Yuku free message boards

There is no end to the proliferation of KJVO publications. A few months ago I became aware of a self published book by a PCC doctoral grad: David H. Sorenson. TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING: the Bible Translation Controversy and the Principle of Separation (Duluth, MM: Northstar Baptist Ministries) 2001. I purchased several copies so that several friends could critique it. Imagine my sadness when someone (PCC?) reprinted it, clothed in a much more artistic binding and mailed it out to thousands of preachers free of charge. I knew that I had wasted money because of its content, but all the more because I could have gotten it free.

This book is amazing for its shoddy scholarship as well as its content. Most amazing is the blurb on the back cover of my copy, "Documents how Erasmus essentially became a Baptist from his textual studies."

Sorenson details his Fundamentalist roots: a father and a grandfather who were Fundamentalist Baptist pastors; training at a Fundamentalist Bible college and at a Fundamentalist seminary. (Neither of which holds his views.)

He states that the term, "Fundamentalist," was popularized by Curtis Lee Laws. (p. 3) That is not precise. Curtis Lee Laws coined the term. (The Watchman Examiner, July 1, 1920)

He states that there are "essentially only two major Greek texts available today (the Textus Receptus and the modern critical text)." (p.8 ) He ignores the Hodge-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont editions of a majority text. Whereas they are not as widely available as the Nestle-Aland 27th they are certainly as available as the Textus Receptus, This is especially true in view of the fact that the TR currently published by the Trinitarian Bible Society is not the text used by the 1611 translators, nor the Elzivir edition which the printers labeled as received by all. The currently available TR is an attempted reconstruction of what the KJ translators used.

Sorenson accuses college and seminary instructors and writers who hold a differing point of view of for not being familiar with KJVO writings. (passim) He accuses them of research only in the writing of those who promote the critical text view.(p. 12) He repeats on page 220. That really is not factual. We also note that his own footnotes are heavily weighted with those who hold views similar to his.

He limits his discussion to what he calls three major positions, "(1) the King James only position, (2) the critical text position, (3) and the preserved text position." In a footnote he does acknowledge the two majority texts mentioned above, but casts them aside because, "...to date no major translations have been based upon either. Both are essentially creations known only amongst (sic) academicians." His footnote further condemns the MT's for being produced by rationalistic principles of modern textual criticism. (p. 15)

He repeats the account of the discovery of the Sinaiticus MS in a wastebasket awaiting burning. (p. 24) Further research would have revealed the apocryphal nature of this story.

He attempts to distinguish his preserved text position from that of KJVO. He equates the "preserved text" with the so-called traditional text and states that until about 120 years ago it was received by all (he emphasizes all) orthodox Bible-believing churches. (p. 31) This idea is repeated frequently through out the book. (cf. p. 38, etc.) One questions that "all."

He identifies the Waldenses of northern Italy, southern France and Switzerland as "in many ways similar to modern separatist Baptists.(p. 47) There is a footnote about the "spiritual declension" of the Waldenses but no documentation of his claims of their similarity to modern Baptists nor of the questionable claim that they used "translations of the Bible based upon the Received Text form the second century up to and including the time of the Reformation." (p. 47)

His attack on the critical text as a "synthetic text" (p. 50) ignores the fact that what he calls the Received Text is also an eclectic text, being a combination of a number of MSS containing varied readings.

He confuses providential preservation with supernatural preservation.

After condemning such matters as the logic, the rationalism, the subjectivity, the contradictions, and the uncertainty of the critical text he claims that the critical text "de-emphasizes the precise words of God. He calls the rules of textual criticism as "bizarre." (pp. 60-68 ) He then reverses himself and admits that the TR/Received Text is the product of textual criticism, but he claims that textual criticism is based in belief whereas modern textual criticism is based in unbelief and rationalism. (pp. 69-71)

Each chapter is filled with glaring errors of understanding, quotation, and logic. They are so numerous that it would take a book of similar length to expose them all. Let me jump to some of the most amazing.

He makes the usual attempt to discredit Westcott and Hort by trying to link them to spiritism. Without any documentation he dogmatically states that Westcott and Hort did not believe in verbal inspiration, inerrancy, or the infallibility of the Word of God. He then states that they were astute enough not to publish such a statement. In an attempt to prove them unorthodox he completely misunderstands or purposely misleads about Westcott's explanation of John 1:1 in THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES. Westcott makes a strong affirmation of the person of the Word stating that He who was God became flesh and He who was with God tabernacle among us. He makes a distinction between the persons of the Trinity saying, "Because the Word was personally distinct from 'God,' and yet essentially 'God,' He could make Him known." Sorenson apparently does not comprehend the fact that Westcott is making he orthodox theological statement that the members of the Godhead are distinct in their persons but the same in their essence. He attempts to make "essentially" carry the slang meaning of "almost, but not actually." (p. 116) Perhaps we can forgive Sorenson in that he is citing not his own research of Westcott's writings but the statements of D. A. Waite. On the other hand, Sorenson began his book by emphasizing his own training in theology

Sorenson finds Westcott guilty by association with the "Broad Church Party" citing a long list of unorthodox views of that party. The list is lifted from a work by James Sightler, TABERNACLE ESSAYS with no reference to the source of this information.

Did Sorenson prove Erasmus a Baptist. No. He makes this strange statement, "He was more or less and independent Catholic." (p. 188 ) He says, "By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of Anabaptists than that of Rome. This will shortly be documented." (p. 188 ) His documentation falls short. A perusal the two older of his sources (Preserved Smith, ERASMUS, A STUDY OF HIS LIFE and Ephraim Emerton, DESIDERIUS ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM) indicate that this view is quite a misreading. In fact Smith points out that when an Anabaptist published a tract claiming that Erasmus held view similar to Anabaptists Erasmus opposed him in print and in person.

Sorenson repeats the misleading statement credited to Franklin Logsdon ignoring the disclaimers expressed by the Lockman Foundation. He makes a statement that without the support of Logsdon the New American Standard Bible would never have been published. (p. 221) The Lockman Foundation discredits such a view.

Sorenson's thesis is that the Bible versions issue demands separation of those that he considers true believers, true Fundamenalists, those who hold that God's Word is preserved only in the Received Text, which he equates with the Textus Receptus and who use only the King James Version must separate from those who use any other text or translation. They have done so.

Randy

A few, but a very few, TR/ KJVO's acknowledge the fact of a whole line of men who practiced some form of textual criticism from Jerome until W-H including Erasmus.

I should have included the fact that Dr. Sorenson has previously authored two books that are quite valuable and utilized by some of the men and institutions with whom he dissents.

I am neither TR only, KJV only, nor CT only. I believe that all MSS must be evaluated.

While I am not personally acquainted with Dr. Sorenson, I am personally acquainted with many of the men under whom he studied including college, seminary, and doctoral study.

Randy S

>His college and Seminary were pretty sound, but his choice of schools for his Doctorate could have been better. :)<

We are on the same wave length on that. I know, went to school with, or have taught with some of the faculty at all three schools. It saddens me that PCC has taken the position that they have but it is their attitude that saddens me more.

I may not always agree with you Doc but I always appreciate your approach, tone, and research. You usually include important information. Thanks

Randy