My Concerns for Biblical Fundamentalism and the Next Generation (Both Doctrine and Practice)

My Concerns for Fundamentalism and the Next Generation

Several items have been churning in my heart and mind over my twenty-six years in Independent Fundamental churches.** Just for record I'm in my mid-forties and have faithfully served as a United States Army Chaplain for nearly sixteen years. I currently serve as a Command and General Staff College Instructor. I'm not a local church pastor or seminary professor so I have neither position to motivate my answers. I am however concerned (as a movement) these churches and institutions address issues which we have faced and will continue to face in the future. 

**Working definition: fundamentalism--a Christian movement which believes in the historic fundamentals of biblical Christianity and a willingness to separate from those who deny in doctrine or practice these basic Christian truths. 

First, I have been a member of or regularly attended fundamental churches in six different states (WV, SC, MI, IN, AK and currently attending a Bible church in OH). As a graduate of several of their institutions, I desire to see them both to continue and to thrive spiritually and academically. I've seen and experienced what they practice and teach.  Worst case I don't want to see any more fundamental baptist colleges and seminaries close their doors.  Who might be next or for what reason? Financial strains? Compromise? Music? Translations? Internal division? Community college competition? What might it be and how can we avoid it from happening? So for starters I'm not out to protect a school, church, movement or my source of income. I simply don't want a movement to die out or refuse to adjust applications for the wrong reasons. 

Second, having read and listened to the concerns expressed by fundamental baptist leaders these past years, several things have become more clear than before. If fundamentalism is concerned about college and seminary graduates from within our own ranks leaving then we really need to consider why or what the motives for leaving could be? And once these concerns are heard will they be acted upon? A point of clarification: they are not leaving Christianity they are leaving Fundamentalism as a movement as expressed in local churches and related seminaries. I have four children and I hope there will still be schools we can support in operation 10-15 years down the road. 

So based on my limited twenty-six years within fundamental churches and forty plus years of life I offer my concerns for fundamentalism below. I hope they are received well.  I know others have these same concerns since I've heard some of them explicitly made publicly in fundamentalists fellowship gatherings. So for sake of space and time I'm taking up one issue for each of the following articles. My guess is any of these concerns can be or have been already read on sites such as SharperIron, FBFI, or from IntheNickofTime (Bauder).

Issue one--If one camp, denomination, or group of churches is making or has made one English translation a matter of orthodoxy then as I understand it this means they are making it a doctrinal issue (not just a preference). The issue has been pushed beyond just being a secondary or tertiary issue. This throws out Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 as well.  If someone's beliefs (doctrine and practice) are now in question because of this one English translation then if fundamentalism believes this position is doctrinally incorrect then we have an obligation (for sake of consistency) to separate from these men. It is not a matter of friendship or club membership. Many seminaries and local churches have made tremendous changes in a positive directions: both in doctrine and practice. Just to be clear there are professing fundamentalist schools and seminaries on both sides of this issue. If it is simply a matter of preference, then we need to use different terms. On the other hand, if this is a doctrinal issue, then we have a greater threat for future generations than we may be willing to admit. 

If I remember correctly multiple books have been written on this subject, classes taught, and public statements made. I have a list of these here. They are useful and thoroughly academic in presenting the reader with information to make an informed and historical decision on this issue. The good thing to know is that more and more pastors are understanding the historical position on this issue, many of which are helping their churches to move away from a one translation only position or a least a translation in more modern English understandable by current and future generations. Fundamentalism must be willing to move beyond being defined by a position on an English translation. I applaud those using the ESV and NASB. May they continue to flourish and grow. 

For sake of argument only one of the two seminaries I've attended was consistent in doctrine and practice (not a crime but simply a concern).  In one seminary we used one particular Greek text in the class room but then required memorization from an English text produced from another.  See the problem. At least the other seminary was consistent if one particular Greek text was used then give liberty to preach and teach from English translations produced from it.  If not hold to another position. We have to be willing to move beyond arguments "for the sake of unity" or "people in the pew can't follow along." I'm glad to see improvements made in this area in literature produced, both textbooks and periodicals.  

This is not foregoing a liberty/right when preaching or visiting at a local church and publicly expounding the scriptures.  At least follow their policies on the issue.  Following a institutional policy for sake of consistency is not the same as imposing that position as the mark for orthodox Christianity. If you can't do that (or follow their appointed standards) then maybe you shouldn't publicly teach/preach in that particular church. Move on to another church or attend school elsewhere (or be willing to restrict yourself to that particular church's doctrine and practice). I have far more respect for those who are willing to go elsewhere if it helps them be more consistent or keep a clear conscience.

If fundamentalism, at least the portion of movement self-identified with one English translation, falls or is inflicted by unnecessary scrutiny due to the English translation issue then they have brought it upon themselves. We need to teach our people over and over. We need to be willing to withdrawal from institutions who will not paint a clear picture here. As for the institutions, both seminary and local church level, who are making changes in a healthy direction, may they be rewarded for their efforts to both teach and practice consistently on this text and translation issue. We must be willing to practice separation both directions. First, to those within broader evangelicalism who have compromised in doctrine and practice. Secondly, we must consistently extend our position to those self-professed within our own camp who are trying to redefine fundamentals of the Christian faith. In so far as they preach the gospel unhindered then great. But great error is committed attaching an English translation to one's standard of doctrinal integrity. 

In the end, I would simply ask if you are reading this and you personally don't know Christ as your Lord and Savior, then simply pick up a Bible (any Bible in any language) and read what Christ has done for you in His death, burial and bodily resurrection from the dead for your sins. Any translation can give you this information.  Read a Bible and come to know the Trinitarian God of the Bible, the Creator of you and me.

Read. Enjoy. Be challenged. Comment as needed.

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions? (Part Two)

Orthopraxy: Pulpit Committees, Congregationalism, Elders and the Raising of Hands: How should we make decisions in the local church? (Part Two)




As we continue this series we will readdress one of the common proof texts used by adherents of a congregational form of government (and by way of inference--pulpit committees).  Or in other words we will discuss the institution which is vigorously defended in fundamentalism to the almost exclusion of a plurality of lay elders. To be fair there are some churches within fundamentalism which have both a plurality of lay elders and congregational polity (and they're not Presbyterian). But there is a growing impetus that I see and hear to disregard elder passages or to relegate them to an ad hominem attack (as if being a Presbyterian were a crime).

This question before us is even more important when a local church is trying to discern the Lord's will in the selection of a new pastor or teaching elder.  And in relation to the current series under discussion: how would this relate to the local church have a plurality of lay elders? Could they or should they alone be the pulpit committee? Are they the ones given the task to ordain other elders? Let's remind ourselves again why this matters.  What if any responsibility does the NT text actually prescribe for the congregation? Correct doctrine is important (orthodoxy) but so is right practice (orthopraxy).  The scriptures are clear. We are not free to make up area liberty and disagreement.

As we continue this series, let's review quickly.  Several exegetical truths are assumed and defended elsewhere on this blog, commentaries, books, and throughout church history.  First, local churches have a plurality of lay elders as leadership. Second, deacons were not a rotating board of leaders but servants in a local church.  Third, congregations made some decisions in the local church (to what extent must be inferred--available textual data is potentially limited to church discipline passages). We'll need to revisit those passages again later.

From here we looked for proof texts to show what is commonly called pulpit committees.  There is in reality no proof in the NT for this organization (that is of course unless they are existing local church elders already).  How it came to exist historically in American Christianity is the topic for a later thread.  Acts 6 provides no help in the selection of local church servants.

From there we turned to Acts 14 and the selection of elders in local churches.  One key term used by advocates for congregational polity is the term translated as "appointed."  Here is a point of clarification, congregational polity is not under question, but the creation of pulpit committees. Nor is the question whether churches can have elders and congregational decision making.  Anyway back to the term "appointed."  The KJV uses the term "ordained" while the NASB and ESV use the term "appointed."  One term sort of puts the picture in your head of a committee, questions, and laying on of hands, and preaching certificates, etc....There are two distinct changes applied to this verse by strict adherents to a congregation form of polity.

First, the subject of the verb appointed/ordained.  Contextually (to the congregationalists), the subject of the verb is not the elder/apostles traveling through like the context would suggest.  The new subject of the verb is the local congregation.  It is the local congregation who are doing the ordaining/appointing. Hence, it is the congregation themselves (not the elders/apostles) who are making the decision.

Two, the etymology of the verb appointed/ordained.  The argument goes like this.  The underlying greek term (all two NT occurrences) is comprised by a combination of two terms: "hand" and "stretch out, extend."  So you see here the idea in the first century that the local church voted by democratic congregational polity by the raising of their hands (I'll assume as a good baptist these hands raised were at least 18 years old and members in good standing).  That seems to be the way people in America write their church covenants. Let's not forget adherents of a strong congregational authority have only two raising your hands verses by which they are trying to make a prescriptive case for all local churches. I don't want to throw out clear texts to church discipline where the congregation actually has a role.

Sounds convincing doesn't it?  I've heard fundamentalists preach this position repeatedly. Especially if you are preaching and teaching this to people who already agree with you it sounds pretty good.  So let's evaluate this interpretation in light of scripture. First, how is the term used elsewhere. Second, does an etymological understanding commit a fallacy of interpretation.  Third, if a NT writer wanted to say physically raise your arm in the air do they say that elsewhere? Lastly, does the context change the way the word should be understood?

This post is getting long so I'll be brief. First, the term appears twice in the NT (here and 2 Cor 8:19).  No reference in LXX but roughly 234 times in classical Greek.  One form of the verb with an attached preposition appears in Acts 10:41 but there God (the source of authority) is the subject who does the choosing (interestingly no one want's to impose congregational authority there). Not much to work with here.  In the other reference, Titus is chosen to travel with Paul by the local church.  Here's an odd point.  Titus was chosen by the churches (plural) to go with Paul.  How's that work?  So we have multiple churches collecting the raised hand majority democratic votes to select Paul's traveling partner? That complicates the subject. Its not just the one local church but many local churches (plural). The same term appears again in the plural form in the previous verse "churches" (v. 18).  So how does that fit in the local autonomous independent baptist church?  Even the KJV  still uses terms such as "ordain" and "chosen."  So I'm not sure this helps the voting interpretation any. Should we understand this prescriptively as well?  Local churches in plural format should vote together to send out missionaries? How's this work?

I poured through over twenty commentaries to get a feel for this one.  They are divided both in methodology and results (conclusion). Some seem to focus exclusively on the underlying etymology of the Greek term even drawing upon classical Greek usage.  Some believe the context determines the terms usage not it base dictionary etymology. While yet others acknowledge the apostles made the selection it could only happen with congregational approval. Lastly, the apostles chose themselves without the congregational approval. I seem to notice two trends here: one, those who focus their interpretive efforts on the terms etymology alone tend toward strong congregational decision making; and two, those who focus their efforts on the context and subjects tend toward a strong elder decision making. Is it possible to take away the argumentative weight of one of these two options? Here's an encouraging thought, even many that thought the term means a raising of hands state it doesn't mean that here and it is Paul and Barnabas making the decision (appoint/ordaining). On the other hand, many that came to the same contextual conclusion (Paul and Barnabas the acting subjects) have a hard time reconciling this with their own view of congregational polity. Oddly enough the NIV has the right contextual idea "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders..." (Acts 14:23).

Second, and by way of answer to the above question, the etymology of the term: hand and stretch out/extend.  As pragmatic and useful as it may sound to vote this way in 2018 I'm not sure this is what the NT writes (Luke/Paul) intended in the first century. This is the same line of reasoning that produces a definition of the church as "called out ones."  This is based on the two terms in Greek for word "church."  First, being a preposition "out of/from" and the second a verb "to call."  Hence our definition.  In response, it is more accurate to define our terms by usage and context not by etymological usage.  Not only this but this is simply an etymological fallacy, which is only one of sixteen possible fallacies from deriving meaning from the terms root.  Actually this one's quite common (See DA Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies, Chapter One "Root Fallacy").  Several other sources confirm this abuse of words etymology and faulty conclusions (See Cottrell, "Linguistics," in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis edited by Willem VanGemeren). Another text used in years past at BJU for teaching this hermeneutical problem of a words root is Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral. So it appears here the etymological argument for a raised hand congregation vote could have some merit if you divorce the term from its context and subjects in Acts 14:23. Or another point of view, the raised hands are the elders/apostles and not the congregation after all.

Third, could the Holy Spirit really say raise your hands if that's what he meant? Let's look at some NT examples.   Paul wrote with his "own hand" (Gal 6:11). How about 1 Tim 2:8 "lifting up holy hands."  Just a picture, euphemism, literally? Kinda of makes you wonder of all the references in the OT or even the Psalter (the Psalms) which speak of "raised hands" or even "bowing down." If raised hands is what was meant why find a cryptic way through word etymology to say it? A cryptic etymology which is not translated that way by any English translation I can find.

So do we have a pulpit committee in this verse?  Well actually this blog post didn't address that question but only a verse misused in a side-bar issue.  Now with this misapplied proof text potentially removed we can move on to other texts. To use texts like these to prove congregational voting seems not only a stretch but driven by an agenda to avoid references to a plurality of elders in local churches and to defend congregational authority and decision making. By extension, a pulpit committee as distinct from a functioning plurality of lay elders in the local church has no biblical warrant.

We still have other verses and church history to address.  They will come in forthcoming posts, this includes other means of making decisions by NT apostles (to include casting lots). Potential precedent for ballots?  We'll see.

Read. Comment. Enjoy.

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees, Congregations, and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders  (Part One)



Why does it matter?  Why now write on this topic?  Answer: as I continue to listen to my brethren within fundamentalism preach, several themes are repeating as they sound a rally cry: first, how to keep a younger generation of fundamentalist pastors in fundamentalism and two, a buckshot blast on every theological issue that may or may not be attracting the younger generation away from their fundamentalist roots.  So what are these vast repeating concerns? You'll have to listen to what they are saying to find out.  But for the sake of this current thread: congregationalism and a plurality of lay elders.

I am assuming the following are correct and biblical for the following argument:

One, the New Testament teaches a plurality of lay elders in each local NT church. Just heard a recent excellent review sermon on the plurality of elders from a church in Greenville, SC.

Two, the position of deacon and/or deacon board is not a position(s) of authority in the local NT church. It is a position of service in the local church. There are no passages in the NT giving authority to deacons.

Three, history confirms these two above positions (we are not alone on an island to make up church polity of our own making). The only way to avoid points one and two above is to simply not teach or misconstrue the biblical texts of how they have been historically interpreted.

Four, congregational polity also works in coordination with this plurality of lay elders. This is typically where many baptist church pastors stop.  I for one am glad to see the numerous books in print encouraging churches moving to a plurality of lay elders in leadership.

Please see other articles on this website for a defense of the above positions.  I have written multiple articles concerning elders and polity within the local church. See here for that earlier series.

To answer the question we need to actually start with the Bible. There is no reference or even a hint of proof texts referring to a committee within a local church which alone has the responsibility to select the next elder/pastor for the local congregation.  The  only ones I can think of that come even close would have to be twisted to make them a proof text.

Does Acts 6 helps?  At best the congregation chose the deacons (not elders) which were then approved by the existing apostles.  I get the idea you could use this one as long as you ignore the content, topic, and context.

Really what you have to do is appeal to a pragmatic argument (it works must be okay).  Perhaps a plea to we've always done it this way (could have always been wrong too).

Textually what you need is a congregation that has a sub-divided group that with the responsibility of selecting the next elder/pastor within that particular local church.

What about the other options.  The elders selecting future elders? Or an entire congregation selecting a candidate approved by the elders?

What does the Bible says?  What evidence do we have? Consider the following:

Acts 14:23 "when they had appointed elders for them"  Contexts seems to identify the "they" as the apostles who were visiting earlier planted local churches.  The second "them" appears to be the local congregation. This seems to fit the context best.  Verse 21, "When they had preached."  Not the congregation but the elders passing through. Later in that same verse "and had made many disciples."  Again this would be mishandling the context to change the subject of the verbs. Third reference, "they returned to Lystra...." The same individuals preached, made disciples and returned.  Same subject all three times.  Verse 22 includes two more participles "strengthening" and "encouraging" with same same subjects as previous verse.  Its the elders/apostles passing through the local churches.  Now to verse 23, "when they has appointed elders for them in every church."  Why all of a sudden would the subject change?

This fits with Dr. Stewart Custer's commentary as well, "We may conclude that the apostles observed the believers carefully on their return journey and chose men who had already established a good testimony..." (Stewart Custer, Witness to Christ: A Commentary on Acts).  So the subjects are not the local church but the apostle/elders themselves.

David Peterson agrees as well that Paul and Barnabas are the ones doing the ordaining/appointing.  So its not the local church at all involved in this action (The Pillar New Testament Commentary:  Acts of the Apostles, 2009).

So this understanding of the text is not new, twisted, or imaginary.  Its simply a straightforward reading of the text in its context without another motive to dodge the results.  The result is obvious: it is not the congregation making the decision. So how do those who don't see the elders reference handle this verse? Is "raising your hand" to vote in 2018 really an option? Or is this simply another abuse of an etymological fallacy?

We'll address that answer next time.

Till then keep reading your Bible.

Comments as always encouraged.

Discourse passages in the book of Acts in Relation to the Charismatic gifts of Prophecy

Discourse passages in the book of Acts and Charismatic gifts of prophecy and tongues

Even as I write this thread the Charismatic movement has just produced yet another book on how to use your miraculous spiritual gifts (this includes all gifts: tongues, prophecy, healing, etc...).  Each area of the Charismatic movement needs to continuously addressed.  We'll continue with what are discourse passages.  As New Evangelicalism continues to modify their outreach (including coolness, trendiness, and music), Fundamentalism must continue to respond with objective biblical truth to counter the ever growing (I had an experience) subjective focused movement.  To make the claim that today in the year 2017 we have access to all the miraculous sign gifts (just as practiced in the NT) is a claim that is neither defensible from scripture nor actually practicable today (that is, according to NT standards--not new standards to help justify their practice today).

What's a discourse passage?  What in the world is that?  You've used this term before probably without noticing it.  When you read Matthew 24-25, what is this commonly called?  The Olivet __________.  You got it.  Olivet Discourse.  From a simple grammar standpoint, discourse passages occur in two basic types: direct and indirect discourse.  You've seen this in you Bible before probably without noticing it.  Direct discourse appears as one person reporting what another said word for word such as, "David said, "We should sit in the chair.'"  Indirect discourse appears as the formula, "David said that we should sit in the chair."  Both can be identified (but not necessarily) with appropriate prepositions to identify verbal content conveyed.  I would suggest it is much easier to identify content clauses marked with appropriate preposition (just a side note).

Now within the book of Acts there are multiple discourse sections in which the Holy Ghost (Spirit) actually gives verbal content to a hearing audience.  It is no mysterious speech or utterances.  The point being, actual words (content) is delivered and preserved on the pages of scripture.  Every time the Holy Spirit speaks to believers in the book of Acts it is breathed out Scripture.  Logically, every time the Spirit speaks it is scripture.  Question: When people today claim (or believe) the Holy Spirit is speaking to them do they put it on the same level as scripture?  Do they give it another personal or individual authority for themselves alone?  Be careful how you answer this.  Vast denominations claim God is speaking to them today.  Howbeit via different means and of course with a different standard of authenticity.  So when we evaluate from the basis of scripture, does the modern day Charismatic claims of prophecy, tongues, and Spirit led content stand up to the paradigm of scripture?

Let's sample some of these passages in the book of Acts.  You (yourself) evaluate what the scriptures record the Holy Spirit said.  Again, you evaluate is the Holy Spirit functioning this exact same way today?  If not, why the different standard today?  Remember this question is not, are churches being planted, gospel content delivered, unbelievers converted, but is it happening the exact same way.  All these things can happen without the mysterious miracle claims by the Charismatic movement.  In the end, the Charismatic movement will reinterpret all texts based on personal experience.  All texts must be made to fit their subjective experience paradigm.  And don't forget all categories (including Bible) must be redefined to fit these experiences.  Prophecy not working.  Easy, just redefine what prophecy is so it fits your experiences.

Let's look at some text explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit speaking verbally with understandable content to actual believers in an understandable language (we'll get to Pentecost later).

Acts 10:19-20, "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.  Arise, therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them."

Acts 11:12, "And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting."  No explicit verbal content described but notice the recipient of the message had no doubt as to what the Spirit required.

Acts 13:2, "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."

Acts 15: 28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;"

Acts 16:6-7, "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not."

Acts 21:11, "Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles."

Note from all these passages we have in scripture the following: first, every time we have verbal content from the Holy Spirit spoken to a believer it became scripture (not a different level of authority).  Charismatics don't like this concept of inspiration and discourse.  Why again?  Two standards and redefinition or prophecy needed.  Second, the Holy Spirit always (in every text) when speaking directly to the believers, it was in a language they understood.  No ecstatic tongues or closet prayers or visions.  Lastly, in all the available data we have in scripture, when multiple people were present, they all understood the exact content that was given.  

So is what you just read being practiced to biblical standard and proportion?  I would suggest no.  This is part of why I am a Cessationist. 


Again, comments as always encouraged.

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

The disciples were faced with a similar issue in the first century while traveling with the Messiah.  They wanted to destroy everyone who did not cross every "T" and dot every "I" the way they did.  However, I would suggest we don't always treat each other as if we are.  Of course, it goes without being said, doctrine does exist on many different levels.  Some are non-negotiable while others are open for disagreement.  I would suggest that the translation issue has been lifted up by some here in America to the level of primary importance.  Not just inerrancy or inspiration but an actual English translation.

Jesus' response is very applicable to us today,

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."  (Luke 9:49-50)

That being said it should help to provide some motivation for how we handle those who disagree with us on the English translation issue.  Or for that matter the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

Do both sides hold to inerrancy?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions at times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny Biblical inerrancy.

Do both sides hold to plenary verbal inspiration?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions a times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny plenary verbal inspiration.  

Do both sides believe God has preserved his word?  I would suggest, yes (although they will disagree as to the "means" of preservation).

I could be wrong in applying these verses to the translation issue (and for that matter any other issue).  Perhaps it is wrong to apply this to doctrinal areas (depending on the level--primary, secondary, etc...).  But it does help provide a simple theological grid for dealing with others who are actually doing something to expand the Christ's Church.

This doesn't mean stop preaching and teaching the truth.  Warn and instruct you congregation (and your family).  Just don't forget we are on the same side.

Comments encouraged.

The KJV Translators Preface: The KJV 1611 One English Only Position Continued

The KJV 1611 Translators Preface

Series Part Two          Series Part One

This one is rather interesting.  Much damage has been done by Bible publishers for not including this translators preface in their English translations.  I highly recommend a Cambridge edition that includes the translator's preface.  You can google it if needed to read a copy.  It is rather interesting for modern users of an English translation to take a position on this particular English translation which even the translators themselves did not hold to.  I challenge anyone to read a modern copy of the translator's preface.  The simple process of educating yourself on what they actually taught and practiced should bear insightful.

So what exactly was the position of the translators of the KJV? Since most people will never purchase a KJV containing the original Translators preface I will list out by category pertinent categories and quotations take from the original preface.  Again, you can find a simple free copy on www.google.com and read it for yourself (in its entirety).  

Since multiple English translations already existed, what did they think of producing new translations,

"It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be miscontrued, and in danger to be condemned."

What did the translators believe about multiple Bible translations in English (or any other language), 

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

What did the translators believe about word for word translations and modern translations,

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..." 

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places."

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." 

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." 

"...we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way."

What did the translators believe about English translations without errors or English translations that are beyond the reach of correction,

"Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

"But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to others."

Finally, what did the translators believe about the need to have English translations in the modern tongue and vocabulary of the people, not in an archaic language from the past,

Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed."

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

Quotes from History on Translations,

"The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect and therefore Canonical...no translation can possibly express all the matter of the holy originalls, nor a thousand things in the Grammar, Rhetoric, & character of the tongue."
(The Works of John Smyth, fellow of Christ's College, ed. W.T. Whitley, vol. I, pp. 279-280; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"Translations contain the word of God, and are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaning of those originals.  To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals, ... much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself "
(Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, in Works of John Owns, vol. XVI, p. 357; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

So as you can tell a modern movement that claims God chose both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts was not held by the translators themselves.  In addition, claiming that God will only use (or has only chosen or blessed) one English translation is not correct now nor was it believed by the translators of the King James Version.

We must still address where doctrine, history, and charity meet.
Read. Be educated.  Comments as always encouraged.