Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller (My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller 

(My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

I've come across several books that include means and/or different methods for disagreeing with other people's theological positions. I would suggest these could be equally applied to other people's theological applications (at the risk of ad hominem name calling). Today I'm attempting to apply six principles from Tim Keller to the Bible text and translation debate. These six principles are taken from Tim Keller's book Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 376-38. Keller's points are in bold and my comments follow each point. These principles are as follows:

1. Take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of others' views.

I'm am fully convinced it is not possible to perfectly reflect the views of others no matter how hard we try. Perhaps you are able to do this. But it seems as though no matter what is written down, said, or practiced, there are always a series of caveats to every definition. For example try arguing with a dispensationalist on some issue (and I'm one of them), even listing off scores of quotes by leading dispensationsalists of the past. It seems as though there is a continual shift to "that's not  what I believe." Transfer this to the text and translation issue, phrases used by the KJV only position leave you wondering what they actually believe and practice. I have repeatedly requested individuals to clarify what they actually mean when they say, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English-speaking people" and no response given. Its hard not to understand things any other way without clarification in both writing and practice. This doesn't sound like preference, familiarity, or a Greek text argument. If your argument is simply, one Greek text is preferred and then we should produce translations from that text, then let's be consistent and produce a modern English translation from that text you believe is correct. If not then you really are in practice KJV only. I am left with no other acceptable alternative then to think that preaching from the ESV, NASB, or NIV is wrong to these people. This is not a difference of opinion or liberty but to them it is erroneous. If simply a preference, then why all the fuss? Is it remotely possible that a secondary or tertiary preference or application has been raised to a point of orthodoxy or the only acceptable practice? If I'm wrong in this understanding, please tell me what it means. Please explain to me in history when this different understanding (both belief and practice) started. I would suggest neither one Greek text nor the language of English has ever been a historical standard for the doctrine of preservation.

2. Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own.

I personally have a hard time trying to apply this point to the text and translation issue. It seems as though over the years there are so many versions of the King James Only position its getting harder and harder to figure out at what point error actually begins. As point one above tried to express it is very hard to understand a person's view if they will not elaborate on it. Obviously, we don't want to appeal to straw man arguments (see #4 below), definition hedging, or the like but this example phrase is directly from multiple websites, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English language."  How else can I understand this? I am left to believe that the doctrine of preservation not only depends on the English language, but also on a 400+ year old version in English. I have tried contacting many of them but to no avail nor clarification. Where does error begin? 

3. Take your opponents' views in their entirety, not selectively.

It is too common to make comments either positively or negatively about others writings but not comments on everything they say on the topic. Consider some examples, first in relation to MacArthur and term blood. Much ink has been spent by well-meaning conservatives on this issue. What becomes apparent is that these critics have not (for the most part) read everything he has written or said on this issue. A simple preview of every sermon or comment he has made on this issue is available (he actually has an entire page where he compiles all his comments on this issue). Perhaps ideas like hendiadys, synonym, or metaphor (you'll have to research this one) would help his detractors. Consider terms like repent or believe. Rarely do they occur in the same sentence in the biblical text. Yet at the same time they both are true and necessary for salvation. Or consider terms related to salvation such as Savior and Lord. Yet how often do people claim or deny one or the other because they simply don't reference every side of the coin every time the topic appears. Apply this to the text and translation issue and see where it leads you. How often do well-meaning people selectively pick words (present or not) or even verses to attack particular English translations or their particular translation philosophy? 

4. Represent and engage your opponents' position in its very strongest form, not in a weak "straw man" form.

I would suggest this is very similar to number one above. Trying to use the exact wording of the opposite position is usually not enough. There will always been a rebuttal to falsely representing the other position(s). I see this all the time (you probably have too). Try explaining a variant in the Greek or Hebrew text without getting accused of tampering with the scriptures. Try teaching your people on issues like this one. For example, try using the NIV as a Christian fundamentalist without getting that weird look (or even the NASB or ESV) in some circles. I've seen time and time again the same strategies used to attack the NIV as those who attack English translations printed after 1611. They quote some verses here or there then they criticize the translation for doing so--as if their (or my) academical credentials were asked to be on their committee (sarcasm intended). 

5. Seek to persuade, not antagonize--but watch your motives!

Unfortunately, past generations got more liberty here than we do today. Simply read past historical works by John Owen or Charles Spurgeon. People weren't always the most polite or congenial toward their opponents (who were professing believers too). Yes our mannerism count. Yes our speech counts. How many arguments (positions) get dismissed by a bad disposition. But even the best, well-organized arguments will face the same fate as the rest, "well that's your opinion." At what point in the text and translation issue are we willing to call historical errors and false teaching what it is? Error. We proudly call worldliness as such. We sadly in love have to correct disobedient professing believers in our churches. If this error festers in our own camp then shame on us for not trying to persuade them for not continuing down a road of error. To say nothing and to simply "agree to disagree" has done what for our local churches? Evangelicalism has moved on from this issue but it seems as though my bible-believing fundamental brothers are struggling with this one. Will the millennials share your view? Have they also moved on already to the NASB, ESV, or even NIV? 

6. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology--because only God sees the heart.

Clearly the text and translation issue has been raised by many to a gospel level issue even to the point of requiring that particular English translations be used alone for preaching, teaching, evangelism, and memorization (many other positions can be just as guilty). This appears is scores of churches. Just look at the multitudes of church, camp, and para-church ministry sites. On the other hand, if the gospel can be preached or taught from any translation in any country then why limit it to one English translation? Inspiration and preservation are historic doctrines defended throughout church history. But for the sake of your own personal research, I invite you to study the theological views of those who prefer a one English only position (see if can you notice any trends concerning the gospel itself). Carefully exegete the text and declare the gospel to all who will hear. Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures and he also bodily arose for their sins according to the scriptures. These scriptures are not limited to a translation in English, Spanish, or French.

With a clear conscience and pure heart motive preach and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read. Enjoy. Comment.