December 22, 1999 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - In the fall of 1997, Pensacola Christian College held a forum on the subject of Bible texts and versions. The forum featured Dr. J. Michael Bates, Dr. Dell Johnson, and Dr. Theodore Letis. The videos of that forum ("The Bible ... the Text Is the Issue" and "The Leaven of Fundamentalism," Pensacola Christian College, Pensacola, FL 32523. 800-722-3570) have received wide distribution, and we are thankful that they have. (Other videos have been produced since then.) It is always encouraging to see the brethren stand for the preserved Word of God, and we are confident that the hearts of many men have been strengthened in the Bible text issue because of the videos.

I am glad that Pensacola uses only the Received Text in their Greek department. It is great confusion for a school to use the King James Bible in the classroom while using the critical Greek text (represented by the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament) in the Greek department. If the Greek text underlying the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God, the Westcott-Hort critical Greek text is corrupt. If, on the other hand, the critical Greek text which underlies the modern English versions is the preserved Word of God, the King James Bible is corrupt. If, for example, the Received Text is correct in using the word "Theos" or "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, the critical Greek text is wrong in deleting the word. If the Received Text is correct in recording the entire chapter of Mark 16, the critical Greek text is wrong in questioning much of that chapter. If the Received Text is right in recording Acts 8:37, the critical Greek text is wrong in deleting it. A choice must be made, and it is encouraging to see schools like Pensacola take a consistent stand on the Bible.

Many people have asked me what I believe is going on at Pensacola with the Bible Version issue and why they have produced videos in support of the King James Bible and its Received Text. I believe the answer lies with Dr. Dell Johnson. (This does not mean that I think he alone is responsible for PCC’s stand for the KJV.) I do not know how many of the leaders and teachers at Pensacola have a strong conviction about the KJV and the Received Text, but Dr. Johnson certainly does. He was not taught this position during his many years of higher education at theological institutions. During those days, he was not even aware of the writings of men like John Burgon and Dr. Edward F. Hills. While researching the issue for himself, though, he came to a strong conviction that he had been led astray in the matter of the Bible text.

Today he is standing for the Bible that has been preserved by God through the centuries, and we are always thrilled to see this. My book For Love of Bible contains the testimonies of many men who have similar testimonies, who were trained in the critical Greek text and were sympathetic to the modern versions but who were led by the Lord to reject that and to accept the Received Text and the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God.

The introductory presentation in Pensacola’s video "The Bible ... the Text Is the Issue" by Pastor Bates is particularly excellent. In a level-headed, Bible-believing manner he gives an overview of the doctrine of Bible preservation and leaves his hearers with the accurate conclusion that the King James Bible and the Received Text are the preserved Word of God. PASTOR BATES GIVES QUOTATIONS FROM MEN WHO TEACH IN FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST SCHOOLS WHO HAVE ADOPTED THE RATIONALISTIC POSITION THAT NO BIBLE TEXT OR VERSION CAN BE CALLED THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD AND THAT GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORD ONLY IN A VERY GENERAL SENSE. It would be worthwhile to obtain this video for Pastor Bates’ presentation alone.

I do not agree with everything that is presented on the Pensacola Bible Version Debate videos, but I certainly agree with most of it and I praise the Lord for Dr. Johnson's stand in this matter.

(In a separate article entitled "Theodore Letis: A Friend of Fundamental Baptists?" published in early 1999 I stated my opinion that it was wrong for Dr. Johnson to use Theodore Letis, a New Evangelical Lutheran, in this debate. I have discussed that matter personally with Dr. Johnson, and I understand that Dr. Letis will not be asked to return to Pensacola. Dr. Letis’s participation in the first part of the debate, though, does not destroy the effectiveness of the overall effort. The facts that Dr. Letis gave were accurate, even if one does not accept all of his conclusions.)