A Response to Mark Ward’s Mischaracterization
In his recent critique, “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Mark Ward addresses what he perceives as the Confessional Bibliology movement’s similarities to KJV-Onlyism. Despite acknowledging key theological and historical differences, Ward suggests that overlapping language, concerns, and criticisms of modern translations create confusion among followers of both movements. However, such an assertion misrepresents Confessional Bibliology’s core convictions and fails to appreciate its theological and historical roots. By equating these two distinct positions, Ward’s analysis reveals several misunderstandings that require careful clarification.
The Key Distinction: The Role of Greek and Hebrew Texts
At the core of the Confessional Bibliology position is a deep and unwavering commitment to the authentic Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus as the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine. This conviction is not merely an academic or historical preference but a theological affirmation rooted in the doctrines of divine inspiration and providential preservation. The Westminster Confession of Faith, a cornerstone of Reformed theology, underscores this commitment by declaring that the Scriptures were “immediately inspired by God” and that He has “singularly kept pure in all ages” His Word. Thus, Confessional Bibliology asserts that these Hebrew and Greek texts, accurately preserved by God through His providence, remain the ultimate and authoritative standards for all translations.
In light of this commitment to the original languages, Confessional Bibliologists view translations as faithful renderings of these inspired texts. Translations, including the King James Version (KJV), are valued not because they are elevated above the originals, but because they reflect the preserved Word in the languages God has given to the church. This is a crucial distinction from KJV-Onlyism, which often elevates the KJV to an authority that surpasses even the original manuscripts. Confessional Bibliology’s adherence to the primacy of the Hebrew and Greek texts ensures that no translation, no matter how highly regarded, is viewed as final or infallible.
Confessional Bibliology’s Appeal to Historical Theology
One of Ward’s criticisms centers on Confessional Bibliology’s appeal to historical figures such as John Owen and adherence to confessional documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith. He suggests that these appeals are an attempt to legitimize a movement that, in his view, bears too many similarities to KJV-Onlyism. However, such an assertion fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and grounding of Confessional Bibliology.
Confessional Bibliology seeks not to validate itself by selectively citing historical figures, but rather to uphold the theological convictions of the Protestant Reformation and post-Reformation orthodoxy. By grounding its understanding of the preservation and authority of Scripture in historical confessions and theologians, Confessional Bibliology aligns itself with the theological heritage of Reformed orthodoxy. This is not an artificial attempt to claim legitimacy but a deliberate affirmation of principles long held by Protestant theologians.
The Argument of Accessibility and Readability
A critical aspect of Mark Ward’s critique is the perceived overlap between Confessional Bibliology and KJV-Onlyism concerning the accessibility and readability of the King James Bible (KJV). Ward suggests that Confessional Bibliologists’ preference for the KJV and the Textus Receptus stems from a similar criticism often voiced by KJV-Only advocates against contemporary translations. However, this perspective oversimplifies the Confessional Bibliology position and overlooks its emphasis on theological accuracy rather than linguistic familiarity.
Confessional Bibliology does not reject modern translations solely on the basis of readability or stylistic differences. Instead, the central concern lies in fidelity to the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts. Confessional Bibliologists assert that the KJV’s fidelity to these original texts outweighs the convenience of modern linguistic accessibility. The aim is to preserve the theological and linguistic nuances that are intrinsic to the Word of God, rather than simplifying the text to accommodate contemporary language norms.
A Misguided Association
In Ward’s attempt to critique Confessional Bibliology, he creates an association between this movement and KJV-Onlyism based on what he perceives as shared criticisms of modern Bible translations. However, this association is not only misguided but also fundamentally flawed in its reasoning. Confessional Bibliology and KJV-Onlyism differ profoundly in their theological motivations and doctrinal foundations, and Ward’s failure to recognize these distinctions leads to a mischaracterization of the Confessional Bibliology position.
KJV-Onlyism typically grounds its position in the belief that the KJV is the ultimate and divinely inspired translation of the Bible, often elevating it above the original Hebrew and Greek texts. This view is commonly associated with what is referred to as Ruckmanism, named after Peter Ruckman, who argued that the KJV could even correct the original manuscripts. Such a stance inherently dismisses the primacy of the original languages and ascribes to the KJV a level of infallibility reserved solely for the inspired Scriptures.
The Logical Fallacy of Lumping Opposing Groups Together
In critiquing Confessional Bibliology, Mark Ward mirrors a logical fallacy that James White also commits when addressing KJV-Onlyism. White defines five categories of KJV-Onlyism: (1) those who prefer the KJV for its literary quality, (2) those who believe it is the best translation, (3) those who view it as a divinely preserved translation for the English-speaking church, (4) those who consider it superior even to the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and (5) those who assert that the KJV itself is inspired. However, by grouping all these categories under the same label, White risks engaging in a hasty generalization or guilt by association fallacy. This strategy unfairly equates all who favor the KJV with the most extreme Ruckmanite forms of KJV-Onlyism.
Mark Ward’s critique of Confessional Bibliology reflects a similar fallacy. By associating Confessional Bibliology with KJV-Onlyism based on superficial similarities, he overlooks the theological distinctiveness of Confessional Bibliology. While both positions may share concerns about modern translations, their foundational beliefs differ fundamentally. KJV-Onlyism often rejects the authority of the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts in favor of the KJV, whereas Confessional Bibliology affirms the ultimate authority of the original languages and evaluates translations based on their faithfulness to these texts.
The Place of the KJV in the Confessional Bibliology Position
A critical distinction between Confessional Bibliology and KJV-Onlyism is the role and authority of the King James Version (KJV). In Confessional Bibliology, the KJV is not viewed as the ultimate authority but rather as a faithful and accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus. This nuanced position affirms the primacy of the original languages while valuing the KJV for its adherence to these texts. This commitment is based on the belief that God has providentially preserved His Word in the original manuscripts, not in any specific translation.
Confessional Bibliologists recognize that the translators of the KJV sought to reflect the original wording and theological intent of the preserved texts. Their use of precise pronouns, retention of key phrases, and careful rendering of Hebrew and Greek idioms demonstrate a deliberate effort to preserve both the accuracy and theological depth of the Scriptures. This faithfulness to the original languages is the primary reason why the KJV is highly valued within Confessional Bibliology.
Conclusion
Mark Ward’s critique of Confessional Bibliology, as presented in “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement’s core convictions. While Ward raises concerns about perceived similarities between Confessional Bibliology and KJV-Onlyism, his analysis fails to adequately differentiate between these two positions. By conflating them based on surface-level criticisms of modern translations, Ward overlooks the significant theological and historical distinctions that set Confessional Bibliology apart.
Confessional Bibliology places ultimate authority in the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts, adhering to the historical Reformed principle of sola Scriptura. The KJV, while highly valued, is not regarded as superior to these authentic texts but as a reliable and faithful rendering. This alignment with the Reformation’s theological heritage is central to the Confessional Bibliology stance, making it a continuation of historical convictions rather than a modern innovation.
Moreover, Ward’s critique falls into the same logical fallacy seen in James White’s categorization of KJV-Onlyism. By grouping diverse perspectives under a single label, Ward risks misleading readers into associating Confessional Bibliologists with extreme forms of KJV-Onlyism, particularly Ruckmanism. This broad-brush characterization overlooks the nuances that define these different theological positions.
Rather than dismissing Confessional Bibliology as an extension of KJV-Onlyism, Ward would do well to engage more deeply with its theological foundations and historical roots. Such an engagement would reveal that Confessional Bibliology is not a reactionary movement but a reaffirmation of the historical commitment to the authority and preservation of Scripture in its authentic Hebrew and Greek forms. By recovering this rich heritage, Confessional Bibliology seeks to honor God’s Word and remain faithful to the teachings of the Protestant Reformers.
