Evangelicalism and the Donald

I’ve generally avoided discussing candidates in the past on Truth in the Trenches. In part, Christians role in politics has, I believe, distorted people’s understanding of our central message – that man is created in the image of God, that we are a fallen race, deserving of punishment, but that God is merciful, and provided a way of escape from our deserved wrath through Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, when we start discussing political topics, this last point, God’s mercy and grace, gets lost in the shuffle, or at least in the popular media.[1]

And yet, I am very concerned with the number of Evangelicals supporting Donald Trump. I can understand supporting Trump if he wins the Republican Primary; after all, at that point and time, there will be fewer choices, most third parties aren’t viable in the United States (for good or for ill), so one has three choices, vote for the democratic nominee, vote for the Republican nominee, or abstain from voting (or vote for a third party candidate, which has the same impact as staying home). And yet, during the primary, there are a number of other choices.

Trump is usually criticized for his rhetoric, this is not a fair or wise criticism in my opinion; while I dislike his lack of nuance bellicose rhetoric did not prevent Churchill from being the essential figure in World War II. But what is concerning is the man’s questionable honesty and integrity, and in a Republic, these are serious concerns. Trump has called himself a Christian, but when he says that he doesn’t think he needs God’s forgiveness, (and this would include his divorce from his first wife after he had an affair). Now please don’t get me wrong, I believe firmly in forgiving people of their past sins; but claiming to be a Christian without realizing a need for forgiveness seems to be pandering, the empty rhetoric common at this time of the year. The lack of distinction of his supposed conversion to conservative principles equally lack credibility; he supported Hillary and abortion, until he decided to run as a Republican in the primary. He may compare himself to Reagan, but this is the pale comparison of a political opportunist.

Trump is also arrogant. I am not against confidence, but I serious question a man whose biggest argument is that he will “do great at” whatever the question of the moment is. Finally, Trump is not a lover of good men, one of the requirements for a pastor (and on that ground this is something I think believers should take very seriously). Trump’s approach to Cruz is over the top character assassination – we do not like it when this is done by the progressives to conservatives and Christians, will we render, therefore evil for evil? Do we replace a democrat who regularly uses invective as a means of punishing his enemies in the press with a Republican who will do the same? Some will make the argument that this means he won’t be able to work with Congress, and this certainly has been true of Obama’s demonizing of Republican, but an even bigger issue is that Obama and Trump here share the same character flaw.

This is in juxtaposition to other conservatives whose embrace of conservative principles seems sincere. Some of whom discuss Christianity in a way that is unfeigned and honest. So why would an Evangelical choose Trump in the primary when there are simply better men available?

[1]On a second note, my goal for Truth is the Trenches is to be broadly Evangelical, but while a Christian approach to political theory will be influenced by his or her Christian worldview, these approaches will also be influenced by secondary questions of theology.

Insanity, Thy Name is America

The state of Texas, considered by some to be the bastion of classical liberalism and traditional family values, has indicted two persons from the Center for Medical Progress with a felony count of altering government documents and one, David Daleidan, for a misdemeanor count of attempting to buy human tissue.

I could note that there is a serious problem in our society when buying the remnants of murdered babies is considered a less serious offense than forging a driver’s license, nor with the apparently missed irony that, if David Daleidan was attempting to buy human tissue, this indicates that Planned Parenthood must be selling human tissue (a transaction, after all, requires two parties); nor will I discuss the role of journalists in society. There are long standing debates about what methods are legitimate for journalists to gather information and these are perennial fights about which I will not speak, other than to ask the rhetorical question of whether there is a selective enforcement of policies on this regard.

What is important is that the charges specify that the videos were deliberately altered to cause harm to Planned Parenthood– I find this to be a difficult assertion to defend, particularly since the Center for Medical Progress released extended transcripts of those videos, and unless they can demonstrate that Daleidan has cut and pasted entire sentences together, the editing charge should be dismissed as fiction.

So if the videos aren’t altered, why bother with these nonsense charges? Why do we see Planned Parenthood getting away with their crimes against God and man? Why is Texas indicting the whistleblowers? The answer, perhaps is the conscience, the reminder in a civilized society that dismisses God that some actions are unjust. Planned Parenthood provides a society intent on sacrificing its children to the false gods of convenience and prosperity with the convenient fiction that these aren’t children, they are only globs of tissue. The purpose of this fiction is to quiet the conscience, at least to an extent, by not thinking about how heinous abortion really is; it is a refuge from the God whose existence they deny.

The Center for Medical Progress, and those who protest abortion with pictures of unborn babies have the audacity and the unmitigated temerity to rip that convenient fiction away from the eyes of the willingly deluded, it exposes the secret shame of America’s sin, and we cannot bear the sight of the mirror to which they expose us. Within the new confines of our emerging culture, this audacity must be punished, and the offenders destroyed.


The truth is that we live in a declining society, and as believers, we can’t be blind to these realities. Romans 1 describes societal decline, and noting among other things the great violence societies can embrace (Rom 1:28-32). We blithely hear talk about progressives opposing intolerance on the one hand, and instituting speech codes on university campus to eliminate any discussion of a difference of opinion from theirs; they are constantly repudiating racism while embracing the ideology and names of racists like Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson. They claim we have progressed from the fifties, but ignore our rising murder rate and the new holocaust happening in women’s centers every day in our nation. This is simply moral insanity, a society that has rejected rationality in their rejection of God.


As Christians we have to be prepared to expose truth, answer objections and perhaps be ready to pay the consequences. Jesus noted we needed to count the cost of discipleship, and perhaps David Daleidan is an example of what that cost might come to entail.

The Moral Contradiction of Atheism

There is a lot of confusion about what Christians like Francis Schaeefer mean when they discuss the problem of morality for Atheism/Naturalism/Secular Humanism/etc. The argument was never that Naturalists were necessarily more immoral than anyone else, Christians believe that man was made in the image of God, that we are all tainted by sin, and even after faith, growth takes time. But this isn’t the point of the moral argument. The moral argument is in point of fact that atheists do have ethical beliefs but their moralizing is irrational. George Marsden states succinctly,

“Contemporary university culture is hollow at its core. Not only does it lack a spiritual center, but it is also without any real alternative. Although many of the most prominent academics are preoccupied with politics, they are unable to produce a compelling basis for preferring one set of principles over another. [emphasis mine] on the contrary, while they tend to be dogmatic moralists, many also espouse theories that would undermine not only traditional moral norms but their own as well.”[1]

Let me provide a few apparent moral disconnects for consideration.

Problems for Consideration

  1. Many moderns who do not believe in God note that we need to preserve other animal species. But if Darwinism is true and there is no God, we should of course accept the extinction of animals like the polar bear as an indication that they are unfit for their current environment and rest assured some new species will eventually arise to take their place. If climate change is really human caused (I am not raising an argument on this one way or the other, I’m simply assuming it for the argument) and it really does threaten other species, why should a naturalist care?
  1. On facebook an atheist asked who would have an abortion to save their child, and then attempted to substitute emotional blackmail for argumentation by suggesting they would take a sick child and sit them down and tell them they could, but would not save the child’s life. This of course, seeks to discuss the abortion debate by appealing to our natural altruistic love of a child. Some have suggested that there is benefit in altruism genetically to a society, and if we discuss altruism in the abstract, this makes perfect sense. But lets flesh this out, lets say we are discussing a child who has a congenital illness, a heart malfunction of some sort.

Wouldn’t this in a truly atheistic Darwinian world be “excessive altruism?” In this case, what grounds support terminating a pregnancy of a child that does not have the same congenital illness in favor of a child that will pass this trait on? Doesn’t this decision maintain an unfitness in the species? Some might argue that excessive altruism is a negative side effect of a more useful altruism, but why should society, in recognizing that this trait is a negative one, allow it to be perpetuated?

  1. Why should we care for people with Alzheimers? One can argue that the elderly are a useful source of wisdom and caring for them provides a benefit to society. But when someone has advanced Alzheimers, on what grounds does a committed atheistic Darwinist argue we should allow them to continue to use and consume resources? Many might argue this again, is a byproduct of positive altruism, but the above argument applies.
  1. No one is a fan of Hitler, so much that some now speak of comparisons to Hitler as an Ad Hitlerum fallacy. But, why all the hate? One might very well argue that Hitler’s society was not viable and lost, but on what grounds are his ideas really more moral or less moral than those of anyone else? This isn’t a polemical question, it’s the same basis as the others – on what grounds can we argue that he was morally wrong and those opposing him were morally right? One could of course argue that his methods were a bad means to an end, but if this is actually the reason to reject Hitler, it doesn’t actually explain the rhetoric.


The argument that is being made is not that Atheists have no understanding of morality, but that their ideas about morality and their moralizing is contradictory to their ontology, or as C S Lewis puts it, “they are better than their principles.”[2]

[1] George Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3.

[2] C. S. Lewis The Abolition of Man, (Harper: San Francisco: 1944) reprinted (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House: 1971), 23

Modern Myths 3: The Witch Trials

One of the big claims made by naturalists against Christians are the witchtrials. Like our other modern myths, the truth of the matter has grown somewhat over the years. So before answering the actual question lets set a few facts straight.

  1. There were not millions of people killed during the witch trials, and most of them were not women.

Various stories put the deaths at the witch trials at more than 9 million between the mid fifteenth century and the 17th century, most of them women, but this simply isn’t true. In total over about three centuries, there were no more than 100,000 total executions for witchcraft, and the number is probably around 60,000.[1] To put this in perspective, it took more than a hundred years for the witch trials to achieve as many deaths as the two years of the Great Terrors under Robespierre. Nor were woman more likely to be killed than men.[2] Often times, in the current mileu of society, this is linked to the belief in a primitive, egalitarian “witch cult” that was overthrown, and that this group was being suppressed. The entire idea behind these ancient goddess worship cults is itself a sort of modern myth, there is no evidence of such an ancient golden age in Europe,[3] and the idea that goddess worship leads to a more just society does not fit with the evidence either. The Athenians were committed to goddess worship, but their record on the rights of women is atrocious by any standard.

In a sense, then, the exaggeration of the numbers indicates we are firmly on the grounds of propaganda not well developed history.

  1. The Witch trials were not a product of the inquisition or the Religious courts.

            Often times, the religious courts or the inquisition are made the ultimate villains in the piece, but in point of fact, this is incorrect. The religious courts and the inquisition tended to be far more careful, and far more reticent than the popular witch fevers that spread during the time.[4] Nor was conviction an automatic death sentence, most people convicted of witchcraft by the religious courts were offered the opportunity to repent, and renounce the devil, with no long term ill-treatment; most accepted this offer.

The various witch-finders worked through the lay courts, which were often less educated, and less careful. Salem is a good example of this.

  1. The Witch trials may not have been religious

            Rodney Stark has argued that the Witch trials came about through the Church’s treating the professional sorcerers as competitors for their services. There is a certain amount of rationality to this proposal, Stark has asserted that the medieval church had a “church of power” opposed by a “church of piety” and there is a certain sensibility to this proposal given what we know of human nature. There are always those who see institutions as means of personal aggrandizement, whether religious, collegial or governmental.


There is something appealing to the Baptist in me, and my natural abhorrence of a state church in this suggestion. And yet, this is I think the problem, the proposal is too rational. If this was merely marketeering gone wrong, why were the better educated, but more self-interested religious courts less likely to kill a witch? The witchtrials happened in spurts and in outbreaks, and while there certainly were opportunists involved,[5] paranoia and hysteria are human traits that have been attached to many things other than the witchcraft by societies other than Christian ones. Similar things are true, for example, of fears involving Satanic ritual abuse in the 80’s which influenced both religious and irreligious groups based on poorly documented works. Similar things are true of the alleged[6] red scares of the fifties. There are examples from the ancient world, including theories about Jews and Christians that had little basis in fact, while the witch trials are examples of “inconsistent monsters,” and are abhorrent- they are all to sadly a result of human nature in this fallen world, not of Christianity.

[1]Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God, 202-204; Philip J Sampson, 6 Modern Myths about Christianity and the West, 136-8


[2]Rodney Stark, 211-214.


[3]Bruce Thornton, Plagues of the Mind Locations 3086-3719; Rodney Stark, 207-211.


[4]Philip Sampson, 138-42; Rodney Stark, 204

[5]Such theories are particularly rife in discussions of Salem, along with other discussions of possible hallucinogens in the crops.

[6]I say alleged because the declassification of the Venona telegraphs leads to considerable questions about this period of time, and it is now certain that the Soviet government did have numerous spies and agents in the US State department, including many brought before HUAC and Senator McCarthy’s committee. However, questions involving many in Hollywood, including Lucille Ball indicate that this process was not wholly rational, either.

Modern Myth 4: Christianity caused Western Slavery

I eventually plan to address questions related to slavery in the Old Testament, but the defense I’ve been working on is somewhat unique, so before publishing, I want to make certain that I’ve thought through a few potential ramifications (and since its one of my two major ideas for a dissertation topic, a little bit of discretion is useful). So instead, I will limit this discussion to claims that more modern slavery is a Christian invention, operating with specifically Christian sanction.

  1. Historical problem #1: It Was Christianity that ended Slavery in the West 

         However we deal with the question of the historical role of slavery in the Western Hemisphere, it must be noted that it was specifically Christians, and not atheists or naturalists (such as the French Philosophe’s) who brought about the end of slavery. In fact, the Naturalists of the day did not seem to consider the question important until such time as they thought they it might provide them with a political advantage.

Sometimes, those with political agendas or those claiming interest in Social Justice have claimed that English opposition to slavery was basically due to economic policy – the institution was no longer economically viable. And yet, we know this was not true, England divested itself of slavery at a substantial cost to itself, and spent even larger amounts of money patrolling various waterways to liberate those on slave ships. Nor was this a peculiarly Quaker undertaking, it is true that the Quakers were the first to organize, but there was quite a bit of discussion on the issue amidst various protestant and roman Catholic groups before and after the quakers.

  1. Early proponents of slavery generally opposed Christian Missionaries

There was an active tendency to oppose Christian interference in colonies where slavery was practiced, largely because the Christians missionaries gave slaves dignity that was otherwise denied to them. There were active attempts, for example, to evangelize slave populations. The Roman Catholic Church passed numerous slave regulations in Spanish territories, though once again, political concerns and desire for power minimized their actual implementation in some cases. Similar things are true of a French code.[1] The English state church had little real power in the Caribbean, where the largest number of English slave colonies existed. As is a common story in the American colonies, there were many cases where legitimate commercial interests gave way to oppressive attempts to build fortunes, no matter what the cost in conflict with heartfelt religious sentiment. Slavery was outlawed in the north largely on religious grounds, the Southern story is, sadly very different rooted in the greed of a few, fears of genocide, and a belief among even Southern’s who claimed to be opposed to slavery that simply ending the institution would be impossible, because it had become an essential part of the Southern economy.

  1. The conflict within Christianity presents a truer picture: Consistent and inconsistent monsters.

                  I’ve previously discussed the issue of inconsistent monsters, which is a reference to those whose actions, while monstrous are actually in contrast to their professed beliefs. It is true that some claimed to defend slavery, though how they understood Paul’s admonitions to treat believing slaves as brothers (and many believe implies manumission when possible, since manumission in the first century world was not as easily done as many moderns seem to believe) could be meshed with their actual experience is a bit dumbfounding. They were inconsistent monsters, or as many moderns put it, hypocrites. The very fact that Paul’s words were largely ignored (with some notable exceptions) means their defense of the institution is, for the most part suspect. This is actually matched in history by the earlier ending of slavery in the west, though plenty of criticism can be labeled at its feudalism, which replaced the concept.

Slavery has always been a regressive institution, often presented as a way of dealing with prisoners of war. Christians realized at some point that the human rights abuses of slavery were sub-Christian and it was impossible to maintain the institution on the one hand, and protect human rights on the other.

For further reading, please see Rodney Stark’s for the glory of God, chapter 4.

[1]Rodney Stark, 309-312

Modern Myths #2: The Persecution of Galileo

There are numerous claims in the modern myths about the rise of science. One of the most famous is the case of Galileo. It is true that Galileo was brought before the inquisition, and censored; but there are a number of other problems with the analysis.


Here are a few myths and perhaps outright lies related to Galileo. Some are simple, there is no evidence that Galileo was tortured, that he was poorly treated, and he was not put into exile until his death; he instead continued to live on a church stipend until his death.[1] Similarly, Cardinal Bellarmine did not refuse to look through a telescope, as is often portrayed.


  1. Galileo did not prove the Heliocentric Solar System.


It is often asserted that Galileo proved the Heliocentric solar system (which means that the sun is the center of the solar system), or that he further demonstrated the correctness of the Copernican view (and sometimes the heliocentric view is known as the “Copernican Revolution.”) The problem is that neither Copernicus nor Galileo proved or demonstrated their theories to be correct – in fact, their theories were wrong; instead of the Copernican Revolution we should be speaking of the Keplarian revolution, because it was Kepler, not Galileo or Copernicus that actually put forward a model of a heliocentric world that actually able to provide a better predictive model than the ptolemic model.


  1. Galileo did not contradict the Bible, he contradicted Aristotle.


It is commonly asserted that Galileo contradicted the Bible. Actually, though, the passages questioned do not present a view of the solar system, they typically refer to the appearances we see around us, thus it is no different than a news report that speaks of sunrise in the mornings. What Galileo actually contradicted was the Ptolemic theory as put forward by Aristotle, and was accepted in most of the West through Aquinas. While it is true this led to Biblical and theological questions with both the reformers and the Roman Catholics, for Galileo a larger issue might be that his discussions of Scripture are similar to Calvin and Augustine’s.[2] This in point of fact is one of the real issues for Galileo . The Roman Catholic church reserved for itself all right of interpreting the Scriptures, and in stepping into interpretational waters, it was to a specific Catholic doctrine that he was found to be in error.


      It became common to portray both Galileo and Newton as revolutionary humanists who opposed Christian faith and religion as superstitions. It makes a great story for propaganda but this was ultimately an invention of the French Philosophe’s. Similar elements such as stories of mistreatment are embellishments. It is important to note, Galileo was a convinced and confirmed Catholic, despite the mild reprimand he received.[3]


  1. Galileo’s issues were political


Galileo had previously been supported by the pope and by Bellarmine. However, in publishing his controversial work, Dialogue Concerning the Chief World Systems he ran into problems. The Council of Trent had essentially argued that the Aristotelian view should be held until there were observational evidences present to disprove it. This is something that Galileo could not supply. To make his case weaker, he insulted the Pope by putting the generally accepted argument suggested by Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of his foil, the dim-witted Simplicio. Galileo’s rather acidic personality meant that the academy also took the opportunity to chime in against him.[4]


Some people will immediately argue that this was religious politics – but politics are not ultimately about the doctrine itself, politics is an infiltrator of a religion; as Rodney Stark notes, there is the church of power and the church of piety in religious organizations, and these are often in conflict. Politics is a universal problem, intrinsic in all institutions and a great bane to theology and science alike, but lets not confuse it with religious sentiment.



[1]Sampson, 6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization, 38-9

[2]Sampson 40-42

[3]Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God, 165.

[4]Rodney Stark, 163-5

In with the New

Last time, I noted that we spend a great deal of time and emotional force on points of secondary concern, I believe we should perhaps spend a little less of each on Calvinism/Arminianism, millennial positions and other secondary points that, while important are not the main course of Christianity. Scripture tells us to mark and avoid those causing divisions among us, a policy our churches often do not practice, at their own peril. There is some danger when we begin to focus on these points of discussion, in part, because they take our time, energy and resources away from major conflicts, in favor of minor ones.


Jude tells us we are to “Earnestly contend for the faith.” In many cases, we tend to avoid thinking about this passage, we think of it in terms of being a “fundamentalist,” a term that I believe has been fundamentally misunderstood through the years.[1] I do not mean that we must be contentious (though we should be careful not to judge other believers on the basis of modern societies ideals)[2] but one does not necessarily need to be mean, cruel or insulting to stand up for the faith. I believe that the current state of the Church is dealing with those within and without and apologists must be ready to answer and deal with both.

Those Without

For those without we need to be able to do two things, first to defend the faith from the scorners and to provide grounds for evangelism. Many people object to the first, stating “I believe, does it really matter what others think?” I would agree with William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga – no, you don’t have to submit your faith in Christ to a jury of others to be rational. There is a difference, however, between “knowing” the faith and “showing” the faith;  between that knowledge of the faith we gain through the experiences of daily life, and the ability to use that to help others, such as younger believers, who are growing up in a world shaking their faith at every corner, whether through peer-groups, moral pressures towards sexual impropriety, or university pressures. While there come times in life, when being able to provide a rational defense to yourself is wise, I submit as I have in the past, apologetics is about ministry.


Similarly, the lost are not growing up in a world assuming Christianity’s truthfulness. This means evangelism is benefited by having apologetics tools. People no longer assume the Bible is true, they have heard it is a myth, or some ancient superstition, and providing grounds for why they should believe is only reasonable and hospitable. I do not mean to imply that we can argue someone into Heaven – rather the Christian apologist seeks to make His mind a means for the Holy Spirit to work on the heart.

Those Within

In our internal discussions, there is a tendency, over time, for Christians to forget the foundations of the faith, and over time heresy grows. I suggest Apologists and theologians are needed to deal with heresies, sects and unsound movements, to stand up for the fundamentals of the faith.

Passages of Doctrinal requirements for fellowship

So how do we define these fundamentals? I believe they come down to the commands of Scripture. 2 John tells us that we are not to welcome those that do not bring the doctrine of Christ. The book of first John gives us a clue as to what is meant here – 1 John is the first book in New Testament to directly address a doctrine of Gnosticism.[3] On this basis, I would suggest, the points of interest should be the person and work of Christ; heresies such as denials of the trinity denials of the deity of Christ, and denials of the historicity of the gospel.

A second issue, and more controversial is drawn from Galatians, and that is that salvation is by Grace through faith. Paul states, if anyone preaches any other gospel, they are to be accursed; while the implication is that the person is headed for damnation, this has implications at the least for the reception of those people within the Church. Paul’s argument throughout the book includes the implication that those adding to the gospel (specifically those requiring gentile converts to Christianity to become Jews) are not to be treated as part of the Church. On these grounds, we oppose not only traditional, Christological heresies, but Roman Catholicism, those preaching a social gospel, liberation theology etc.

Grounds for those doctrines

A third issue that ought to be a dividing line is the Scripture itself. At some point the question of the grounds of theology will inevitably be a necessary discussion on these heresies. When discussing the gospel with unbelievers. The question of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture[4] is a secondary question in external matters.[5]; that is,

If Christ is risen from the dead and is God, then his testimony of the Old Testament is important, as well as his commissioning of the apostles. On these grounds, the infallibility,[6] and inspiration of Scripture is the final line I would suggest. On these grounds I would reject the King James only movement,[7] or those who seek to amend the Bible on social issues, such as homosexuality.


In the new year, then, I hope we can refocus our debates, majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors. Putting out the old and bringing in the new will make our discourse more profitable.

[1]As I discussed previously, I believe the Fundamentalist/Evangelical controversies are at this point an issue of history. Very few Evangelicals understand the underlying issues, and many Fundamentalists are either friendly now with Evanglicalism as a whole, or they are fighting their way towards obsolescence by focusing on distinctions that are ultimately unimportant.

[2]I sometimes wonder how some of the prophets such as Amos would fare in our society. Would we say they were not loving, or inclusive? Would we suggest that they should choose to be winsome? I believe we should be careful, some of those old, unwinsome, fundamentalists were very loving men in my experience, and many of those preachers we look at as terribly judgmental were soul winners, they understood that sin was the problem, and the unbeliever needed to be faced with their sinfulness to come to know Him.

[3]Other New Testament books, such as the Corinthian correspondence and Colossians might address Gnosticism, but there is nothing distinctly gnostic in these writings, and these could be directed towards a Jewish sect of Christians later known as the Ebionites, a group Paul had already dealt with in the book of Galatians.

[4]Inerrancy means the Bible contains no errors; infallibility means the Bible is true in all it affirms doctrinally.

[5]We do not come to faith because we believe the Scriptures to be true, we believe the Scriptures to be true because we have believed. This is why, with unbelievers, I focus no on the Inspiration of Scripture as a whole, but on the historical reliability of the text.

[6]I suggest infallibility not because I am open on the question of inerrancy. I firmly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as statement in the Chicago statement on inerrancy. But even with the discussion of the Chicago statement, there is a murkiness in the application of inerrancy when it comes to hermeneutics, which means people who sound like inerrantists do not like the term.

[7]To be King James only, one must either argue that God did not properly inspire the Bible when it was written, that God’s Word was lost, or that the Greek and Hebrew perfectly matches the King James. Because the King James makes errors and adds contradictions into the translation, and because it is clearly not true the third is untenable, and the previous two are divergent doctrines.