Pragmatism and the Spanish Bible Issue

One of the most common tactics used to defend the use of the Reina-Valera 1960 (RV1960) in our Fundamental Baptist churches is the argument of pragmatism. The argument goes something like this: many people have been saved, churches have been established, and pastors have been trained using the RV1960. Therefore, how can anyone claim that this version is deficient and that we should use a textually pure one?

At first glance, this argument may seem compelling. After all, we rejoice whenever someone trusts Jesus Christ as Savior, whenever a church is established, and whenever a missionary or pastor sees fruit from his ministry. However, we must distinguish between being thankful for what God has accomplished and assuming that every method, practice, or Bible version associated with those results must therefore be right. When practical results become the final standard by which we judge truth, we have adopted a philosophy known as pragmatism.

What Is Pragmatism?

Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that evaluates the validity of beliefs, ideas, or methods by their practical consequences and success. Pragmatism asks only one question: Does it work?

Biblical Christianity, however, must ask a more fundamental question: Is it right? These questions are not necessarily opposed. Something that is true and right will often also produce beneficial results. The problem arises when we use practical success as the ultimate test of whether something is right and ignore biblical principles.

Consider how this reasoning might operate in a church. A congregation introduces worldly entertainment, worldly music, women pastors, or other methods designed to attract a crowd. Attendance increases, and the leaders conclude that their methods must be acceptable because they appear to work.

But does a large attendance prove that every method used to attract people is pleasing to God? Does numerical growth establish the biblical soundness of a ministry? Of course not. If so, we should all be following the methods of Steven Furtick and Joel Osteen. Success, as measured by human standards, cannot replace the authority of Scripture.

The same principle applies to the Spanish Bible issue. Someone may argue, “Our church has used the RV1960 for decades. People have been saved, churches have been established, and God has blessed our ministry. Therefore, the RV1960 must be perfectly acceptable.” But as we will see, this pragmatic approach is dangerous.

When God Provides Despite Disobedience

Numbers 20 provides a powerful biblical illustration of why practical results cannot be the final standard of obedience. In this passage, the children of Israel again needed water in the wilderness. God instructed Moses to take the rod, gather the congregation, and speak to the rock so that water would come forth.

The command was explicit. Numbers 20:8 records God's instruction:

Speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water

Moses gathered the congregation, but instead of following God's instruction, he rebuked the people and struck the rock twice with his rod.

What happened after Moses disobeyed God’s instructions? We might expect that God did not perform the miracle. Yet that is not what happened. Numbers 20:11 records:

And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, the outcome appeared successful. The people needed water, and water came forth abundantly. The congregation drank, and their immediate need was met. But was Moses obedient? No. God had commanded him to speak to the rock, and Moses struck it instead.

The fact that water came forth did not change God's command. Nor did the congregation’s benefit from the water make Moses' disobedience acceptable. God subsequently pronounced judgment upon Moses because he had not sanctified Him before the people as He had commanded. Numbers 20:12 records God's words:

Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

The water came forth, but Moses was still held accountable for his disobedience. A beneficial outcome does not prove that all the actions producing it were obedient to God.

The congregation received what it needed, but Moses' disobedience remained a serious matter before the Lord. God's provision for His people did not erase the responsibility of His servant to obey His instructions. That principle should cause us to think carefully whenever someone argues that a questionable practice must be acceptable because good results followed.

We Can Rejoice in Salvation Without Endorsing Every Method

I thank God for every soul that has been saved through the ministry of churches using the RV1960, the RV 1909, the NIV, the ESV, and other Bible versions. I am grateful for faithful pastors who preach the gospel, missionaries who sacrifice to reach the lost, and churches that proclaim the saving message of Jesus Christ. Whenever someone hears the gospel, recognizes his need for salvation, and trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ, we have reason to rejoice.

A pastor’s or missionary’s testimony of salvation and church growth may be entirely genuine. His sincerity should not be questioned merely because someone disagrees with his choice of Bible version. Nevertheless, his experience cannot, by itself, establish the textual accuracy of that version. God's ability to accomplish His purposes through imperfect instruments does not make every imperfection acceptable, nor should we pretend that those imperfections do not exist or do not need to be corrected.

Pragmatism Is Not a Defense for the RV1960

The argument that many people have been saved through the RV1960 does not, by itself, establish that the version is textually acceptable. The same reasoning applies to any other Spanish translations. Their history of use, the testimonies associated with them, and the ministries that have relied upon them may all be relevant to understanding their influence. However, historical influence cannot substitute for an examination of textual accuracy.

If someone argues that the RV1960 faithfully represents God's preserved Word, the claim should be evaluated on its merits. What textual readings does it contain? How does it compare with the Received Text and Hebrew Masoretic Text? Has it been influenced by the corrupt Critical Text? In the case of the RV1960, we know without a doubt that it contains many corrupt Critical Text errors and even errors from the Septuagint.

Truth Must Come Before Practical Success

Pragmatism offers an appealing shortcut. Instead of examining a difficult question, we can point to a successful ministry and conclude that everything associated with it must be acceptable. But the example of Moses and the rock reminds us that a successful outcome does not automatically establish obedience. God provided water for His people, yet Moses was still accountable for failing to follow the Lord's instructions.

Pragmatism is not a sufficient argument for continuing to use the RV1960 when its textual accuracy has been proven to be severely wanting. The matter must be settled by Scripture, textual evidence, and sound reasoning, not by an appeal to practical success. May we always be grateful for what God accomplishes and for souls saved while remaining committed to following His Word faithfully.