The Founders of the Bible Presbyterian Church

 

1. The Founders of the Bible Presbyterian Church

The Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) was founded in 1937 in the United States. Its origin traces back to a split within the Presbyterian Church of America, which itself had broken away from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. over modernism and liberal theology.

The key founders and early leaders included:

• Dr. Carl McIntire – A major figure in the Fundamentalist movement and editor of The Christian Beacon.

• Dr. Allan A. MacRae – An Old Testament scholar and later the founding president of Faith Theological Seminary.

• Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. – A well-known Reformed theologian and seminary president.

• Harold S. Laird and Roy T. Brumbaugh, among others.

The new denomination sought to combine Presbyterian orthodoxy with a strong separationist and fundamentalist stance, opposing both theological liberalism and ecclesiastical compromise.

2. Were They “KJV Only”?

No — the founders of the Bible Presbyterian Church were not KJV Only.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the KJV-Only movement did not yet exist in its modern form. That movement arose mainly in the 1950s–1970s, especially under figures like Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Peter Ruckman, and later David Otis Fuller.

The BPC founders respected the King James Version as a faithful English translation — it was the common Bible of the English-speaking church — but they did not teach that it was perfect, inspired in itself, or superior to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

In fact, men like MacRae and Buswell were trained biblical scholars who worked with the original languages and supported responsible textual criticism within a framework of biblical inerrancy.

3. Did They Believe in a “Perfect Bible”?

They believed in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts (autographs) — that the Bible, as originally given by God, was without error and fully inspired.
However, they did not claim that any existing translation or printed text (like the KJV or the Textus Receptus) was itself perfect or infallible.

Their stance can be summarized as:

“The Scriptures, as originally given by God, are without error. Our present copies and translations are reliable and trustworthy witnesses to that Word.”

This position is the classical Reformed and evangelical doctrine of Scripture — not KJV-Onlyism, nor liberal skepticism.

4. Summary

In short, the founders of the Bible Presbyterian Church were Bible-believing Reformed fundamentalists, not KJV-Only traditionalists.

They held to a high view of Scripture, yet maintained humility about human transmission and translation.

5. Some Bible Presbyterian Churches Became KJV-Only Extremists

Over time, certain Bible Presbyterian churches began moving toward KJV-Onlyism, a position far removed from the balanced scholarship and humility of their founders. This shift did not happen overnight, but grew out of a combination of fear, reaction, and misunderstanding.

After the mid-20th century, theological liberalism and Bible revision movements created deep anxiety among many conservative Christians. New translations like the RSV, NIV, and others were often associated—fairly or not—with the loss of biblical authority. In response, some believers clung tightly to the King James Version as a symbol of doctrinal safety and spiritual certainty.

What began as love and loyalty for the familiar KJV slowly hardened into idolatry of a translation. The desire to defend God’s Word turned into the claim that only one English version was perfect and all others were corrupt.
This reaction was often fueled by:

• Fear of modernism and textual criticism, which some confused with unbelief.

• Lack of understanding of how the biblical manuscripts and translations actually work.

• Emotional attachment to the KJV’s language and heritage.

• Influence from external voices in the broader fundamentalist world (e.g., Ruckmanism and certain independent Baptist groups).

In short, reaction replaced reflection. Instead of defending biblical inerrancy in the original inspired texts, some began to defend the translation itself as inspired and perfect.

What began as a fight for the Bible slowly became a fight about the Bible — dividing brothers and damaging the witness of truth.

The tragedy is that this extreme contradicts the very humility the founders modeled — men who believed the Bible wholeheartedly, yet studied it with scholarly care and spiritual reverence.

A faithful Bible Presbyterian position should stand where Scripture itself stands:

Confident in God’s preserved Word, humble in human understanding, and willing to test every claim by truth and love — not pride or fear.

Between Two Extremes

We need a deep and necessary reflection — and a balance that few seem willing to hold today. 

Between Two Extremes: Holding to Truth with Humility

In every generation, the people of God face two opposite dangers — extremes that appear to honor truth but in the end distort it. One is the claim of Verbal Plenary Preservation, which insists that a single text or translation is the perfectly preserved Word of God, untouchable and error-free. The other is liberalism, which denies that the Bible is the Word of God at all, treating it as a mere human book, a collection of ancient writings with no divine authority.

Both errors spring from pride — one from the pride of certainty, the other from the pride of skepticism. The first refuses to admit the limits of human transmission and understanding. The second refuses to accept the reality of divine revelation.

Yet Scripture calls us to a better way — the way of humble confidence. We can affirm that the Bible is truly the Word of God, inspired and trustworthy, while also acknowledging that we “know in part” (1 Cor. 13:9). God’s Word is perfect in its message, but our copies, translations, and interpretations are the work of imperfect hands and minds. That should not lead us to despair or disbelief, but to dependence — dependence on the Holy Spirit who leads the Church into all truth.

Faith does not demand blind dogmatism, nor does humility require unbelief. We can love the Word without idolizing a version, and we can study critically without doubting God’s voice within it.

Let us, therefore, reject both extremes. Let us not worship the text itself as though salvation were found in ink and paper. Nor let us dismiss the text as though God never spoke. Instead, let us read, study, and live the Scriptures with reverence and reason — confident that though we know in part, we are known fully by the One whose Word endures forever.

Critique and Correction of a Church Constitution

Examine and amend a church's constitution that upholds verbal plenary preservation.

Critique and Correction

Clause 4.2.1.1

We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Scriptures (Apographs) in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Ps 12:6-7; Matt 5:18, 24:35);

Critique

This section starts well — affirming verbal plenary inspiration (i.e., that every word of Scripture, not just its general ideas, was inspired by God).
However, it introduces a serious theological confusion by pairing verbal plenary inspiration of the autographs (original manuscripts) with verbal plenary preservation of the apographs (copies).

While Scripture is divinely inspired in its original autographs, the doctrine of verbal plenary preservation — that every exact word is perfectly preserved without variation in later manuscripts — is not biblically or historically defensible. God preserved His Word in substance and truth, but not necessarily in identical letter-for-letter form in every manuscript.

Correction

We believe that the Scriptures were divinely inspired by God in their original writings (Autographs), that they are fully authoritative, inerrant, and infallible in all they affirm, and that through God’s providence, the Scriptures have been faithfully preserved in all ages so that God’s people still possess His true Word in every generation. The Scriptures remain the supreme and final authority for faith and life (2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 1:20–21; Matt 5:18; John 10:35).

 

Clause 4.2.1.2

We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant;

Critique

This clause makes the error of equating the Textus Receptus (TR) and Masoretic Text used in 1611 with the infallible originals.
However, the Textus Receptus is a later edition of Greek manuscripts — not the “original” New Testament text, and certainly not identical to it.
Modern textual criticism (using thousands more manuscripts, including much older ones) has shown that the TR is not superior, but merely one historical tradition among others (like the Byzantine and Alexandrian).

To restrict infallibility to the textual base of the KJV is to make a translation tradition rather than the inspired autographs the final authority.

Correction

We believe that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (with small portions in Aramaic) and the New Testament in Greek, and that these original-language texts, as preserved in the total manuscript tradition, are the inspired and authoritative Word of God. We affirm that faithful translations of these Scriptures truly communicate God’s Word to His people.

 

Clause 4.2.1.3

We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be The Word of God – the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation of the Bible in the English language, and do employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible;

Critique

This clause confuses translation preference with doctrinal truth.
While the King James Version is a remarkable literary achievement and a faithful translation for its time, claiming it is the most faithful or accurate translation — and therefore to be used alone — is untenable and sectarian.

Language changes; better manuscripts have been discovered; and new translations (like the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, etc.) accurately reflect the same inspired message for modern readers.
No single English translation is “perfect.” God’s Word is perfect — not our translations.

Correction

We affirm that faithful translations of Scripture, such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and others, accurately communicate God’s inspired Word to English readers. While we respect the historical value of the King James Version, we do not regard any one translation as uniquely inspired or superior in authority. All faithful translations serve the Church in making God’s Word known.

 

The True Meaning of Possessing a Bible

To “possess” a Bible is not merely to own a physical book, but to have in one’s hands God’s living Word — the revelation of Himself, His redemptive plan, and His will for humanity.
The power of Scripture does not depend on ink, manuscript tradition, or translation; it depends on the Spirit who inspired it and illumines the reader’s heart (1 Cor 2:12–14; Heb 4:12).

The Church’s confidence is not in a particular version of the Bible but in the God who speaks faithfully through His Word.

Thus, to possess a Bible — in any faithful translation — is to hold the voice of God, able to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15).

How We Should Read the NIV and ESV

Both the NIV and ESV are accurate, faithful, and trustworthy translations based on the best available Hebrew and Greek texts.

• The NIV uses dynamic equivalence: it seeks to express the meaning of the text in natural modern English, prioritizing clarity and readability.

• The ESV uses essentially literal or formal equivalence: it stays close to the wording and structure of the original languages, prioritizing precision and word-for-word faithfulness.

Both approaches have merit.
A healthy approach is to read both — using the ESV for study and the NIV for devotional reading or evangelism — understanding that both convey the same inspired truth.

Summary of the Corrected and Balanced Doctrine

We believe that the Scriptures, as originally given, are the divinely inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. God has faithfully preserved His Word through the manuscript tradition, so that His truth is accessible in every generation. The Bible, rightly translated, remains the supreme authority in faith and life. We honor faithful translations such as the KJV, ESV, NIV, and others as true witnesses to God’s Word, recognizing that no single translation holds exclusive authority, for the authority belongs to the inspired Word itself, not any one version.

 

We know in part and we prophesy in part

 

A Message to Those Who Claim to Know Everything About the Autograph and the “Perfect Bible”

If even the inspired apostles — men who spoke and wrote under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit — confessed, as Paul did, “we know in part and we prophesy in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9), then how can any of us claim to know fully what even they said they only knew in part?

If Paul, Peter, John, and the rest humbly admitted their partial understanding, what does it say about us when we claim complete knowledge of the original text, or perfect certainty about one translation?

Some boast, “We have the perfect Bible,” or “The KJV is the only true Word of God,” while condemning all other versions as corrupt. But isn’t that the very spirit of pride the Bible warns us against?

When we turn love for Scripture into rivalry — when we wage war over words and translations — we become like warmongers in the household of faith. We turn the Bible, meant to be the sword of the Spirit, into a sword of division among brethren.

The truth is this: no manuscript, translation, or human interpretation is perfect. Only God’s Word — the living Word, Christ Himself — is perfect. The written Word points to Him; it is not meant to be an idol we use to strike others.

So let’s walk humbly. Let’s seek truth with reverence, not arrogance. Let’s remember: to know in part is not a weakness — it is a reminder of our dependence on the One who knows all.

"We Know in Part": A Humble Correction to Dogmatic Certainty

What does "in part" mean? 

The Greek word is ἐκ μέρους (ek merous), which means "partially," "imperfectly," or "in fragments." Paul is comparing our current, earthly knowledge to a puzzle with most of the pieces missing. We have genuine knowledge and genuine prophecy, but it is:

1. Incomplete: We do not possess the full scope of divine knowledge. Our understanding is finite and limited by our human nature, culture, and historical context.
2. Imperfect: The knowledge itself, even when true, is not yet in its final, perfected form. It is like seeing a dim reflection in a ancient bronze mirror (1 Cor. 13:12), rather than seeing "face to face."
3. Provisional: This partial knowledge is temporary. It is a necessity for our time on earth but will be rendered obsolete when "the perfect" comes.

Applying "We Know in Part" to the Claim of a "Perfect" Bible

The claim that we possess a "perfect" Textus Receptus (TR) or a "perfect" King James Version (KJV) runs into the sobering reality of 1 Corinthians 13:9. 

To claim the TR is "perfect" is to claim that 16th-century scholars, with their limited manuscript evidence, achieved a level of textual certainty that transcends the "partial" nature of human knowledge Paul describes. It places a human work (as excellent as it is) on the level of divine perfection reserved for the original autographs and for God Himself.

Conclusion

The declaration "we know in part" is a divine check on human pride. It applies to theologians, pastors, and every believer.

When a church or group claims to have exclusive possession of the "perfect" Bible in the form of the TR or KJV, they are, perhaps unintentionally, violating the spirit of 1 Corinthians 13. They are claiming a level of final, exhaustive knowledge that Paul reserves for eternity. This can lead to the very arrogance and division that Paul was correcting in Corinth.

A truly high view of Scripture acknowledges two things simultaneously:

God's Word is perfect, powerful, and eternally true.

Our grasp of it, through textual transmission, translation, and interpretation, is and will always be "in part" until we see Christ face to face.

Therefore, we hold our Bibles with deep reverence and confidence, while simultaneously holding our interpretations with humility and grace, always ready to learn and be corrected by the very Word we seek to defend. We have everything we need for life and godliness in Scripture, but we do not know everything about Scripture itself.

We know in part - 1 Corinthians 13:9

The phrase "we know in part" from 1 Corinthians 13:9 serves as a crucial theological and ethical restraint against intellectual arrogance, especially within religious communities.

Exegesis of "We Know in Part" (1 Corinthians 13:9)

The verse reads: "For we know in part and we prophesy in part" (1 Corinthians 13:9, NIV).

Context

Paul is writing to the church in Corinth about the nature of spiritual gifts (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) and their temporary status compared to the enduring excellence of love (, agapē). Chapters 12 and 14 deal with the gifts themselves, while chapter 13, often called the "Love Chapter," situates them in their proper perspective.

Key Terms and Explanation

• "We Know" (ginōskomen): This is the present active indicative form of the verb "to know." It refers to the present, ongoing state of knowledge the believers possess.

• "In Part" (ek merous): This is the critical phrase. It literally means "from a part" or "in a fragment." The knowledge and prophecy the Corinthians possess are not whole, complete, or exhaustive; they are partial, incomplete, or fragmentary.

Paul contrasts this current state of partial knowledge with a future state of complete knowledge in verse 12: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

The present partial knowledge is a limitation of the current age, where spiritual gifts are necessary but imperfect channels of divine truth. This limitation exists because the perfect (, teleion), referring either to the complete revelation of Christ's return or the completion of the New Testament canon (a matter of scholarly debate), has not yet come.

In essence, Paul asserts that the totality of God's truth is too vast to be contained and comprehended fully by human minds in this earthly existence. Our knowledge is only a small piece of a much larger puzzle. 

Application to Bible Text Claims

The principle of "we know in part" provides a theological humility check when approaching claims of having the "perfect original Bible," "Perfect Textus Receptus," or the "best bible in KJV."

1. Humility in Textual Criticism

• The Problem of the "Perfect Text": To claim possession of a perfect original text (whether the autographs, the Textus Receptus, or any other manuscript tradition) is to claim to have complete and flawless knowledge regarding textual transmission. This contradicts the "we know in part" principle.

• Textual Reality: The original documents (autographs) no longer exist. All Bibles today are translations based on thousands of copies (manuscripts) that contain minor variations. While scholars believe the essential message is preserved, determining the single, perfect original wording for every verse requires making judgments and interpretations based on available evidence. Since human judgment is always partial (we don't know the exact history of every single copy), the claim of a perfect text in hand risks overstating our current knowledge.

2. Humility in Translation

• The KJV and Translation Limits: The King James Version (KJV) is a venerable, historically important, and theologically sound translation.⁴ However, it's a translation of the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) into English. All translation involves interpretation and choice of words, and no translation can perfectly capture the full nuance of the original language.

• Language is Incomplete: Even if the Textus Receptus (the Greek text largely underlying the KJV) were perfect, the English translation is still a human endeavor limited by the partial nature of human language itself. Claiming it is the best or only acceptable version ignores new textual discoveries since 1611 and the partial nature of human linguistic knowledge.

3. Humility in Church Teaching

The application to churches who "act like they know everything" is direct:

• The Theological Error: When a church demands absolute adherence to every doctrinal point, claiming to possess the only correct interpretation, it elevates its partial human knowledge to the level of complete divine revelation. This is a form of epistemological pride.

• The Call to Humility: The verse reminds leaders and followers that even their deepest, most sincerely held understanding of Scripture is incomplete. This necessitates:

  • Openness to correction from Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

  • Love and patience with those who interpret minor points differently.

  • A focus on the foundational truths (like Christ's nature, death, and resurrection, which are known clearly) rather than peripheral, speculative issues.

  • Knowing that we “know in part” keeps us from pride. Theology must be held with confidence in God’s truth, but humility in our understanding. Since our knowledge is partial, we should keep learning and refining our grasp of Scripture, languages, and doctrine. The goal is not to boast in having the “perfect text” but to know the perfect Savior. When Christ returns, knowledge will be complete; until then, faith and love must guide our approach to truth.

Conclusion: The central message of 1 Corinthians 13:9 is a call to humility in all theological and ecclesiological matters. Our knowledge of God's truth, while real and sufficient for salvation, remains partial on this side of eternity. When we encounter others' interpretations, manuscript debates, or translation choices, this partiality should compel us to exercise love (1 Corinthians 13:13), recognizing that complete knowledge awaits the day when we see "face to face."

1 Corinthians 13:9 teaches that our knowledge is real but incomplete. We possess genuine truth, but not the fullness of it. Therefore: 

We must hold Scripture in deep reverence, but also hold our interpretations with humility. We must be careful not to claim absolute perfection in our human copies or translations.

Above all, we must walk in love — the one virtue that will endure when knowledge and prophecy pass away. As Paul says: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (v.13)

Even our “best Bible” is a gift of grace, but only love — expressed in humility and truth — reflects the perfection of Christ.