The Dean Burgon Society and King James Bible Research Council are both significant organizations defending the preservation of Scripture. They stand for the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus, specifically the Hebrew Masoretic Text that underlies the King James Version, essentially the 1524-1525 edition of Jacob Ben Chayyim, and the Greek Textus Receptus ed. Scrivener, as well as the Authorized Version itself. These are noble goals, highly to be commended.
Reasons to Join
The Dean Burgon Society’s doctrinal statement affirms:
Acknowledging the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible,
plenarily and verbally inspired Word of God, among other equally Biblical
truths, we believe and maintain the following:
plenarily and verbally inspired Word of God, among other equally Biblical
truths, we believe and maintain the following:
A. THE BIBLE.
We believe in the plenary, verbal, Divine inspiration of the
sixty-six canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis to
Revelation) in the original languages, and in their consequent infallibility
and inerrancy in all matters of which they speak. The books known as the
Apocrypha, however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever.
As the Bible uses it, the term “inspiration” refers to the writings,
not the writers; the writers are spoken of as being “holy men of God”
who were “moved,” “carried” or “borne” along by
the Holy Spirit in such a definite way that their writings were
supernaturally, plenarily, and verbally inspired, free from any error,
infallible, and inerrant, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be
inspired.
sixty-six canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis to
Revelation) in the original languages, and in their consequent infallibility
and inerrancy in all matters of which they speak. The books known as the
Apocrypha, however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever.
As the Bible uses it, the term “inspiration” refers to the writings,
not the writers; the writers are spoken of as being “holy men of God”
who were “moved,” “carried” or “borne” along by
the Holy Spirit in such a definite way that their writings were
supernaturally, plenarily, and verbally inspired, free from any error,
infallible, and inerrant, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be
inspired.
We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the
original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for
the Old Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version (as found
in “The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of
1611”).
original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for
the Old Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version (as found
in “The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of
1611”).
We, believe that the King James Version (or Authorized
Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of
these two providentially preserved Texts, which in our time has no equal among
all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in
their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized
Version of 1611 and say “This is the WORD OF GOD!” while at the same
time realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original
language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.
Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of
these two providentially preserved Texts, which in our time has no equal among
all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in
their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized
Version of 1611 and say “This is the WORD OF GOD!” while at the same
time realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original
language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.
We believe that all the verses in the King James Version
belong in the Old and the New Testaments because they represent words we
believe were in the original texts, although there might be other renderings
from the original languages which could also be acceptable to us today. For an
exhaustive study of any of the words or verses in the Bible, we urge the
student to return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the
Traditional Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help.
belong in the Old and the New Testaments because they represent words we
believe were in the original texts, although there might be other renderings
from the original languages which could also be acceptable to us today. For an
exhaustive study of any of the words or verses in the Bible, we urge the
student to return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the
Traditional Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help.
This statement is commendable. So is the portion on Bibliology in the doctrinal statement of the King James Bible Research Council:
As a council of Fundamental, Bible Believing Christians…
We believe the HOLY SCRIPTURES, the 66 canonical books of
the Old and New Testaments, are given by inspiration of God, and are able to
make men wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
the Old and New Testaments, are given by inspiration of God, and are able to
make men wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
We believe that God has providentially preserved His Word,
including the very words of Scripture, in the traditional texts of the Bible.
including the very words of Scripture, in the traditional texts of the Bible.
We believe the King James Version preserves, by accurate
translation, the inerrancy of the Greek Received Text and the Hebrew/Aramaic
Masoretic text for English speaking people.
translation, the inerrancy of the Greek Received Text and the Hebrew/Aramaic
Masoretic text for English speaking people.
While I prefer the doctrinal statement here as a more precise statement on preservation than either of the formulations above, they are both commendable and something that members of true churches should be able to agree upon and defend.
Furthermore, both organizations publish useful material on the topic of the KJV and Bible preservation. The Dean Burgon Society in particular sells a large number of very valuable books. They have a very extensive catalog with some great works defending the preservation of Scripture. Dr. D. A. Waite’s Fourfold Superiority of the King James Version is a classic on the topic that is worth reading. The Defined King James Bible is a great resource that defines at the bottom of each page the words that can be misunderstood in the KJV because of changes in the English language since 1611. It makes a great Bible for a pew and for the home use of the saints in the pew. The publications of both the Dean Burgon Society and the King James Bible Research Council on preservation are worth reading. While I believe that the DBS’s unwillingness to call translated Scripture “inspired” in any sense of the word is an overreaction to Ruckmanism (see, for example, my exegetical study of 2 Timothy 3:16 in relation to this question and my review of H. D. William’s book The Miracle of Inspiration), their opposition to Ruckmanite error is highly commendable and, indeed, essential for the truth about the perfect preservation of Scripture to continue in the long term among the saints.
Furthermore, as far as I can tell, both the president of the Dean Burgon Society, Dr. Donald A. Waite, and the president of the King James Bible Research Council, Dr. David Brown, are fundamental Baptists pastoring independent Baptist churches. This, of course, is also a very good thing.
Reasons Not to Join
Regrettably, despite all of the wonderful things about the Dean Burgon Society and the King James Bible Research Council, fidelity to Scripture and its Author impels me to refuse to join either organization. Why? First, because neither organization takes a clear stand on a pure gospel. Neither organization’s doctrinal statement says a word about repentance. The DBS statement simply affirms:
We believe that salvation accomplished by Christ is
experienced only through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit by the Word
of God, not by works, but by God’s sovereign grace through personal faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour.
experienced only through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit by the Word
of God, not by works, but by God’s sovereign grace through personal faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour.
The King James Bible Research Council statement affirms:
We believe that men are justified by faith alone, and are
accounted righteous before God only because of the merit of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.
accounted righteous before God only because of the merit of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.
Those statements are, of course, entirely true, but they are insufficient when the modern damnable heresy of Hyles and others that repentance does not involve turning from one’s sins is spreading its hellish leaven through many fundamental Baptist churches. As this blog has noted recently, confusion on repentance is even present among some Fundamental Baptist Fellowship leaders such as John Mincy (see here and here). Others who do not overtly adopt the heresy publish contradictory and confusing ideas that muddy the clear Biblical truth (e. g., the truth mixed with horrible error in such statements as: “If repent means turning from sins, why did Jesus die?” here). All of this is clearly contrary to the plain Biblical teaching that repentance does indeed involve turning from one’s sins to Christ as Lord and Savior, as well as the teaching of every major Baptist confession of faith on this topic (for exegetical and historical proof, see here).
So where do the Dean Burgon Society and the King James Bible Research Council stand on the gospel, specifically on the nature of repentance? I was greatly grieved to learn that the KJBRC’s annual meeting this year is going to be at the grounds of a religious organization that officially opposes the Biblical doctrine of gospel repentance, namely, the Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church in Lake Zurich, IL, which runs the Dayspring Bible College. The college’s doctrinal statement affirms:
Repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in
salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man may have
and to accept God’s way of salvation. Repentance does not in any sense include
a demand for a change of conduct before or after salvation. Matthew 21:32, Acts
20:21, II Corinthians 7:8-10. One of the counterfeits Satan is using today is
the misuse of the word repent. To insist upon repentance that in any sense
includes a demand for a change of conduct either toward God or man is to add an
element of works or human merit to faith. Penance is payment for sin. Penitence
is sorrow for sin. Works add something of self in turning from sin. But repent
(metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of
mind from any idea of religion that man might have and accepting God’s way of
salvation. Nowhere does Scripture use the phrase, “repent of sin to be saved.”
salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man may have
and to accept God’s way of salvation. Repentance does not in any sense include
a demand for a change of conduct before or after salvation. Matthew 21:32, Acts
20:21, II Corinthians 7:8-10. One of the counterfeits Satan is using today is
the misuse of the word repent. To insist upon repentance that in any sense
includes a demand for a change of conduct either toward God or man is to add an
element of works or human merit to faith. Penance is payment for sin. Penitence
is sorrow for sin. Works add something of self in turning from sin. But repent
(metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of
mind from any idea of religion that man might have and accepting God’s way of
salvation. Nowhere does Scripture use the phrase, “repent of sin to be saved.”
Not only does this statement adopt the heretical and corrupt doctrine of repentance absent from Scripture and all Baptist confessions, it even calls it a counterfeit of Satan. Is that acceptable to the King James Bible Research Council? I asked the president, Dr. Brown, concerning this matter. What I sent him (in part) was the following:
Contrary to this [Dayspring] statement, and in accord with the Biblical
evidence covered at http://faithsaves.net/soteriology/ and in many other
places, I agree with every classic Baptist confession of faith (and every Koine
Greek lexicon that defines metanoeo, for that matter) and believe as follows:
evidence covered at http://faithsaves.net/soteriology/ and in many other
places, I agree with every classic Baptist confession of faith (and every Koine
Greek lexicon that defines metanoeo, for that matter) and believe as follows:
[S]aving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a
person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his
sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow,
detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of
grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before
God unto all well-pleasing in all things. (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel
36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:128) (2nd London Baptist
Confession of Faith, Article 15)
person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his
sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow,
detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of
grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before
God unto all well-pleasing in all things. (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel
36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:128) (2nd London Baptist
Confession of Faith, Article 15)
“Unfeigned repentance
is an inward and true sorrow of heart for sin, with sincere confession of the
same to God, especially that we have offended so gracious a God and so loving a
Father, together with a settled purpose of heart and a careful endeavor to
leave all our sins, and to live a more holy and sanctified life according to
all God’s commands” (The Orthodox Creed, Baptist, 1679).
is an inward and true sorrow of heart for sin, with sincere confession of the
same to God, especially that we have offended so gracious a God and so loving a
Father, together with a settled purpose of heart and a careful endeavor to
leave all our sins, and to live a more holy and sanctified life according to
all God’s commands” (The Orthodox Creed, Baptist, 1679).
As the modern idea that repentance does not involve turning
from sin/sins, and the Biblical and Baptist truth that repentance does indeed
involve turning to Christ from one’s sin/sins, are two radically different
ideas, and one of them is highly displeasing to God, according to Galatians
1:8-9, I was wondering if the King James Bible Research Council took a stand on
the true gospel and, with the Triune God and those who love Him, passionately
love the true gospel and loathe, detest, and expose false gospels, or if two
radically different views of how the lost appropriate salvation are acceptable
to the council, as long as one has a nice view on the preservation of
Scripture.
from sin/sins, and the Biblical and Baptist truth that repentance does indeed
involve turning to Christ from one’s sin/sins, are two radically different
ideas, and one of them is highly displeasing to God, according to Galatians
1:8-9, I was wondering if the King James Bible Research Council took a stand on
the true gospel and, with the Triune God and those who love Him, passionately
love the true gospel and loathe, detest, and expose false gospels, or if two
radically different views of how the lost appropriate salvation are acceptable
to the council, as long as one has a nice view on the preservation of
Scripture.
My sincere hope is that somehow the horrible statement on
the Dayspring website is an oversight which will immediately be removed once it
it brought to the attention of the sincere people who put it there, and/or that
the King James Bible Research Council had no idea that such a rejection of the
gospel was found in the Dayspring website, and will hold its meeting elsewhere
where Christ’s true gospel is embraced, if the dear people at Dayspring are
unwilling to renounce the corruption of the gospel presented on their website.
the Dayspring website is an oversight which will immediately be removed once it
it brought to the attention of the sincere people who put it there, and/or that
the King James Bible Research Council had no idea that such a rejection of the
gospel was found in the Dayspring website, and will hold its meeting elsewhere
where Christ’s true gospel is embraced, if the dear people at Dayspring are
unwilling to renounce the corruption of the gospel presented on their website.
Sadly, Dr. Brown indicated that the KJBRC had no intention whatsoever of doing anything about the corrupt gospel promulgated by Dayspring. It was not something to make an issue, so it seems. I would reproduce his exact words to me in his e-mail, but when I asked him about this, he did not give me permission to do so; I will therefore refrain from giving you his exact words. It is sufficient to say that the KJBRC is still planning on meeting there. A corrupt gospel is not a problem for them; two utterly contradictory views of repentance, at least one of which is Satanic, are fine as long as one believes in the KJV. Paul stated that “no other doctrine” was to be allowed in the church (1 Timothy 1:3), and when Peter confused a lesser issue that only indirectly related to the gospel–eating with Gentiles rather than only with Jews (Galatians 2:14), Paul withstood him to his face (Galatians 2). For Paul, those actually promulgating a false gospel were not tolerated, “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue” (Galatians 2:5). Sadly, for the KJBRC, a corrupt gospel is to be tolerated, and with such an attitude, the truth of the gospel will not continue. Vast multitudes are screaming in hell today because of the abominable rejection of repentance taught by Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church and Dayspring Bible College, and vast multitudes more will adopt and teach their heresy, leading to the damnation of multitudes more, if such apostasy is tolerated. Anyone who cares about the purity of the gospel, loves the holy Lord of the church who wants a pure Bride for Himself, or who believes in Biblical separation, should avoid KJBRC meetings and membership in their organization.
What about the Dean Burgon Society? I asked Dr. Waite the following question:
Good day! I was
looking over the Dean Burgon Society articles of faith here:
looking over the Dean Burgon Society articles of faith here:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS_Society/articles.htm
and I just wanted to confirm that in the article on
“salvation” here:
“salvation” here:
We believe that salvation accomplished by Christ is
experienced only through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit by the Word
of God, not by works, but by God’s sovereign grace through personal faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour.
experienced only through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit by the Word
of God, not by works, but by God’s sovereign grace through personal faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour.
That it allows for the following:
a.) Both advocates of what is called “Lordship
salvation” and what is called “Free Grace” theology could be DBS
members (as long as they agreed to everything else in the doctrinal statement,
of course)
salvation” and what is called “Free Grace” theology could be DBS
members (as long as they agreed to everything else in the doctrinal statement,
of course)
and:
b.) Both Calvinists and Arminians could be DBS members (as
long as they agreed to everything else in the doctrinal statement).
long as they agreed to everything else in the doctrinal statement).
Dr. Waite’s response (which he did give me permission to post) was, in part:
Though “free
grace theology” is not defined, the above DBS doctrine of SALVATION is
totally and completely opposed to “LORDSHIP SALVATION.” Those who believe in this as defined by John
MacArthur and others could not HONESTLY sign our DBS doctrinal statement. . . . Our doctrinal
statement does not address either “Calvinists” or
“Arminians.”
grace theology” is not defined, the above DBS doctrine of SALVATION is
totally and completely opposed to “LORDSHIP SALVATION.” Those who believe in this as defined by John
MacArthur and others could not HONESTLY sign our DBS doctrinal statement. . . . Our doctrinal
statement does not address either “Calvinists” or
“Arminians.”
Thus, it appears that so-called “Free Grace” soteriology is acceptable at the DBS, although contrary to Scripture (see here), as well as both Calvinism and Arminianism, but not Lordship salvation. While it is possible that Dr. Waite takes the view that Lordship salvation is some form of salvation by works, an (inaccurate) view in which he is joined by other sincere and godly men, the very minimum one can say is that the Dean Burgon Society is not clear on repentance, allows for errors on that topic, and even allows people who think you can lose your salvation to be members, but those who take a strong stand for receiving an undivided Christ who is both Lord and Savior are not accepted.
There are other reasons not to join the King James Bible Research Council and the Dean Burgon Society, such as weak ecclesiology. One does not need to be a Baptist, but can be a baby-sprinkler, and the organizations themselves are parachurch. I wanted to emphasize the view of the gospel, though, in this post. Thus, sadly, despite the many wonderful books published by the DBS and the sound stand on preservation contended for by both organizations, the answer to the question “Would I join them?” is an indubitable “no,” for the reasons listed above. I would not join them, and neither should you.
"…although there might be other renderings from the original languages which could also be acceptable to us today."
Do you believe that?
If so, give me "some renderings" that are "acceptable" today.
How about "Passover" for "Easter" in Acts 12. Is that acceptable?
How about taking out all the "thee, thou, thine, ye". Is that acceptable?
Of course, that should not be difficult since in most of your eyes there is only preservation, but no words are inspired today.
Dear George,
As readers of this blog know, you love to defend Ruckmanism, and I really don't care if you are a Ruckmanite when you reject the Trinity in favor of modalism–that is eve worse than your terrible Ruckmanite error.
Also, you did not state my position accurately. You have called me many names, yet you don't even understand what my position is. Please read:
http://faithsaves.net/inspiration-preservation-scripture/
if you actually care about what I believe on inspiration and preservation. The link was posted in the article above.
Here are some obvious examples of what you ask:
believeth / believes
heareth / hears
walketh / walks
and here are two more substantive ones:
letteth / hinders
conversation / conduct
George, renounce immediately your doctrine that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit is like the spirit of a dead man. If you do not, I have no interest in going over the same ground on Ruckmanism with you again and again and again, especially since in a recent post you specifically said you don't need to answer anyone's arguments.
I would not have responded to you at all, except that you stated what I don't believe on inspiration, and I don't want readers to think I believe your misrepresentation. Accurately translated words still possess the breath of God, and so, for instance, both "believeth" and "believes" are accurate translations of the Greek pisteuo, and so they both possess the breath of God because they accurately render the words in the languages dictated by the Holy Ghost in Scripture, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Please check the following website:
http://www.cspmt.org/.
It is clear that Stringer and Brown are part of another organization which involves an unequal yoke as described in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.
" Accurately translated words still possess the breath of God, and so, for instance, both "believeth" and "believes" are accurate translations of the Greek pisteuo, and so they both possess the breath of God because they accurately render the words in the languages dictated by the Holy Ghost in Scripture, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."
Since you gave me a sample of other inspired words, which are found in the NASB, ESV, NIV and other translations, does that mean that they possess the "breath of God"? Why or why not?
I will set aside the Ruckmanite comment and your inane and insistent misunderstanding of scriptural truth concerning "the spirit of a dead man", I will give an answer.
As a ghost is the spirit of a dead man (Gen 25:8, 17, 49:33; Job 3:11, etc.), it was also apparent that when they saw Jesus Christ after the resurrection, they said that they saw a spirit (Luke 24:37), for they could not recognize him as before. The ghost which he gave up, is "the spirit of a dead man (ibid)" (was not Jesus Christ a man that gave up the ghost?) is the promised Comforter which is the Holy Ghost (Luke 3:22), given to us after his resurrection and glorification (John 7:39). The Holy Ghost is what He gave to the church when He died for our sins (John 19:30/ Matthew 27:50/ Mark 15:37/ Luke 23:46), and he is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Luke 3:22/ Romans 8:9/ Philippians 1:19).
The ghost which is the "spirit of a dead man" is now the Holy Ghost imparted to those who are repentant, born-again sons of God by which we now have access by faith in him and that eternal life is manifest in us now and even after we die, we shall be "like a spirit", present with the Lord (to be absent "from the body"- 2 Corinthians 5:8) until the body is raised up after the rapture of the church.
Is that so hard for you to understand? It is not some great understanding, but it some more proof that Jesus Christ is a man as much as he is God, and that his body is now a glorious body by which he "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself (Philippians 3:21)".
Study to show yourself approved unto God and quit thinking that you cannot learn something from someone else who just might bring some understanding to light.
Dear George,
When you say that the "ghost which He gave up . . . is the promised Comforter which is the Holy Ghost" you reject the Trinity and commit idolatry. The Holy Ghost is eternally a distinct Person who eternally proceeds from the eternally distinct Person of the Father and the eternally distinct Person of the Son (e. g., 1 Jn 5:7). Reject modalism and believe in the true God, the Triune God. The Lord Jesus Christ's human spirit, soul, and body are by no means and in no way the eternal Divine Person of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, whenever the NASV, etc. are translated accurately they have the breath of God on them. But when you reject the Trinity, what is the point of talking about Bible versions?
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for pointing that out.