John Sung was a preacher, evangelist, Bible teacher, and man of prayer. But I have found no reliable primary evidence that he taught a doctrine of “one perfect Bible” identified with the KJV, the Chinese Union Version, the Textus Receptus, or any other particular modern Bible edition.
In fact, the evidence we have points in a rather different direction.
1. John Sung certainly believed strongly in the Bible
There is no question that Sung was a Bible-centered preacher.
Timothy Tow's recollection of Sung describes him as a very serious student of Scripture, and Sung's evangelistic ministry involved giving people Bibles and encouraging them to read them. Tow recalls that during Sung's 1935 Singapore meetings, people bought English Bibles, Chinese Bibles, and Chinese-English New Testaments, and Sung personally autographed some of their newly purchased Bibles. (True Life BPC)
So it would be wrong to portray Sung as indifferent to Scripture.
But loving the Bible is not the same thing as teaching a particular theory of textual preservation.
That distinction is extremely important.
2. I find no evidence that Sung taught KJV-Onlyism
This is the part that deserves emphasis.
Sung died in 1944. His major ministry was conducted in China and among Chinese-speaking Christians in Southeast Asia. His preaching was primarily in Chinese, with interpreters when necessary. Contemporary accounts describe his use of Chinese and English Bibles, rather than a doctrinal insistence that one particular English edition was the only perfectly preserved Word of God. (Home of Grace)
I have not found a statement from Sung saying:
“The King James Version is the only Bible.”
Nor have I found him teaching:
“The Textus Receptus is perfectly preserved.”
Nor:
“The Hebrew and Greek text underlying the KJV has been perfectly preserved.”
Nor:
“The KJV is the perfect Bible.”
Those are much later controversies and formulations. They should not simply be placed into John Sung's mouth.
3. The Chinese Union Version is especially important here
There is an obvious chronological problem with claiming that Sung taught the Chinese Union Version as the one perfect Bible.
The Chinese Union Version was published in 1919. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
Sung certainly lived and ministered during the CUV era, and Chinese Christians used the CUV extensively. But that does not establish that Sung regarded the CUV as an absolutely perfect, verbally preserved Chinese Bible.
In the evidence I have located, I do not find Sung making such a claim.
That is a very important distinction:
Use of a Bible ≠ declaration that that Bible is perfect.
The same principle applies to his use of English Bibles.
4. What did Sung actually emphasize?
This is where the contrast becomes quite striking.
The documentary evidence repeatedly emphasizes:
the Bible, prayer, repentance, evangelism, the Holy Spirit, revival, holiness, and obedience.
And his final emphasis was famously:
「要多多祷告，今后的工作是祷告的工作。」
“Pray much; the work from now on is the work of prayer.”
The historical material surrounding this statement does not turn the conversation toward Bible versions. It turns toward prayer and dependence upon God.
Likewise, Sung's 1941 correspondence about revival emphasized that revival would come not through human ability but through the work of the Holy Spirit, with Christian workers uniting in prolonged prayer.
That is much closer to Sung's actual documented emphasis than trying to make him a twentieth-century spokesman for KJV-Onlyism.
5. We should therefore distinguish three different things
This is perhaps the most important conclusion.
First: What John Sung actually taught.
He taught and preached the Bible intensely. He called people to repentance, faith in Christ, holiness, evangelism, prayer and dependence upon the Holy Spirit.
Second: What John Sung did not clearly teach.
I find no reliable evidence that he formulated a doctrine of:
“one perfect Bible edition.”
And I find no evidence that he identified such a doctrine with the KJV, CUV, TR, Majority Text, or any other particular textual tradition.
Third: What later Christians may believe about Bible preservation.
A twentieth- or twenty-first-century Christian is free to develop an argument for KJV-Onlyism or another doctrine of preservation. But that argument has to be established from Scripture, textual evidence, historical evidence and theological reasoning.
It should not be strengthened artificially by saying:
“John Sung believed this.”
unless John Sung actually said it.
6. This gives us an important principle for your KJV-Only research
I think this could become a very useful methodological point in your broader study:
Do not make historical heroes into advocates of controversies that they themselves never addressed.
John Sung is a particularly good example.
Someone can say:
“John Sung loved the Bible.”
That is historically defensible.
Someone can say:
“John Sung preached the Bible with extraordinary conviction.”
Also defensible.
Someone can say:
“John Sung believed the Bible was God's Word and should be obeyed.”
Clearly defensible.
But:
“John Sung believed the KJV was the only perfectly preserved Bible.”
That requires documentary evidence.
And at present, I have not found it.
The same caution should apply when someone invokes Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Moody, Torrey, fundamentalist leaders, Chinese revivalists, or other respected Christian figures as authorities in the modern Bible-version controversy.
7. A concise thesis
I would state the conclusion this way:
John Sung was unquestionably a Bible-centered evangelist, preacher and teacher, but there is no reliable evidence that he taught KJV-Onlyism, Chinese-Union-Version-Onlyism, or a doctrine that one particular Bible edition constituted the uniquely perfect and verbally preserved Bible. He died in 1944 and therefore never addressed later versions such as the RSV, NIV or ESV. His documented emphasis was on the authority and proclamation of Scripture, prayer, the work of the Holy Spirit, revival, repentance and evangelism. Therefore, John Sung should not be recruited retrospectively as an authority for a modern Bible-version controversy that he himself did not formulate.
That is, in my view, a much stronger historical argument than simply saying “John Sung did not talk about Bible versions.” It acknowledges what he did believe and preach while refusing to attribute to him a position for which the documentary evidence is lacking. (True Life BPC)
No comments:
Post a Comment