The Controversy Continues

Transcription

1 1 Sunday, March 9, 2014 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Grace Histry Prject Lessn 130 The Life and Ministry f C. Richard Jrdan: Leaving the Bible Sciety, Part 3 The Cntrversy Cntinues At the cnclusin t his Searchlight article The KJV Cntrversy and Cmmn Sense frm Nvember, 1987, Stam stated the fllwing regarding the King James Versin (KJV) cntrversy:... Be assured, hwever, that we have n intentin f engaging in a running battle ver this subject... (240) Hwever, remaining true t frm, Stam culd nt let it g. Three times in 1988 Stam ran articles in the Searchlight addressing the issue. Mrever, the sermn he delivered n June 19, 1988 at the 20 th Annual Bible Cnference f the Berean Bible Fellwship was titled Here, By Grace, I Stand it was devted t the Bible issue. In September, 1988 Stam ran an article in the Searchlight titled, A Plea fr Renewal: T Clse the Chapter n the KJV Only Cntrversy. In this article, Stam calls this cntrversy the greatest crisis f ur histries. (173) In additin, Stam accuses Richard f launching a secret mvement t prmte KJV nly thery frm the BBS. In addressing the Annual Bible Cnference f the Berean Bible Fellwship fur years ag (1984), this writer said in part: This is a bright day fr the s-called Grace Mvement, with s many dedicated yung men n fire fr the preaching f Jesus Christ accrding t the revelatin f the mystery. I said this with a full heart fr, during the years that had preceded, there had been a steady grwth f interest in the Pauline message with its riches f grace and glry. Here at Berean Bible Sciety frm 1980 t 1983 it seemed everything was grwing: the Searchlight circulatin; ur radi ministry; and ur written ministry in general were all expanding as increasing numbers f peple, especially yung peple, rdered quantities f ur Bible study bks fr themselves and thers. Mst encuraging letters were received frm thse whse eyes had been pened t the truth f the Pauline revelatin, and increasing numbers f yung men were being asked t speak at the BBF Bible Cnferences. Sme even became members f the Bard f Directrs. ( ) What Stam des nt tell his readers, r at least hpes they will nt realize, is that the great grwth he describes ccurred during the exact years that Richard tk ver running the ministry and began the netwrk f reginal Bible cnference meetings. Cnsequently, it is nt a stretch t say that the grwth Stam is describing in thse years was largely due t the effrts f Richard Jrdan. Pastr Bryan Rss

2 2 Next Stam pivts and begins attacking Richard: Even as I spke, in 1984, a secret mvement was already aft t prmte a KJV ONLY thery, an extreme philsphy cncerning ur belved King James Versin that des nt have ne scintilla f Scriptural supprt. This thery, s far frm being edifying t the saints, resulted in heated debates, prlnged arguments, widespread divisin and deep bitterness, with the breaking up f churches, families and clse friends. In the years fllwing 1984, Berean Bible Sciety and the Berean Bible Fellwship were caught up in the greatest crisis either f us had ever experienced a crisis I surely did nt need at age eighty and in ill health. Here at BBS we began receiving letters warning us that a KJV ONLY mvement was being established thrugh Berean Bible Sciety. Sme asked pintedly whether I believed this unscriptural dctrine; was I cmprmising; was I trying t gradually intrduce a new dctrine? Nt a few stpped supprting BBS. This, f curse, led t mre frequent discussins abut the matter with the then president f BBS, until it became necessary t hld a Bard f Directrs meeting with him abut the subject in Nvember, Even befre this he had written, at my request, an article fr the Nvember, 1986 Searchlight in which he acknwledged that he had indeed taught this dctrine, but that he had been in errr. Als, he wrte a very tuching letter f aplgy t the Bard f Directrs and t me, prmising that he wuld d all in his pwer t set things right. That he did the very ppsite has nw been widely prven. As a result f his teaching, bth BBF and BBS fund urselves, as we have said, in the greatest crisis f ur histries. Thank Gd, bth rganizatins have nw dealt penly and firmly with the matter, bth hlding the dctrine t be unscriptural, and sme f its leaders less than hnrable in their effrts t prpagate their beliefs and attain their bjectives. ( ) In his Memirs published in 2003, Stam makes similar statements regarding the King James Cntrversy f the late 1980s.... the greatest crisis f my life and f the histry f the Berean Bible Sciety. This ne invlved the Bible itself, fr a KJV ONLY grup was whittling the eternal, infinite Wrd f Gd dwn t the wrds f ne TRANSLATION. They argued, and still d, that the King James Versin (they called it the King James Bible) and it alne, is the inspired, infallible Wrd f Gd, verbally inerrant, and ur final authrity in matters f faith and practice. Pastr Bryan Rss

3 3 It was in the summer f 1986 that it became evident that, right frm headquarters here at the Berean Bible Sciety, a secret attempt was being made t establish a strng KJV ONLY mvement. In fact, we were being blamed fr this, fr naturally it was thught that we were behind it and the teachings were emanating frm Berean Bible Sciety. Infrmatin as t all the intrigue invlved and the persn s respnsible will be better left untld in this vlume, but suffice it t say that, but fr the grace f Gd, Berean Bible Sciety might sn have becme a KJV ONLY rganizatin under KJV ONLY auspices... A year later ur sister rganizatin, the Berean Bible Fellwship, was faced with the same crisis (different details, same peple) and, thank Gd, als ruled that the KJV ONLY dctrine was whlly unscriptural and the tactics f sme f its leaders less than hnrable. (Stam, Memries, ) As we stated abve, Stam carried the cntrversy frward int 1988 by cntinuing t write abut it in the Searchlight. Once again, a cnsideratin f these cmments reveals that Stam nt nly never understd Richard s psitin but was arguing fr a nebulus Bible that he culd nt lcate. Mre Light n the KJV Questin appeared in the February, 1988 issue f the Searchlight. Stam begins the article by stating the fllwing in the sectin titled First, A Persnal Testimny. I believe the cmplete Bible t be the abslute inerrant, infallible Wrd f Gd and ur final authrity in matters f faith and practice. I say, cmplete because n translatin can pssibly cnvey all the truth set frth in the manuscripts (mss) which Gd riginally inspired. Smething is always lst in an extended translatin frm ne language t anther. Thus, smetimes we must dig further int the riginal languages t find light which the translatin cannt and des nt reveal. (332) Please recall frm ur last study that Stam said the Bible was nt preserved in the riginal manuscripts r in any translatins s where is this cmplete Bible that Stam is speaking f? Despite these statements, tw paragraphs later Stam writes, Is it legitimate, then, t call KJV the Bible, r Gd s Wrd? I believe it is, n the basis explained by the translatrs themselves in their letter T the Reader. Next Stam turns his reader s attentin t varius editins f the KJV t argue that it cannt pssibly be inerrant. If s, which editin? The late editin, which mst Inerrant KJV believers use? This wuld be like the pastr saying, The bible the King James Versin, is wrd-fr-wrd, Pastr Bryan Rss

4 4 the inspired, inerrant Wrd f Gd, while hlding up a late editin f the KJV! Fr remember, the King James Versin has been edited and revised several times. Is it then the riginal 1611 editin f the KJV that is wrd-fr-wrd inspired and inerrant? Then what abut the hundreds f marginal ntes put in by the translatrs, suggesting alternate readings? This itself prves that the KJV text is nt inerrant nt even the riginal 1611 editin... But mre: if the 1611 editin f the KJV is the wrd-fr-wrd, inspired, inerrant Wrd f Gd, it surely must fllw that the English-speaking peple had n Bible prir t 1611 and that nn-english-speaking peple tday have n Bible at all. ( ) There are tw issues here we need t address. First, we addressed in 2011 in ur lecture n inerrancy at the Grace Impact Summer Family Bible Cnference hw the slight differences in wrding bservable in the varius editins f the KJV d nt equate t differences in meaning. Secnd, Stam s cmments regarding English speaking peple nt having a Bible prir t 1611 demnstrates a fundamental misunderstanding f Richard s psitin as des his cmments regarding nn-english speaking peple. As we bserved last week, Richard believed that the King James Bible was Gd s Wrd fr English speaking peple because it was a prper translatin f the prper text. Remember that the underlying text is the issue. After already stating in Nvember, 1987 that the riginals were nt preserved, Stam stated the fllwing in February, 1988: Obviusly, belved, cmplete perfect inerrancy is t be fund nly in the riginal manuscripts. We surely have Scripture fr that, but nne fr the inerrancy f any future translatin. Indeed, if yu nw hld the inspired mss, plus a translatin t bth be inerrant, yu have tw, different inerrant Bibles, d yu nt? ( ) This statement is a cmplete straw dummy fr tw reasns: 1) it is nt cnsistent with his cmments frm his article frm Nvember, 1987; 2) it is nt even remtely reflective f what Richard s psitin actually was. Stam cncludes his February, 1988 article by stating: Ever since the fall, everything man has tuched has been tainted by sin and imperfectin EXCEPT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. That is what the Bible teaches yes, ur King James Versin f the Bible. (336) S nce again we must ask Mr. Stam, is the King James Versin the Bible r isn t it? In December, 1988, the Searchlight ran an article by Pastr Stam titled, A Persnal Testimny Abut Hebrew and Greek. In this article, Stam gives his thughts n the place Hebrew and Pastr Bryan Rss

5 5 Greek cncrdances ught t play in ne s Bible study. As we read his cmments keep mind the qute abve as well as the ttality f what we have bserved Stam t have said regarding this issue. In cnsulting these cncrdances, we are actually studying the very wrds (Hebrew and Greek) f the riginal Gd-breathed manuscripts, and again and again Gd gives us ne precius glimpse int His riginal meaning. Only a glimpse, we say, and nly nw and then, fr ur English Bible is remarkably accurate in mst cases but nt always, and then these Hebrew and Greek cncrdances can be f great help. Mrever, ne des nt need t be a Hebrew r Greek schlar t be able t use the tw vlumes mentined. They were cmpiled fr Englishmen. (269) We already bserved Stam t have said that the riginals were nt preserved (Nvember, 1987). He already argued that it was impssible fr an English translatin t be the preserved wrd f Gd (Nvember, 1987). Furthermre, EVERYTHING man has tuched since the fall has been tainted by sin and imperfectin EXCEPT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD (February, 1988). Yet in December, 1988, Stam argues that by studying the ENGLISHMEN S HEBREW AND GREEK CONCORDANCES ne is studying the very wrds f the riginal Gd-breathed manuscripts. S a cncrdance prepared by a man cntains the wrds f the riginals that were nt suppsed t have been preserved accrding t Stam, but a translatin int English by a great cmpany f men cannt pssibly be the Bible. S des Stam want his readers t believe that Gd s wrd is preserved wrd-fr-wrd in the Englishmen s Hebrew and Greek Cncrdances? This is the height f absurdity. This is s imprtant t understand, fr Gd s Wrd is nt limited t ne translatin in any language, but t the wrds f the riginal manuscripts, and it is these we need t cnsider mre carefully. But since all, bviusly, cannt g int the Hebrew and Greek, ur ascended Lrd graciusly gave sme pastrs and teachers (Ephesians 4:11). Als, remember Jhn 10:4: His sheep... knw His vice, and Jhn 16:13: the Spirit... will guide yu int all truth. Gd, fr His wn wise reasns and we knw sme f them has nt seen fit t preserve the riginal manuscripts fr us in ne bk, but diligent students are richly rewarded as they find these wrds preserved fr us in Hebrew and Greek reference wrks, and s learn t better understand the sense f His precius Wrd. By this methd, He gives us perhaps just ne glimpse f further light at a time, but what is mre precius t the child f Gd than ne ray f light frm His blessed Wrd? (270) Richard s successr, Pastr Paul Sadler, cntinued t address the KJV cntrversy in the Searchlight int The Octber, 1989 issue f the Searchlight cntained a letter frm the editr (Sadler) addressing the Bible issue. Sadler advanced the same narrative that we have bserved in Stam and adds nthing new t the discussin that we have nt already cnsidered. Sadler cntinued t address a psitin that Richard did nt hld, namely that the KJV was a wrd-fr-wrd preservatin f the riginal manuscripts. T date we have studied n printed Pastr Bryan Rss

6 6 dcumentatin that wuld indicate that Stam r Sadler ever grasped Richard s actual psitin much less adequately refuted it. Paul Sadler mved t Chicag t becme the new president f the BBS in December, Pastr Sadler had been pastring Falls Bible Church in Menmnee Falls, WI when Stam apprached him abut replacing Richard as President f the BBS in the fall f Sadler agreed n the cnditin that the cngregatin and bard f his church supprt the mve. The cngregatin agreed t relinquish their pastr prvided he culd still preach as they searched fr his replacement. Sadler immediately began cmmuting t Chicag three days a week t keep the ministry f the BBS mving frward. Sadler has been the president f BBS since December, (Berean Bible Sciety Webpage) A bk was published in 1990 t cmmemrate the 50 th anniversary f the Bible Sciety. Unfrtunately, there is n mentin f the fact that Richard Jrdan was ever president f the BBS during the 1980s. In fact, Richard s name appears nwhere in this vlume. The chrnlgy leaves ut his tenure and picks up with Pastr Sadler, thereby leaving the unsuspecting reader with the impressin that Stam handed the Presidency directly t Sadler. Pastr Stam died Sunday, March 9, 2003 frm cancer at the age f 94. (Chicag Tribune) While we have been critical f Stam at times thrughut this study we must, fr the recrd, acknwledge that Stam was the greatest champin f the 20 th century fr the distinct message and ministry f the Apstle Paul. The bdy f Christ wes a huge debt f gratitude t Pastr Stam fr his wrks sake. His bks Things That Differ, Mses and Paul, and The Tw Fld Purpse f Gd are classic wrks that intrduced untld numbers f peple t the truth f Gd s wrd rightly divided. The Berean Searchlight has been read in mre hmes fr a lnger perid f time than any ther Grace peridical. The men wh came t understand the Grace Alternative Dctrines (GADs) did s largely n accunt f what they learned abut rightly dividing the wrd f truth frm Pastr Stam. While we wish Stam wuld have been mre pen t further advancement in dispensatinal Bible study and that his psitin n the Bible wuld have been mre cherent and cnsistent, there is much t respect regarding the stand this man tk fr mid-acts Pauline Dispensatinalism. Pastr Bryan Rss

7 7 Wrks Cited Stam, C.R. and Paul Sadler. Histry f the Berean Bible Sciety. Stam, C.R. The KJV Cntrversy and Cmmn Sense, in the Berean Searchlight. Nvember, Stam, C.R. Mre Light n the KJV Questin, in the Berean Searchlight. February, Stam, C.R. A Plea fr Renewal: T Clse The Chapter n the KJV Only Cntrversy, in the Berean Searchlight. September, Stam. C.R. A Persnal Testimny Abut Hebrew and Greek, in the Berean Searchlight. December, Stam, C.R. The Memirs f Pastr Crnelius R. Stam. Germantwn, WI: Berean Bible Sciety, Pastr Bryan Rss