I am a debate fanatic, especially when it comes to theological topics. The number of debate hours that I have watched over the last few years is staggering. You can ask my wife, I'm way too nerdy to be considered "normal". With that said, I was extremely excited when this debate was announced. It was almost like watching a college football game. I couldn't wait for it to start, I couldn't pull myself away once it started, and some of my preacher friends and me were texting our commentary through the whole thing. There also seemed to be a great deal of interest in this debate as the church was packed with many people who had driven from different states in order to be there. To my knowledge the online viewers never dropped below around 800 (counting both the BMBC and RFP stream). As of Saturday night, the video had over 15k views.
To begin with, I want to give props to Pastor Zorn and all of those that helped to put this on. This type of dialogue hasn't happened a whole lot within the IFB during my lifetime. Historically, theological debates have had a huge impact on the church throughout the last 2,000 years. Some of the greatest church confessions and creeds have come through debate (Nicea and Chalcedon come to mind). So again, I applaud Pastor Zorn and his congregation for stepping outside of the norm and putting this debate together.
Before I give a breakdown of the debate between Mitch Canupp and Nathan Cravatt, I need to give a full disclosure. I am a conservative IFB pastor and a King James man. To date, I have preached over 2,000 sermons in my life and have never preached out of anything but the KJV. I also have no intentions of changing Bible versions. However, I strive to be reasonable, balanced and gracious. I also don't lose any sleep over what the "brethren" think.
As a side note, although I have listened to all of them at some point through their sermons or podcasts, I have never met Cody Zorn, Nathan Cravatt, or Mitch Canupp. I want to say up front that from what I know of them, I have absolutely no reason at all to think of them as anything other than brothers in Christ who will be my neighbors in Heaven. I am rooting for them and their respective ministries, even though I would have areas of vehement disagreement with all of them. Therefore, there is nothing personal about this blog. With that in mind, let's break down the debate.
The Moderator
I'll be honest, I was concerned about the level of hostility going into this debate. This is a very heated issue with passionate people on both sides. Not to mention that this debate was held at a KJVO church with a KJVO pastor, which isn't exactly a neutral site. Also, just days prior to the debate there was a video clip of Pastor Zorn floating around social media in which he told his church that Cravatt (although he didn't mention him by name) was coming to "take their Bible". He also warned them not to listen to Cravatt just because he sounds nicer than Canupp. There is no need to poison the well like this if they have confidence in the merits of their position.
I would go into more detail about what Zorn said in that video clip, but it would be pointless because to his credit, he looked like a different person on debate day. He seemed to treat Cravatt with respect and fairness (a point that Cravatt re-emphasized in a follow up video to the debate). I also thought that Zorn did a great job of keeping time and making sure that the debate stayed on track. I also agree with their decision to disable the comments on the FB live stream. After reading some of the comments on the RFP stream, I wish that they had done the same.
To my knowledge, I don't think that Pastor Zorn has ever moderated a debate like this. I have seen moderators who were much worse in other debates, so good on him. The only thing that would have made the debate format better is if they had allowed for cross-examination. That's really where the rubber meets the road in any debate. Perhaps there will be a next time.
Full Stop
After the writing, and prior to the release of this blog I came across yet another video of Zorn slandering Cravatt. This time it was in Sunday school at his church, the day after the debate in which he seemed to handle himself so well. In Sunday School he told the class that he hoped they were listening to the debate with "their spiritual ears and not just their physical ears." He also said that he hoped that they recognized that "brother Cravatt" was using certain "tactics" in order to seduce the bride.
I became pretty heated when I saw this, which inspired me to come back and add this one section before I release the blog. At least for this section, forget what I said about not being personal. When I wrote this blog I was very respectful and G rated. However, after these latest slanderous comments I am now going to just come out and say what every sane person is already thinking. This attempt to defend the KJVO position was the worst public embarrassment for the "fundamentalists" since the Scopes trial of 1925. They were out matched, out studied, out witted, out classed, and as Zorn said, we can only pray that no one actually heard the debate with their physical ears. I have heard MUCH better cases for the KJV in my lifetime. And to see the KJVO crowd get on social media and beat their chest over what happened on Saturday is embarrassing.
As a fellow IFB pastor, I would also like for pastor Zorn to clarify some things. First, is Nathan Cravatt a brother in Christ or a seducer of the bride, because he can't be both. Second, I would really like some specifics as to the seductive "tactics" that Cravatt used. Third, why the slander? I wish that Zorn would have just stayed classy like he did on Saturday. Why roar about Cravatt like Godzilla behind his back, and act like Barney the purple dinosaur to his face? It's a really bad look. As far as I know, humility is still taught in the KJV, unless it was removed between 1611 and 1769.
I have talked to half a dozen of my IFB pastor friends about the debate and we all share the same conclusion. That is, that this debate and the shade surrounding it does not represent us. I would like to think that it doesn't represent the majority of the IFB. This is fringe behavior, unbecoming of our Savior, and I want to apologize on their behalf. Now back to the original blog.
The Stakes
It is of critical importance to understand that there were actually two issues that were being debated. The first being the subject matter about whether the KJV is the only inspired word of God for the English speaking people. The second, and much larger issue (in my opinion) is how we are supposed to view other people that haven't come to a KJVO perspective. Let's be honest, this debate was so much more than a debate about the Bible. This was a clash between IFB and RFP cultures, in which two of their respective spokesmen went head to head. The question is, was this an epic clash of good verses evil, or simply a family disagreement between brothers in Christ? I believe this to be the central issue of the debate, regardless of whether someone holds a KJVO perspective or not. More on this later.
Canupp
I believe that the fatal flaw with the KJVO side of this debate was that Canupp represents the most extreme, fringe element of the KJVO camp. He believes in at least some form of progressive revelation, that the KJV supersedes the revelation given in the Hebrew and Greek texts that the KJV was translated from. This was emphasized in the debate when Canupp said that, "The language became purer and purer until God got it the way that He wanted it." Canupp also made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care for Hebrew and Greek word studies. However, according to Canupp this isn't a big deal because 90% of the world speaks English (When in reality, it's less than 20%).
As Cravatt pointed out, Canupp also made it clear from some of his podcasts and sermons that he has a hard time believing that anyone can be saved from reading or hearing a sermon from another version (a point that Canupp made no attempt to deny). At one point Canupp actually made the argument that people who use others versions are following Rome and as a result will be "bundled up" with the tribulation crowd. This is a round about way of saying that they aren't saved, which is a huge blanket statement. As I stated before, I am a King James man, but this is ludicrous. Not only do I not believe that, I don't think that the vast majority of KJVO's believe that. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the majority of the people who attended the debate would agree with that. I think that this was proven by the fact that one of the few rounds of applause that Cravatt received came when he said that the "epitome of legalism" is making KJVO a prerequisite for salvation. It's hard for a particular side to "win" a debate when their debater holds a much more extreme view on the topic than they do.
Now let's take a brief look at Canupp's main arguments. To be clear, it is possible to support a good position, and yet use bad arguments in an attempt to support that good position. Regardless of what one thinks about Canupp's position on the KJV, I would hope that they could be level headed enough to realize that many of his arguments were just bad. For starters, it seemed like he had trouble staying on topic. I know at some point in the debate he hit on Baptist heritage, Calvinism, forced vaccinations, head bangers, rock bands, the coming persecution in America, the tribulation period, liberalism and a partridge in a pear tree. It seemed at times that he was playing to the crowd instead of trying to win with content. I knew that this would be a temptation for him with such a "home" crowd. However, in a debate I want to hear the merits of the different positions concerning the topic being debated.
As far as his manner and methods, I don't think he used any notes. I also don't know whether or not he gave a single citation throughout the entire debate. If you quote, you must note. Otherwise it's just an assertion, and anyone can do that. I can't remember a single time that he rebutted Cravatt directly on any of the arguments that he made. He did attempt to challenge the assertion that King James and the KJV translators were a bunch of baby dunking Calvinists, but Cravatt had ample documentation to refute this false statement. This really looked bad considering that Canupp had just condemned the ESV for having Calvinist translators.
The two worst arguments of all however, were the "two cities" arguments concerning the manuscripts and the numerics arguments that he put forth. As far as the cities (Antioch and Alexandria) are concerned, it proves NOTHING about the quality of the manuscripts or the people that copied them. Without going into detail, I would say please do more research on those manuscripts and where they came from. As far as numerics go, the man actually said that "6 is the number of man, Romans is the 6th book that Paul wrote, and it has the word 'man' in Romans." Arguments like this aren't helpful to the KJVO position. Such a blind grabbing of straws comes across as being cultic. It's borderline gnosticism.
Cravatt
As I stated, I have my disagreements with Cravatt. But if we are talking about who won the debate based on presenting and defending their position, it has to be Cravatt. He obviously did his homework on Canupp and his arguments. He came prepared with a binder full of notes and quotes, as well as illustrations. He handled the Q & A really well, and stayed close to the debate topic. He also refuted Canupp several times on some of his baseless, citationless assertions. He came across as competent, passionate and compassionate.
From the opening statements it was obvious that Cravatt was trying to prove himself credible, by proving that he is in fact a Christian. He let everyone know that he believes all of the fundamentals of the faith just like the KJVO crowd. I thought that this was a brilliant strategy. It was also a sad indicator of just how far some of the fringe KJVO camp have gone in their support of the KJV that they look at non KJV Christians as if they are the apostates found in the book of Jude. I felt like Cravatt's strategy might have disarmed some in the crowd.
Perhaps the best thing that Cravatt did for himself was to attempt to show that the gap between he and the KJVO camp isn't as drastic as the audience would have thought prior to the debate. He clearly stated his position that the Word of God is "any translation that remains faithful to the intent of the original languages." No one in the KJVO crowd would argue with this, except to say that the only Bible that meets this criteria is the KJV.
Conclusion & Take Aways
Some might be confused as to how I can be a King James man and yet not get behind Canupp's arguments. I would simply say that his KJVO position and arguments are so extreme that they don't represent me or the the majority of the KJVO camp. Arguments such as those presented by Canupp do more damage to the KJVO position than men like Cravatt could ever do. Bad arguments don't help my position, and I don't need them to speak for or represent me.
Another thing that doesn't help the KJVO position is a lack of grace and common decency. In the Q & A session there was a woman who asked Canupp if her husband's salvation was in jeopardy because he was saved out of an NIV. Canupp completely brushed the question off and went on a rant about sacrificing truth for the sake of unity (insinuating that they had forsaken the truth). Again this is cultic behavior that true KJVO's should want to separate themselves from. If the IFB's would call out more of this silliness within our own ranks as I'm doing now, the RFP would run out of things to talk about.
So, will this debate cause any KJVO's to swap their Bible out for an ESV? I doubt it. Will any non KJVO's get rid of everything but a KJV? Not a chance. However, I think that if there is a win to be found in this debate, it is that Cravatt proved himself to be a brother in Christ and not some snake eyed, blood thirsty vampire of a heretic. If nothing else, he came across as sincere, honorable and human. It's easy to have a monologue about someone when they aren't there to defend themselves. It's quite another to have a dialogue with that person when they are in the same room. I hope that everyone can learn that it isn't compromise to show compassion to those with whom we disagree. I also hope we can come away realizing that we all really need to think hard and decide which issues are primary and which are secondary. Not everything is on the same level as the Virgin birth and the deity of Christ. The tension between Paul and Barnabas proves that there will be people in Heaven that just flat out get on our nerves. That doesn't make them less of a Christian. This debate wasn't just about the KJV, it was about Christian unity as a whole. If someone is truly our brother or sister in Christ, we should love them as such and not treat them as if they have leprosy. If our position is strong, we don't have to be so insecure. That's what I took away from this debate.
Update
Within 30 minutes of the release of this blog, Pastor Zorn reached out to me via Twitter message. He said that he was willing to answer any questions that I might have and even volunteered to do an online interview in order to clarify some things. He stated that he does not believe that people can only be saved through a KJV, but are saved through the gospel of Christ. He also made it clear that he thinks Cravatt is a brother in Christ that he has serious disagreements with. As with anyone, Pastor Zorn and I have our disagreements, but I'm thankful that he reached out and we were able to talk about these things as brothers in Christ. You can watch the full interview here; https://youtu.be/lNOSJfa-x98
Immediately following the interview with Pastor Zorn, Nathan Cravatt reached out to me and asked if I would be willing to do an interview with him as well. You can watch that full interview here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Gg5ajHBrg
