“Even before there was a New Testament to appeal to as the written authority for Christian faith and practice, the implicit apostolic faith of early Christianity revolved around the scandal of the deity of Christ. The reason Christians held on to it tenaciously in the face of pagan ridicule and Roman persecution as well as all kinds of attempts to water it down was that it was the linchpin of the gospel. If it were removed in any way, then the hope for eternal participation in God’s own life and for forgiveness and restoration to the image of God would fall apart. The gospel itself would be wrecked.”

Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1999), 150.

1. The manuscripts behind the KJV might be more in number, but they are not the oldest and most accurate manuscripts.
2. The Greek text behind the KJV is the Textus Receptus which was compiled by Erasmus, and by his own admission, the Textus Receptus is to be evaluated just like another work.
3. The Textus Receptus received the very same kind of opposition at the time of it’s publication that new translations receive from KJV only advocates. The Latin Vulgate had been the accepted translation for hundreds of years and people didn’t like the idea of finding a better translation for their Bible.
4. The translators of the KJV, in the Introduction to their work from 1611, professed to do their best, but challenged the reader to understand that they are human and can still make errors, thus the reader must read with discernment.
5. The KJV went through several revisions. There is no “one and only” King James Version.
6. The KJV has translational errors in it because it is a work of men.
7. The claim that modern translations diminish the deity of Christ is unfounded and untrue.
8. Jesus and the apostles used a translation of the Old Testament, which wasn’t the KJV.
9. The Bible never sanctifies one translation over another, nor condemn the use of translations.

“It is a growing conviction of mine that no parish can fulfill its true function unless there is at the very center of its leadership life a small community of quietly fanatic, changed and truly converted Christians. The trouble with most parishes is that nobody, including the pastor, is really greatly changed. . . .

We do not want ordinary men. Ordinary men cannot win the brutally pagan life of a city like New York for Christ. We want quiet fanatics.”

John Heuss, Our Christian Vocation (Greenwish, 1955), pages 15-16.

HT: Ray Ortland

In studying James chapter 2, I had to wrestle with the apparent contradiction between James and Paul. The example that jumped off the page for me was 2:24 – “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” For anyone familiar the doctrines (or solas) of the Reformation, this sounds directly contrary to sola fide, which refers to being justified by faith alone.

But upon looking at it closer and being guided by my Greek professor, Dr. Varner, there is no contradiction, but rather a nice complement. One of the keys to understanding the complement is to correctly understanding how each author uses their terms. The following chart is my attempt to clarify those terms.

Does that make sense? Leave a comment if something is confusing or seems wrong.

“Indeed, the criterion of successful churches in the future is not how much Bible knowledge their people have, [or] how strong their pastor is in the pulpit . . . While content and pulpit expertise aren’t to be minimized, the biblical measure of success is whether they’re making disciples.”

Aubrey Malphurs, Planting Growing Churches For The 21st Century (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 30.