The Historical Battle: Preservationists vs Original-Autograph-Onlyists
In the debate over the preservation of the Bible, one of the common tactics employed by “original-autograph-onlyists” is to claim that their position represents the traditional and historic position of the church. Believers in the perfect preservation of the Scriptures are accused of supporting a completely new position that was invented only in modern times. Anyone who believes that God’s perfect Word still exists despite the absence of the original autographs is often dismissed as a kind of “cultist” who has embraced strange and novel beliefs. For example, John R. Rice boldly proclaimed:
“There is not one...commentary or statement of faith or statement by a reliable authority that the King James Version is without an error in translation. Not one in the world!”¹
James Price called preservationists a “sect” in the title of his book King James Onlyism: A New Sect. He stated:
“The King James Only doctrine is a new idea...This new doctrine declares that the King James Bible is the providentially preserved Word of God...[The first advocate was] Seventh Day Adventist.”²
In the Spanish Bible debate, defenders of the RV1960 Spanish Bible often attempt to dismiss the calls of preservationists to use a pure Bible, such as the RVG, simply by claiming that this position is something new. They will proudly mock the King James Only position while, at the same time, gladly accepting millions of dollars in support from King James Only churches.
First, we must recognize that the fact that something is popular or old does not make it right. Two logical fallacies are often deployed in this argument: Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem) and Appeal to Popularity(Argumentum ad Populum).
Second, it is true that there have always been “scholars” who denied the doctrine of biblical preservation and cast doubt on what God said in the Bible. Satan was the first to do so in Genesis 3. It is also a fact that biblical preservationists have been contending with such arguments for just as long. Therefore, it is absolutely false to claim that belief in the perfect preservation of the Bible is some new or cultish belief. As we will see, history demonstrates otherwise.
Before we examine some of the men who stood for preservation throughout the centuries, I want to give credit to Joey Faust and his excellent research, which made this article possible. I highly recommend his book, The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement.³ Now let us look at some history.
John Bunyan (1628–1688)
John Bunyan was a Baptist pastor and author of The Pilgrim’s Progress, one of the most famous Christian books ever written. His book has been translated into more than 200 languages and is second only to the Bible in worldwide distribution among books.
John Bunyan believed in the doctrine of the perfect preservation of the Scriptures and rejected “original-autograph-onlyism.” To Bunyan, his King James Bible was a true and perfect copy of the original Scriptures in regards to purity. Observe what his devoted friend Charles Doe recorded concerning him:
“Mr. Bunyan’s dispute with a scholar to this effect: As Mr. Bunyan was upon the road near Cambridge, there overtakes him a scholar that had observed him a preacher, and said to him, ‘How dare you preach, seeing you have not the original, being not a scholar?’ Then said Mr. Bunyan, ‘Have you the original?’ ‘Yes,’ said the scholar. ‘Nay,’ but, said Mr. Bunyan, ‘have you the very self-same original copies that were written by the penmen of the scriptures, prophets and apostles?’ ‘No,’ said the scholar, ‘but we have the true copies of those originals.’ ‘How do you know that?’ said Mr. Bunyan. ‘How?’ said the scholar. ‘Why, we believe what we have is a true copy of the original.’ ‘Then,’ said Mr. Bunyan, ‘so do I believe our English Bible is a true copy of the original.’ Then away rid the scholar.”⁴
Joey Faust rightly observes:
“We are not even out of the seventeenth century and we already have one of the most well-known, beloved Christian writers rebuking a pompous forefather of the modern Originals-Only movement!”⁵
What a blessing to see the #1 most famous and beloved Christian writer expressing confidence that the English Bible he possessed was a true copy of the original Scriptures. If someone as famous and influential as John Bunyan held this belief, it is reasonable to recognize that he was not alone in his confidence in the Bible he possessed. The claim made by John R. Rice that no “reliable authority” had ever held the King James Bible in such high regard is therefore difficult to reconcile with historical testimony from men such as John Bunyan.
Michael Faraday (1791–1867)
Michael Faraday was an English chemist, physicist, and lay preacher who ranked #23 in Michael Hart’s The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. He also expressed a very high view of the authority and reliability of the King James Bible.
One of his biographers wrote:
“Apparently Faraday never admitted the possibility of human flaw in the printing, editing, translation, collation, or construction of the Bible...Having once accepted the views of his sect as to the absolute inspiration of the English Bible as a whole, he permitted no subsequent question to be raised as to its literal authority.”⁶
John R. Rice’s claim that no “reliable authority” had ever held the King James Bible in such high regard apparently also excludes one of the most intelligent and influential men in human history. The historical evidence demonstrates that strong confidence in the authority and preservation Bible did not suddenly originate with twentieth-century preservationists.
D. L. Moody (1837–1899)
D. L. Moody was one of the most famous preachers and evangelists of all time. Notice how strongly he expressed his confidence in his King James Bible and his opposition to the developing trend of modern biblical criticism:
“...if you deny the story of Jonah and the whale you must deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ...And I believe the great and overwhelming majority of the common people with their English Bible in their hands will stand with me in that judgment...There’s a false notion of authority associated with much that we hear in these days about the science of biblical criticism, as it is called...I believe there are a good many scholars in these days, as there were when Paul lived, ‘who professing themselves to be wise, have become fools...’...I have said that ministers of the Gospel who are cutting up the Bible in this way, denying Moses today and Isaiah tomorrow, and Daniel the next day and Jonah the next, are doing the Devil’s work...the cause of this state of things is in neglecting and apologizing to the natural man for the Word of God.”⁷
He also stated:
“If every word between the covers of the Bible is not absolutely true, then we had better burn it...”⁸
D. L. Moody lived during the same period in which Westcott and Hort were promoting their critical approach to the Greek text of the New Testament. Yet Moody strongly resisted the this new approach to Scripture and expressed absolute "every word" confidence in the preservation of the Scriptures. Once again, the historical record demonstrates that absolute confidence in the preservation of the Scriptures is not some modern doctrine.
Before we conclude, let us examine several additional historical quotations. Some come from Bible-believing preservationists, while others come from opponents of the position. Yet even the writings of opponents provide evidence that many Christians historically believed in perfect preservation and regarded the King James Bible as representing that preservation.
Additional Historical Testimony
Thomas Kingsmill Abbott wrote:
“...many trust the English Bible as infallible…millions [believe]...our English Bible is the code and canon of all truth.”⁹
Henry Venn wrote on January 3, 1780:
“I must conclude we have the substance of the Word of God as truly in a Translation as in the Hebrew Bible; and that every real Christian, who now devoutly ponders on his English Bible, has before his eyes the Oracles of God; and no less hears His voice, than if he could read the Hebrew...”¹⁰
Vicesimus Knox wrote in 1783:
“It is true, indeed, that some very devout and wellmeaning people carry the prejudice too far, when they profess to believe, that our translation was written with the finger of the Almighty, and that to alter a tittle of it is to be guilty of blasphemy.”¹¹
John Milner wrote in 1822:
“...most Protestants...take their English Bible in hand with the same confidence as if they had immediately received it, as Moses received the Tables of the Commandments, from God himself, on Mount Sinai...”¹²
Alexander Campbell (founder of the Church of Christ) wrote in 1828:
“So ill taught are many Christians that they cannot think that any translation of the scriptures deserves the title of the Word of God except that of king James...”¹³
The Christian Observer similarly observed in 1830:
“...does not the most uninstructed person who thinks the very words of King James’s translation the original diction of the Holy Spirit, familiarly speak of the respective style of St. Paul or St. John...?”¹⁴
Also significant is the testimony of The Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, which stated in 1831:
“It has been urged on your Committee, by an enlightened member of your [Unitarian] Society, that the theological information which they seek to diffuse [i.e. Unitarian doctrines] must meet with serious obstructions so long as the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, notwithstanding all its merits of general accuracy, and its greater merits of taste, continues to be the final appeal of the English reader in matters of controversy...”¹⁵
These quotations represent only a small portion of the historical evidence that could be presented. However they are sufficient to demonstrate that belief in the doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures—as we have in the King James Bible and its base text—was not an idea invented in the twentieth century.
For the sake of keeping this article reasonably concise, I will refrain from quoting the many additional historically documented examples of the doctrine of preservation being commonly held among God’s people. I highly recommend Joey Faust’s book for a much more in-depth study of this topic. Once again, I thank him for his extensive research.
Conclusion
I want to conclude this article by simply observing that the historical evidence makes the popular claim that the preservationist position is “new” simply a false claim. The evidence we have examined demonstrates that Christians throughout history have expressed confidence that the Scriptures they possessed were truly the Word of God. Men such as John Bunyan, Michael Faraday, and D. L. Moody, along with numerous other historical witnesses, demonstrate that a strong confidence in the authority and preservation of the Scriptures did not suddenly appear in modern times. The doctrine of preservation is not “new.” The historical record shows that it is not.
It is important to point out that our confidence in the preservation of Scripture does not rest upon the testimony of Bunyan, Faraday, Moody, Rice, Price, or any other human authority. Our confidence rests upon what God Himself has said concerning His Word. Our Lord Jesus Christ taught:
Matthew 5:18“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Luke 21:33“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.”
The preservation of Scripture is therefore not a strange or novel doctrine invented by modern Christians. It is a conviction rooted in the promises of God and supported by a long history of believers who trusted that God was able to preserve the Word He had given.
With all due respect to good men such as the late John R. Rice, the historical evidence demonstrates that his claim that no reliable authority had ever held such a high view of the King James Bible simply cannot be sustained.
Notes
John R. Rice, The Sword of the Lord, March 30, 1979.
James D. Price, King James Onlyism: A New Sect (2006), citing Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1930).
Joey Faust, The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement.
Charles Doe, The Struggler (1691).
Joey Faust, The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement, p. 56.
Ibid., pp. 59–60, citing Silvanus Phillips Thompson, Michael Faraday: His Life and Work (1898).
Dwight L. Moody, The Independent, February 11, 1897.
D. L. Moody, quoted in H. M. Tabor, Faith or Fact? (1897).
Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It (1857; 1871).
Henry Venn, January 3, 1780, quoted in The Life and a Selection from the Letters of the Late Rev. Henry Venn(1836).
Vicesimus Knox, Essays, Moral and Literary, Volume 1 (1783).
John Milner, A Vindication of The End of Religious Controversy (1822).
Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist (1828–1829).
The Christian Observer (1830).
The Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, Volume 12 (1831).
