The notion of Multiple Version Onlyism (hence MVO) arguably began in 1901 with the American Standard Version and has developed unabated until the present day. MVO holds to the uncritical, inclusive approval of the aggregate content of every English version since 1901 as God’s Word in English. MVO includes both formal and dynamic equivalency including paraphrases, idiosyncratic translations such as the New Revised Standard Version’s inclusion of Psalm 151, and niche interpretations based on feminist readings, for example. The sole exclusion to this aggregate is the King James Version.

Initially, MVO accepted all renderings as equally valid because it was held that no substantive doctrinal differences existed in the aggregate: all renderings were simply variations of the same theme. Choice of preferred bible versions could only be aesthetic. But with the proliferation of bible versions, the sheer number of various renderings brought every reading into question until no one knew for sure what the bible was saying.

Questions about the bible are responded to according to a scale from most unlikely to most likely correct but not in terms of infallibility. With the addition of each successive translation, what was first conceived to make a “better” translation, instead exacerbated the growing epistemological malaise by expanding the translational perspectives and options within the aggregate. Subsequent translations were not seen as “better” or replacements of previous editions as was the case with the historic development of the King James Version from Tyndale onward but were simply added to the dissonance of previously printed versions.

At this juncture in MVO transitioned the bible from being a sacred text to the research of academics. The viva vox dei, “living voice of God,” was replaced with a seat in a Ph.D. course on history, linguistics, and theology. The professors in this case are the versions, which as witnesses to their authors, the scholars, is open to the same critical inquiry common in Ph.D. courses. Answers and conclusions are not asserted right or wrong but are decided by whatever the student deems most valid. Critical thinking minds take and leave what they hear from which they formulate their own ideas and systems. And so it is with MVO functioning within a personal and ecclesiastical context. The subject, the MVO adherent, the final authority, ultimately determines what in the MVO aggregate is consistent with their own ideas and systems. The most skilled in MVO produce their own translation.

In 1998 Peter Van Kleeck, Sr. published a monograph entitled Fundamentalism’s Folly? A Bible Version Debate Case Study in response to a symposium entitled The Bible Version Debate: The Perspective of Central Baptist Theological Seminary released by Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, MN, 1997. Of particular interest was the finding that the leaders of Fundamentalism were always multiple version only advocates.

For many years the printed lecture that became Fundamentalism’s Folly? has been out of print but now an expanded revision of the 1998 edition is again available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle formats. The following is a short excerpt from the printed lecture.

“The sectarian aspect of this work is identified when the interpretation of Central Seminary’s historical perspective is done only by nineteenth- and twentieth century fundamentalists.^[1] This emphasis begs the question of whether Central Seminary’s fundamentalists forefathers were disconnected from the history of interpretation and exegesis on the capital doctrine of providential preservation. Would these forefathers have supported the claim that no verse of Scripture argues for providential preservation against the ecclesiastical history of the sacred text and subsequent versions?

                If such support were forthcoming, it would be correct to say the Central Seminary is consistent with sectarian Fundamentalism but is isolated from the exegetically informed churchly tradition. This sectarian fundamentalist break with orthodoxy becomes more evident when advocates of providential preservation must depart from Fundamentalism for a truly historical defense of Reformation Bible traditions and particularly the continuing worth of the King James Version. For instance, Dr. Donald Waite, a fundamentalist depends on the Anglican John William Burgon for his polemic. Dr. Edward F. Hills, a Presbyterian, provides a covenantal, erudite defense of Scripture’s providential preservation. Dr. Theodore Letis, a Lutheran, likewise presents a sound and compelling argument. A Princeton-trained Baptist, Dr. David Otis Fuller, was also abandoned by his fundamentalist brothers for his defense of the King James Version. Dr. Larry D. Pettegrew is apparently correct when he writes that one is “actually less of a fundamentalist” if he holds to the King James Version.^[2] The question, then, is whether to be identified with Central Seminary’s form of sectarian Fundamentalism on this point is commendable.

                Among sectarian fundamentalists there is an earnest if not perplexing desire to maintain sound doctrine. This tension is due to the struggle that ensues between maintaining the tenets of the faith while also arguing for a fluid source of exegesis. An uncritical assessment of this tension is made early by Dr. Douglas R. McLachlan, who writes, “We believe there is merit in investigating and probing the abundance of available manuscripts evidence which is accessible to the serious student. The we can preach and teach with the authority of a true biblicist, speaking God’s absolute truth accurately, passionately and relevantly into the hearts and minds of our post-modern world.”^[3] If we can speak “God’s absolute truth,” one might contemplate how this is to be done when distinguishing between two divergent readings of Hebrews 2:16, “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (King James Version) and “For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but he does give aid to the seed of Abraham” (New King James Version). The validity of McLachlan’s assertion is never proven by these essays. The idea of “God’s absolute truth” is spoken of dogmatically, implying that no major doctrine is infringed upon, but clearly McLachlan’s words do little to resolve the doctrinal tension indicative of this illustration and other similar passages. In keeping with the conclusions drawn by the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century exegetes, apart from exegetical confirmation, McLachlan’s claim to being able to speak “God’s absolute truth” is absurd.

                This essay is not confined to a narrow sectarian scope of history perceived by nineteenth- and twentieth-century fundamentalists, but accesses the writing of leading figures of the historic churchly exegetical tradition to ask, “How can we claim to have developed a satisfactory approach to the Bible version debate if our findings are incompatible with the way God’s people have read the Scriptures throughout the centuries? If what is being said is not consistent with the exegetical tradition, how can we know if it is orthodox?”

[1] Grisanti, Bible Version Debate Ibid., 137, 139. The oldest bibliographical resourse cited are those of F. H. A. Scrivener (1874, 1884, 1894); and W. Hort (1888). For noted fundamentalists see 10-12.

[2] Grisanti, Bible Version Debate, 13.

[3] Grisanti, Bible Version Debate, 4; cf. 105 n. 43.

Common Place IIII.

Of the Holy Scripture

What is the Scripture called?

The Scripture, putting one name for another is used for the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, which the company of the faithful doth religiously use for the instruction in godliness. And it is called holy, because, being delivered of God, it containeth holy things necessary unto eternal life. And in the same sense it is called the written word of God, and the unappealable Judge of all controversies of religion. Isa. 8:20; Luke 16:29-31.

Who is the Author of it?

God himself, who did commit his will unto writing by men called immediately of himself, and inspired by the Holy Ghost as his servants at hand, (as his penmen and public notaries) 2 Peter 1:21. For the Prophecy was not at any time brought by the will of man, but the holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. Hereupon all the Prophets do with one accord repeat this, The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, Isa. 58:14. These things saith the Lord, Eze. 12:25, 28. 2 Tim. 3:16, The whole Scripture is given of God by inspiration. 1 Cor. 2:13, Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. Whereupon depend the adjuncts of the Scripture, as the authority, the excellency, the truth, and fulfilling of them, which is necessary, as it must needs be that God is true. Whence also it comes to pass, that the Scripture alone is to be believed, for its self of its self is worthy to be believed. Neither is it subject to the censure, addition, diminution, or alternation of angels or men, Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18. It alone is without all error, and we are bound to believe it alone upon the bare affirmation thereof. By it alone all opinions which men shall read, are to be confirmed and to be decided. This alone is perfect, and containeth all things necessary unto life eternal. Lastly, it is firm and constant, Deut, 17:9,10; Isa. 8:20; Mal. 2:7; Acts 17:2; Joshua 1:8; Job 5:39; Acts 17:11; Psalm 19:8; Luke 16:29; John 15:15; Acts 20:20, 27; 2 Tim. 23:16,17; 2 Peter 1:19.

How may it appear that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were indicted of God?

Partly by testimonies, partly by reason. And the testimonies, partly inward, partly outward. The internal witness is one alone; namely of the holy Ghost inwardly speaking to our heart, and persuading us that those writings are inspired of God, and sealing them up in our hearts, Eph. 1:13; 1 John 2:20, 27, Ye have an anointment of the Lord, and this anointment teaching you all things. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, can easily discern his power speaking in the Scriptures. As it is said, 1 Cor. 2:15, The spiritual man discerneth all things, and Isa. 53:1, The arm of the Lord is not revealed to all men. So, Luke 8:10 and Mark 13:11, The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are not revealed to all men, but to whom it is given of God. And this testimony properly maketh for our confirmation, and this alone doth satisfy us, being known of them alone that are converted unto Christ, which doth evermore agree with the Scripture, without which the testimony of the Church can be no weight with us. For as none but God alone is a fit witness to testify of himself in his word, even so the word never findeth credit in our hearts, till such time as it be sealed up unto us by the inward testimony of the Spirit.*

*Note the continuity of Bucanus’ commentary with that of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, Ch. 1.5., “yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with and by the Word in our hearts.”

William Bucanus, Body of Divinity or Institutions of the Christian Religion; framed out of the Word of God, and the writings of the best divines, methodically handled by was of questions and answers, fit for all such as desire to know and practice the will of God. Written in Latin. Translated into English by Robert Hill and Fellow at St. Johns College in Cambridge, for the benefit of the English Nation. (London: Printed for Daniel Pakeman, Abel Roper and Richard Tomlins, and are to be sold in Fleet-street, and at the Sun and Bible near Py-corner, 1659), 42, 45-46.

In Dr. Van Kleeck’s excellent article on “Reason and Theology” three uses of reason in the formulation and defense of theology are identified. This post is an excerpt from a 17^th c. commentary on Daniel where reason is utilized to answer the doctrine of the ubiquitous presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Daniel 3:27

Controversy: Against Ubiquitarians

“They which maintain the omnipresence of Christ’s flesh, and the body of Christ may be in the Eucharist, without the essential properties thereof, as circumscription, quantity, visibility, and such life, do thus reason out of this place [Daniel 3:25]. The burning heat is an essential property of the fire, but this was separated from the fire, and yet the essence of the fire remained. Therefore the essential properties of a thing may be separated from it, the nature still remaining.

Contra 1. The burning faculty of the fire is not an essential property, but an effect of the heat, which is an essential quality of fire.

2. The heat was not separated from the fire, for then it should no longer be fire but the heat thereof was only restrained and hindered from working, and that not generally but only where the servants of God were, for without the furnace of flames killed the king’s ministers. If the fire had lost the heat, the miracle had not been so great, for the thing not being hot, not to be burnt. Polan.

3. If all this were admitted, it serveth not their turn, for the Scriptures testifieth that there was fire and it burned not. They must then allow the like warrant for their miracle in the Eucharist, that the body should be there without the due properties. It followeth not because it pleased God at this time to set forth his glory, that he should do so continually.

Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Danielum: that is, a sixfold commentary upon the most divine prophecy of Daniel. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1610, 115.

God’s word may be set over into English, for the most part word for word without absurdity. Where our language will not bear the strict propriety of the original phrases, we are warranted by the Apostles allegations of Scripture in another tongue, to use such words as the language will afford, to express other withal. Though tongues differ one from another in propriety of speeches, yet God hath sanctified them all, for instruments to convey his word and law unto us, and this is writing as well as in speaking, Dan. 2:4, etc., Acts 1:4; 8:9-11; 15:23; Rev. 1:11, 19.

Written sermons are the works of men. God’s book set into English, though with some diversities of phrase, is God’s book and word still, (as hath been shown) it is not the letter or sound, but the thing signified and meant by them, which properly is God’s word, and which we are so to reverence.

Henry Ainsworth, A Defense of the Holy Scriptures, worship and ministry used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist: Against the challenges, cavils and contradiction of M. Smith, in his book entitled The Differences of the Churches of the Separation (Amsterdam: Giles Thorp, 1609), 60.

The Apostle, better to encourage Timothy to study the Holy Scriptures, goeth on to prove that they are able to make one wise unto salvation, and that by drawn from a full and sufficient enumeration of those things which are necessary to salvation, where he commends the Holy Scriptures upon, a threefold account: 1. For their Dignity and Authority; 2. For their Utility; 3. For their Perfection.

1. He commends them for their Dignity and Divine Authority, as coming immediately from God. Verse 16, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (By inspiration of the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Truth, and led the writers of these Writings into all Truth, so that they could not err. Dutch Annot. In locum.

2. For the singular Utility, which is four-fold. First, for Doctrine to teach the Truth. Secondly, for Reproof of error and false doctrine. Thirdly, for correction of sin and evil manners. Fourthly, for Instruction in Righteousness and good works.

3. For their complete perfection, enabling a Minister for his office, verse 17, especially those four parts of it before named, v. 16.

The Apostle commends the Scriptures in respect of their Divine Authority, they have not angels or men for their Author; the Prophets and Apostles were but penmen, secretaries and instruments of the Holy Ghost, to write what he should dictate to them. So the angels were God’s messengers to declare the Law to his people, Galatians 3:19. The Scriptures have God himself for their more immediate Author, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, all and every part of Scripture is Divinely inspired, or breathed by God, both for Matter, Order, Style and Words.

Those Holy men of God did not only utter their words by the Holy Ghosts immediate direction, but by the same direction did commit them to writing, that they might be standing Rule to the Church forever: for the bare memories of men would not have kept them for us with such certainty as they have been kept in Scripture, and delivered to us. So that what David said of himself, is true of all penmen of Holy Scripture, the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his Word was in my tongue, 2 Samuel 23:2. It is he that spake by the mouth of his Holy Prophets, Luke 1:70, and bid them write, Revelation 14:12. They spake not what pleased themselves, but they spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Peter 1:21. They were powerfully moved; acted, and carried out of themselves to write, say and do, what God would have them, Nehemiah 9:30, Micah 3:8, Acts 28:25, Hebrews 13:7.

Thomas Hall. A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 272-273.