A Public Letter to Those Who Divide the Church over Bible Versions

Grace and peace in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul’s final exhortation to Timothy still speaks with unbending relevance:
“Guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20–21).

The treasure entrusted to us is the gospel itself—the saving truth revealed in Christ. Yet in our time, that treasure is being obscured by pride and quarrels about human preferences. Some have claimed that they alone possess the “perfect Bible,” declaring that only one translation, the King James Version, and only one textual stream, the Textus Receptus, are truly perfect and inspired. They have spoken as though mastery of manuscripts were the mark of holiness, and they have turned their certainty into a test of fellowship.

Such confidence is not faith; it is conceit disguised as knowledge. Paul warned that those who chase after “falsely called knowledge” lose sight of the faith they claim to defend. The fruit of their teaching is plain: envy, suspicion, division, and the expulsion of faithful believers who refuse to bow to a human standard. In exalting one translation above all others, they have forgotten the Author of all Scripture.

Let it be said plainly: The Word of God is not bound to one edition, language, or culture. God has preserved His truth through centuries of translation and transmission, guiding His people in every tongue. To claim monopoly over that preservation is to shrink the majesty of divine providence into a narrow human system. The Spirit who inspired the Word still speaks through every faithful rendering of it.

Therefore, this letter serves as a public reproof.
Those who have divided the body of Christ through arrogance and harsh judgment must repent. Restore the unity you have broken. Cease calling “devilish” what God has used to bring millions to faith. Turn from quarrels about words and return to the Word made flesh.

To the wounded—those driven out for reading another translation—take courage. You have not left the truth; the truth stands with you. Scripture remains living and active, whatever language carries it.

The church’s strength is not in uniformity of version but in unity of Spirit. Guard, then, what has been truly entrusted: the gospel of grace, the love of Christ, and the peace that binds us together. May we lift up holy hands, not in argument, but in prayer.

Grace be with you all.

Teachers who abandon “the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ”

1 Timothy 6:3–5, If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

We are zeroing in on a passage that feels almost tailor-made for our modern quarrels about Bible versions. Paul is warning Timothy about teachers who abandon “the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ” in favor of obsessive debates and word-wars. The outcome, he says, is predictable: envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction.

When this mindset appears in modern form—as in those who insist that only one English translation - the KJV is “the real Bible” and who condemn others as using “devilish” versions—it fits Paul’s description painfully well. The problem isn’t the KJV itself; it’s the spirit of conceit and contention that elevates a preference into a boundary marker for faithfulness.

Paul’s warning exposes several dynamics at play:

• Conceit and ignorance: People claim superior insight, yet their understanding of textual history or translation is often shallow.

• Unhealthy interest in controversies: The debates become an identity rather than a pursuit of truth. They produce energy, not holiness.

• Strife and suspicion: Instead of uniting around Christ, believers begin accusing one another of corruption or deception.

• Misuse of godliness: Some even turn controversy into a platform for influence or profit, which Paul calls treating godliness as a means to gain.

The antidote is the same now as then: humility and focus on the substance of faith—Christ himself. Every reliable translation, whether KJV, NIV, ESV, or others, seeks to communicate the same gospel message across time and language. When someone weaponizes a translation to assert spiritual superiority, they’re not defending Scripture—they’re violating its purpose.

Paul’s principle is clear: true godliness produces peace, gratitude, and love of truth; false teaching produces division, arrogance, and endless wrangling.

If the church applies this passage faithfully, our aim shouldn’t be to humiliate those who cling to KJV-Onlyism, but to gently redirect them to what matters most: the living Word that transcends every version printed on a page.

Elders who are sinning

1 Timothy 5:19–20—Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

Paul was giving Timothy guidance for maintaining integrity and order among church leaders. It’s worth pausing on what he’s saying before connecting it to our modern situation.

In the first century, “elders” (presbyteroi) were the spiritual overseers of local congregations. They carried teaching authority and moral responsibility. Paul is warning Timothy not to accept rumors or unverified accusations against them—leadership can make someone a target for gossip or resentment—but if an elder is indeed found guilty of open sin, then the rebuke should be public so the rest of the community understands that leadership doesn’t place anyone above accountability. The principle is justice combined with transparency.

Now, we’re writing publicly to confront those who “divide the church” over issues like Bible versions or KJV Onlyism, the same Pauline balance applies. We’re right to be concerned about arrogance, factionalism, and quarrels over translations—Paul warns elsewhere that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1). His method of correction always aimed at restoration, not humiliation.

• Our goal is healing the body, not winning an argument.

• We try to speak truthfully with language that invites repentance rather than fuels another round of division.

• We are keeping the focus on the behaviors and attitudes—pride, quarrelsomeness, exclusivism.

• We anchor our critique in Scripture’s larger vision: humility, unity, and love for the truth rather than ownership of it.

Paul’s idea of reproving before everyone isn’t license for public shaming; it’s a call for accountable leadership, discipline for the sake of restoration, not condemnation.

Public correction is biblical, truth spoken in love, aimed at repentance, guarding the unity of the faith rather than fracturing it further.

Live in peace in Bible-Presbyterian Church

1 Timothy 2:8, Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.

This verse sits within a pastoral instruction about worship and conduct in the gathered community.

When Paul says, “I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing,” he’s addressing more than posture—he’s talking about spiritual disposition.

In the ancient world, lifting hands was a common gesture of prayer (a posture of openness and surrender). The key phrase is “holy hands,” which implies hands untainted by resentment, bitterness, or division. Paul is saying, in effect: before you pray, reconcile; don’t come before God with clenched fists or quarrelsome hearts.

How we approach disagreements? Whether about Bible translations, doctrinal nuances, or theories like Verbal Plenary Preservation (the belief that every word of Scripture is perfectly preserved in its original form).

Paul’s concern wasn’t the mechanics of preservation or linguistic precision—it was the character of the community. He wanted believers to pray together, not argue about which words are more sacred than others. Faithful prayer requires humility, not triumphalism over whose text is “purest.”

The irony is that many of the fiercest arguments about Scripture’s authority end up violating the very spirit of this verse. When we quarrel in pride over translations or textual variants, we can lose the posture of peace that authentic prayer demands.

To “live in peace in Bible-Presbyterian Church” and “come together to pray,” as I put it, means shifting focus from perfecting our textual control to embodying the Spirit of the text—love, unity, and holiness.

Paul’s vision is that the church’s strength isn’t found in uniformity of translation but in unified devotion. The words are precious—but they are alive only when handled by hands and hearts unstained by anger.

It’s a quietly radical statement: before defending Scripture, one must live what Scripture teaches.

Test them all

1 Thessalonians 5:19–22—Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.

Paul was giving closing exhortations to one of his earliest congregations. It’s a remarkably concise but loaded instruction about discernment in a community where ecstatic experiences and spiritual utterances were common.

What are “prophecies” here?

In this context, “prophecies” doesn’t mean predictions about the distant future, as we often imagine. In the early church, prophecy usually referred to Spirit-inspired speech—words spoken under a perceived divine impulse meant to edify, exhort, or encourage the community.

A “prophet” in that setting was not a fortune-teller but someone who believed the Spirit moved them to speak insight, guidance, or warning. In gatherings, multiple people might share such messages (see 1 Corinthians 14:29–33).

So when Paul says, “do not treat prophecies with contempt,” he’s warning against cynicism or dismissal of charismatic gifts. Apparently, some in Thessalonica were skeptical or uneasy about spontaneous spiritual speech—maybe after seeing abuses or wild claims. Paul doesn’t want them to swing too far toward disbelief.

“Test them all”

Paul’s balance is striking. He doesn’t say “believe every prophecy,” but “test them.”

Testing means discernment—evaluating the message’s origin and content:

• Does it align with the teaching about Christ and the gospel Paul delivered?

• Does it build up the community rather than divide it?

• Does it produce the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, etc.) rather than arrogance, fear, or confusion?

You can see this principle echoed in 1 John 4:1, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”

In practice, early Christians would weigh prophetic speech communally—others with discernment would evaluate whether it resonated with the known truth of God’s character and purpose.

“Hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil”

This is the ethical conclusion of discernment. Paul’s point is not to despise all prophetic claims, nor to accept all of them uncritically. It’s to sift—to embrace what genuinely reflects divine goodness and truth, and to reject whatever is false, manipulative, self-serving, or destructive.

Hold on to what is good and reject what is bad. But the verb “reject” (Greek: apechesthe) implies active avoidance—not merely disapproval, but intentional refusal to let harmful or false messages take root.

In essence, Paul envisions a community that is both spiritually open and intellectually alert—neither gullible nor cynical. Faith and reason in dynamic tension.

It’s one of the earliest models of critical thinking within a religious framework: openness to divine inspiration tempered by disciplined discernment.

Bible teachers with Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) - 1

If these Bible teachers—each afflicted with paranoid personality disorder, fiercely devoted to the King James Version, and convinced that the Textus Receptus is inerrant—end up fracturing a church and sowing discord, then the issue isn’t primarily textual or doctrinal. It’s spiritual, psychological, and communal.

The paranoia here is the deeper infection. Paranoid traits—suspicion, rigidity, hypersensitivity to criticism—warp theology into a defensive weapon. The KJV and TR, beautiful as they are in their linguistic and historical significance, become idols of certainty. Bible teachers in that state are no longer defending the faith but protecting an identity built on being right.

Biblically, the corrective method starts not with exegesis but with discipleship of the heart. The New Testament repeatedly warns against divisiveness born from pride and fear:

• James 3:17-18 describes wisdom from above as “pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits.”

• 2 Timothy 2:24-25 insists that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil.”

• 1 Corinthians 3:3-4 rebukes factionalism among believers as a mark of immaturity: “For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh?”

So, the biblical method of healing involves a few crucial steps:

1. Reorientation to Christ over Textual Pride – The living Word (Christ) must be placed above the written word’s particular form. When love for a translation or manuscript tradition replaces love for truth and community, the idol must fall.

2. Pastoral Intervention, Not Debate – Rational argument won’t reach paranoia. These individuals need pastoral care that reintroduces humility, trust, and relational safety—grounded in Galatians 6:1, where those “who are spiritual” restore others “in a spirit of gentleness.”

3. Church Discipline with Mercy – If they persist in divisive behavior, Titus 3:10-11 instructs: “Warn a divisive person once, then a second time; after that, have nothing to do with them.” This isn’t punitive—it’s protective, a way of containing harm while leaving the door open for repentance.

4. Communal Repentance and Teaching – The wider church must be catechized again in what unity means: that fidelity to Scripture includes fidelity to the Body of Christ.

The paradox is that these Bible teachers defend the Bible but deny its spirit. True orthodoxy cannot coexist with chronic suspicion and pride. The remedy is not more apologetics, but the rediscovery of meekness as truth’s companion.

When the intellect bows to love, textual fidelity finds its proper place again—as a servant of Christ, not His rival.

Bible teachers with Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD)

A person with paranoid personality disorder (PPD) in a church setting often exhibits patterns that appear spiritual on the surface but are driven by deep distrust and fear. Their theology, relationships, and ministry style become colored by suspicion rather than love or faith. Here’s how it typically manifests:

1. Chronic Distrust of Others – They interpret ordinary disagreements or administrative decisions as personal attacks or conspiracies. For example, if the pastor changes the order of service, they might believe it’s a hidden attempt to silence them.

2. Rigid and Defensive Theology – They cling to specific doctrines, translations, or interpretations with absolute certainty, not because of deep study, but because it offers a sense of control in a world they perceive as hostile. In their mind, questioning their interpretation equals questioning God Himself.

3. Projection of Motives – They often accuse others of manipulation, compromise, or heresy while being unaware that these accusations mirror their own internal fears. Paranoid individuals externalize their anxiety; what they can’t tolerate in themselves, they “see” in others.

4. Isolation and Factionalism – They slowly withdraw from church fellowship, forming small “purity circles” that claim to be the only true believers. Their motto becomes “we alone are faithful.” This inevitably leads to church splits, broken friendships, and exhausted leaders.

5. Resistance to Correction – When confronted, they interpret it as persecution. Matthew 18-style reconciliation (private conversation, gentle correction) often fails because they view even gentle words as betrayal.

6. Hypervigilant Spirituality – Outwardly, they may appear zealous and discerning—constantly “defending the truth” or “exposing error”—but this vigilance is powered by anxiety, not holiness. Their faith becomes a battlefield instead of a refuge.

The tragic irony is that paranoid personalities often start with good intentions: they want purity, truth, and faithfulness. But the fear of deception becomes stronger than trust in God. As a result, they damage precisely what they aim to protect—the unity and witness of the Church.

The biblical remedy lies in cultivating love that casts out fear (1 John 4:18). True discernment doesn’t come from suspicion but from peace, humility, and the capacity to trust God’s sovereignty even when others differ.

The Sin and Warning

The Sin and Warning to Those Who Divide the Church by KJV-Onlyism and Similar Doctrines While Receiving Holy Communion

The Lord’s Table is not merely a ritual; it is a holy mystery that binds the Church together in Christ. When Jesus said, “This is my body... this is my blood,” He was revealing the divine fellowship into which all believers are called—one faith, one Spirit, one baptism, and one body. The Apostle Paul, writing to a deeply fractured church in Corinth, warned them that to partake of the Holy Communion without discerning the Lord’s body is to eat and drink judgment upon oneself (1 Corinthians 11:29). That warning applies not only to personal sin, but also to the sin of dividing the Church of Christ—the body we claim to receive.

Among the modern divisions that tear at the unity of believers is the spirit of sectarianism surrounding debates such as KJV-Onlyism, Verbal Plenary Preservation, or claims of a Perfect Textus Receptus. These positions, when held as personal convictions, may be harmless expressions of devotion. But when turned into weapons to condemn, exclude, or judge other believers, they become a form of schism. Those who claim that salvation, orthodoxy, or the presence of the Holy Spirit depend upon adherence to one translation or one textual theory have replaced the living Christ with a linguistic idol. The sin is not in preferring the King James Bible, but in exalting that preference above the unity of the Church Christ died to redeem.

Paul’s warning rings through the centuries: “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). The bread of Communion is the symbol of unity. To divide over secondary matters—such as which edition of the Bible is “perfect”—while eating that bread is to contradict the very meaning of the sacrament. It is a spiritual hypocrisy: professing to receive Christ’s body while despising members of His body who read another translation or hold a different view of preservation. Such an attitude poisons the soul with pride and blindness, the very sins Paul said lead believers to eat and drink “unworthily.”

The warning is serious. When the believer approaches the Table without love, humility, and discernment, he risks spiritual judgment. The early Church understood that the Eucharist is not a reward for theological correctness, but a grace given to the humble and repentant. It is the feast of reconciliation, not of superiority. Therefore, to receive the Holy Communion while harboring contempt for others in the body of Christ—whether over translation, doctrine, or tradition—is to receive condemnation rather than blessing.

What, then, should those who have divided the Church through such doctrinal absolutism do? The answer is the same one Christ gives to all sinners: repent. Before approaching the Table, they must lay down the weapon of pride and embrace the spirit of love. They must confess that only Jesus is perfect, not our understanding of manuscripts or translations. The Word of God is living and active because the Holy Spirit breathes through it—not because of human preservation or textual purity. True reverence for Scripture leads to humility, not hostility.

Reconciliation must follow repentance. Those who have condemned or alienated fellow believers should seek forgiveness, both from God and from those they have wounded. They should remember that the same Jesus who said, “This is my body,” also prayed, “That they all may be one” (John 17:21). To honor the Bible while ignoring that prayer is to miss the heart of the Gospel.

In receiving Holy Communion, believers proclaim the death of Christ until He comes. That proclamation should not be undermined by factions and arrogance. The body and blood of Christ unite what sin and pride divide. Therefore, let those who come to the Table come in peace, with reverence, with humility, and with love for all who call upon the name of the Lord—whether they read from the KJV, ESV, or any other faithful translation. For the true Word of God is not confined to ink and paper but lives in the hearts of those who walk in the Spirit of Christ.

In summary, the sin of dividing the Church while receiving Communion is the sin of hypocrisy and spiritual blindness—partaking of the symbol of unity while nurturing division in the heart. The warning from Scripture is not merely a threat but a call to holiness. To approach the Table rightly, one must come in humility, forgiveness, and peace. Those who once divided the body must now seek to heal it. Only through love and repentance can the bread and wine become, once again, the true communion of the body and blood of Christ.

Fundamental churches

Fundamental churches — meaning those that hold to a strict, literal interpretation of Scripture and often separate themselves from what they see as theological compromise — face both internal and external tensions. These issues are not unique to them, but their particular theological rigidity and cultural posture make them distinct.

Let’s start with internal issues, the struggles from within:

1. Authoritarian leadership and control.
   Many fundamental congregations operate under strong pastoral authority, often discouraging questioning or dissent. This can create spiritual abuse, suppression of critical thinking, and a culture of fear rather than faith.

2. Legalism.
   Rules about behavior — dress codes, entertainment, gender roles — can become more central than grace or transformation. When rules replace relationship, faith becomes performative rather than transformative.

3. Isolationism and fragmentation.
   Because fundamentalism thrives on boundary-marking (“we are the pure remnant”), churches often split over minor doctrinal differences. That leads to constant schism and internal suspicion.

4. Intellectual resistance.
   There’s often a distrust of modern scholarship, science, or higher education, especially when it challenges traditional interpretations of Scripture. This can leave members unprepared to engage thoughtfully with complex modern issues.

5. Generational decline.
   Younger members raised in these environments often feel stifled or disconnected from modern realities, leading to an exodus toward more open or moderate faith communities — or out of religion altogether.

Now for the external issues, the friction with the broader world:

1. Cultural alienation.
   Fundamental churches often position themselves against “the world,” seeing modern culture as corrupt or apostate. This adversarial posture can make evangelism and public engagement difficult.

2. Public perception.
   The term “fundamentalist” has become loaded — associated with intolerance, anti-intellectualism, and extremism. Even when individual churches are caring and sincere, that stigma can limit their influence.

3. Engagement with social issues.
   Many fundamental churches resist social justice movements, feminism, or discussions about sexuality and gender. This not only isolates them from broader Christian dialogue but also alienates those seeking moral clarity in a complex world.

4. Political entanglement.
   Especially in the U.S., some fundamentalist groups have intertwined theology with partisan politics, often right-wing populism. This can blur the line between gospel witness and political ideology.

5. Interfaith and ecumenical resistance.
   Fundamentalism rejects cooperation with those outside its narrow doctrinal boundaries — even other Christians. This limits dialogue, unity, and shared mission.

At its best, fundamentalism seeks purity, faithfulness, and conviction in a world of compromise. At its worst, it becomes brittle — unable to adapt, dialogue, or love beyond its walls.

The heart of the problem is balance: how to hold conviction without falling into rigidity, how to be set apart without being cut off, and how to affirm truth without denying human complexity.

A Mighty Fortress Is Our God

Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” (original German: “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott”) is often called the “Battle Hymn of the Reformation.” Written around 1529, it’s rooted in Psalm 46 — “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.” The hymn is more than a poetic paraphrase; it’s a declaration of defiant faith in the face of fear, corruption, and spiritual warfare. Let’s take it verse by verse and trace how its truths still cut straight into the heart of the modern Church.

Verse 1:

A mighty fortress is our God,
A bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood
Of mortal ills prevailing…

This verse paints God as the ultimate defender — immovable, invincible, steady. In Luther’s time, “fortress” evoked the safety of castle walls against siege; today, the Church is less about stone and mortar and more about a spiritual community under assault by anxiety, cynicism, and distraction. The “flood of mortal ills” looks different now — political division, digital overload, moral relativism — but the point remains: God’s nature doesn’t erode with culture. Where people look to trends, therapy, or technology for refuge, this verse reminds the Church that stability doesn’t come from strategy but from sovereignty.

Verse 2:

Did we in our own strength confide,
Our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side,
The Man of God’s own choosing…

Here, Luther strikes at human pride. Even reformers aren’t saviors — only Christ is. The “right Man” refers to Jesus, the chosen one who fights for us. For the modern Church, this is a sharp corrective: institutions, charismatic leaders, or social causes cannot replace the centrality of Christ. Churches that build identity on politics or personal brands risk repeating what Luther rebelled against — a Christianity that trusts in men rather than the Man.

Verse 3:

And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us…

Luther’s imagery of “devils” isn’t quaint medieval superstition; it’s his way of describing the pervasive forces that oppose truth — deceit, injustice, despair. In the modern era, those “devils” might take digital form: misinformation, addiction, and apathy. The Church’s call remains unchanged — not to retreat from the world’s hostility, but to stand inside it, confident that God’s truth still wins through fallible vessels. This verse confronts a Church tempted to silence or compromise under cultural pressure.

Verse 4:

That word above all earthly powers,
No thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours
Through Him who with us sideth…

This verse exalts Scripture and Spirit — the twin anchors of Reformation theology. The “word” that abides above all powers challenges the Church today to resist making peace with ideologies that twist or dilute it. “The gifts are ours” affirms that the Spirit still empowers ordinary believers, not just clergy. The modern Church often forgets this and slips into consumer Christianity — spectating rather than participating. Luther’s verse calls the Church back to spiritual agency.

Final lines:

Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also;
The body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

Luther ends where faith meets fire — sacrifice. To follow Christ is to hold possessions, comfort, and even life loosely. In his time, this was literal; people were martyred for their beliefs. In the modern Church, persecution often comes subtly — social marginalization, career consequences, or ideological backlash. But the same courage is demanded. The verse reminds believers that the Church’s survival is not dependent on cultural approval but divine permanence.

In summary:
Luther’s hymn is not a nostalgic anthem but a living manifesto. It rebukes self-reliance, comforts amid chaos, and centers the Church on Christ’s enduring reign. The modern Church — buffeted by politics, technology, and shifting values — still needs this reminder: God is not fragile, truth is not negotiable, and faith is not fear’s prisoner.