

Also in 2008, the FBFI reiterated and elaborated upon its opposition to the gender-neutrality trend in new translations. It reaffirmed the FBFI’s commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of the words and message of the originals and, therefore, called on Bible publishers to produce translations that are faithful to the originals rather than on their perceived appeal to modern tastes and philosophies such as radical feminism. The resolution listed eleven versions (published between 1987 and 2001) as in violation of this principle.

Conclusions

1. It is fair to say that the FBFI has spoken frequently on the issue of texts and translations. By my count there are 16 FBFI resolutions that deal in whole or in part with texts and versions.
   1. These resolutions fall into two broad categories: 1) those dealing with the text and translation controversy itself; and 2) those condemning various translations for lack of fidelity to the originals or for being produced under theologically liberal or worldly influences.
   2. Some of these statements, such as the resolution in 2008 were attempts to lay out a summary of the FBFI’s position on various facets of the issue. The greater number of the resolutions, however, were responses to specific problems or errors.
   3. Frequently, the FBFI attempted to craft its resolutions in such a way as to avoid what it perceived as ditches on both sides of the road and to show respect to people both within and outside the fellowship who differed.
2. Although the resolutions display varied emphases and phraseology, the main contours of the FBFI’s position have remained relatively constant.
   1. Inspiration and inerrancy properly are attributes only of the original writings from the divinely inspired authors.
   2. Consequently, the FBFI has condemned as heretical the teaching of double inspiration, the teaching that one can only be saved from the King James Version (calling for separation from Jack Hyles as a false teacher) and the teaching that the King James Version is “advanced revelation.”
   3. The FBFI has maintained that textual theories and methods of preservation of the Scriptures are not specified by Scripture, and therefore they are matters about which godly, reasonable people may disagree while maintaining fellowship with one another.
   4. The FBFI has condemned dishonest, slanderous and divisive practices in the defense of one’s textual or translational position and has called for those who persist in such practices to be rejected as schismatic.
   5. By the same token, the FBFI has shown respect for people holding different positions and convictions about texts and versions.
   6. Although the FBFI has generally held that one’s choice of translation is a matter of soul-liberty, it has not been reluctant to condemn modern translations that it considers unfaithful, either for being insufficiently respectful of the inspiration of the originals or for reflecting liberal theology or worldly philosophy.
3. It is my view that there are still some aspects of the issue about which the FBFI needs to clarify its position. I would suggest that there are at least two:
   1. The FBFI is on record as holding to the preservation of Scripture as a matter of doctrine. It has also taken the position that it does not believe that this doctrine (or other Scriptural doctrines or principles) compels a specific textual allegiance. However, there is still a need to determine the contours of the doctrine of preservation: what are the bounds of legitimate disagreement, what are the implications for textual positions. For example, does preservation include what is often called “general availability,” and how does this affect textual arguments? On the other hand, can claims of perfect preservation in a specific text cross the line into de facto multiple inspiration?
   2. A second major question is the issue of what constitutes divisiveness over the issue? The answer to this question, of course depends upon the resolution of the issue just mentioned (It is not schismatic to separate from theological error). The FBFI has always had members that have appreciated and used the King James Version. It also has members who use other translations. When does expressing one’s conviction (perhaps enthusiastically) about a text or translation become judgmental of brethren who believe or practice differently? On the other hand, when does disagreeing (perhaps also enthusiastically) with someone else’s convictions or arguments become dismissive of one’s brother?