Fairness to KJVOs

Thank you Manchester.
It is a paradox isn't it?
If we belive in sola scriptura, even though it is not found in the Bible...

We believe it by faith. Sometimes that very faith makes no sense when using human reasoning.
Surely you do not believe that all truth as pertains to salvation is solely found in Scripture? Why even the Scriptures tell us that God is made known by his very creation. Therefore they who have no scripture may know God's eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

In His service;
Jim

 

I think this misses the point. No one on here is trying to deny those who choose the KJV that they are using and have the Word of God. The real issue is the militant KJVOist who have attacked the Word of God that is found in the other legitamate versions. If a person believes that they have the Word of God in the KJV, great, because they do. But, lets understand that it is the KJVOist that tell me I don't have the Word of God because I prefer the NKJV, they are wrong, as I do have God's precious Word.

Bro Tony

 

manchester, it's a bit tricky. For me personally (and many may disagree), "sola scriptura" is not a doctrine itself, but an approach to determining doctrine. So from my perspective, yes it is very fair to demand that KJV-onlyists must have scripture to back up their view if they are holding/promoting it as a doctrine.

But regardless of our view on sola scriptura, if they hold sola scriptura as doctrine, that is not an excuse for them creating more contradictory paradoxical doctrines for themselves (i.e. KJV-onlyism contradicts sola scriptura in the first place). Also, a sola scripturist could teach as doctrine that the NASB is the "only" Bible. What then? You have two sola scriptists each promoting mutually exclusive extra-Biblical doctrine - who is authoritative, how can we reconcile that? We can't. So yes, I believe that if one promotes KJV-onlyism (or NASB-onlyism or ANYTHING) as doctrine, they need to back it up with scripture if they claim they hold sola scripturist as a doctrine.

 

Natters, I know that this may be a tired old horse, but why is it that we do not need scriptural support to hold a 66 book canon as inspired, but we do need it for believing that the KJV is perfect? There seems to be a general concensus among protestants that the 66 book bible we hold to as inspired scripture is correct, but there is not a verse in the scriptures that attest to this.

 

That is great Tony. So perhaps you could personally address the militants, rather than lump us all together.
Too often that is what I see. When I am replying to a post that interests me, often I am lumped in with the "militants" who slander you and your position.
My position has always been;
I believe my Bible is wholly without error given to me by the grace of God. You may not believe that. You may believe that it is found in a multitude of versions. Fine. Perhaps we could at least agree that the version fight is a waste of energy which could be better spent on evangelizing the lost. And at least spend our energies on correcting doctrine which does matter, like for instance, the abhorent doctrine that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer.
It is becoming painfully obvious to me that the majority of the threads in this forum is directed to KJVo. Even when nobody on the KJV side chooses to enter a particular discussion, I often read a given thread and see the maliciousness of some here in their diatribes against it. Why is this? Nobody is replying to them. Why are they so intent on showing yet another problem!!!?

It saddens me to see our brethren so swallowed up in this.
Can there never be the voice of grace heard?
In His service;
jim

 

av1611jim,
Looks to be a sign of the times.
Mat. 24:12 "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."
The word of God pierced and divided my heart and it was cold inside.

 

I pray daily that God would break my stony heart. That He would "Plow the fallow ground" and help me to love the brethren, the lost, and Him as I ought to.

In His service;
Jim

 

And thank you Dogsbody, for your gracious words.

In His service;
Jim

 

James Newman said "Natters, I know that this may be a tired old horse"

Some of my favorite horses are old and tired.

James Newman said "but why is it that we do not need scriptural support to hold a 66 book canon as inspired, but we do need it for believing that the KJV is perfect? There seems to be a general concensus among protestants that the 66 book bible we hold to as inspired scripture is correct, but there is not a verse in the scriptures that attest to this."

My personal view? I'm not sure how popular it will be, but here goes: I do not hold the idea of a "66 book canon" as a doctrine, therefore no scripture is needed for believing it. As you said, it is a consensus of a large part of the church in general. Similarly, there is no verse that says "the book of Ruth is scripture", yet we believe it is, not as a doctrine, but as a consensus of the church. Different branches of the church have slightly different canons (Protestants have 66 books, Catholics have more, Ethiopic and Slavic Christians have even more, etc.) - all based not on "doctrine" but on the consensus of their branch of the church. I personally think it is a mistake for a "sola scriptura" church to put "KJV" or "66 books" or other things like that in their doctrinal statement (but not necessarily in their bylaws or constitution or whatever), for that creates a small contradiction with their position on sola scriptura.

 

OK, so what if I say 'I believe that the 66 books of the bible as found in the Authorized King James Version are inspired and solely should be relied upon for doctrine. Another version may contain truth, but only in so far as it agrees with the KJV.' Have I now made a 'doctrine' out of KJV Only? Or is it akin to saying that Apocryphal books may contain sound doctrine, so far as they agree with the 66 books of my bible?

 

This is not quite what sola scriptura means. What it means it that everything we need to know to be "thoroughly furnished" can be found in the scripture--the truths found in scripture are adequate to make us complete men and women of God. What we hold people accountable to believe--as in our doctrinal statements, etc--ought to be either clearly stated in scripture or derived directly from scripture.

I think that if you correctly define sola scriptura, there is indeed scriptural support for this teaching.

Scripture is "breathed out by God", so we can know it is completely reliable in what it says. We are never told that the church and it's pronouncements are always completely reliable, or that believers individually are completely reliable in what they percieve as truth, or that traditional practices of groups of believers are completely reliable--in fact, the evidence of scripture would suggest otherwise. So if we want things to hold up as the "absolutely correct" thing to believe or do, the scripture is our only fully reliable source of information.

It's because scripture is "God-breathed" that is is useful </font>

• for teaching--for setting forth positive things that ought to be believed.</font>
• for reproof and correction--for insisting that wrong beliefs and practices be changed.</font>
• for training in righteousness--for teaching things that ought to be practiced.</font>

And by using scripture in this way, we can be confident that those who are devoted to God can be completely fit--scripture is the only authority that needs to be appealed to to make us what we ought to be.

See! There I directly derived "sola scriptura" from you from one particular statement of scripture. So "sola scriptura" is indeed based on "sola scriptura".

Well yes, since they all claim "Bible as absolute rule of faith and practice".

And yes, because if KJV onlyists are suggesting that men and women need to use the KJV in order to be the best followers of God that they can be, then--according to those verses in 2 Timothy--they ought to be able to use the scripture itself to teach that, and scripture itself to reproove those who don't believe and practice that.

All faith or practice statements that we, including our KJVO brothers and sisters, hold to dogmatically ought to be supported by scripture.

[ November 11, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

James Newman said "OK, so what if I say 'I believe that the 66 books of the bible as found in the Authorized King James Version are inspired and solely should be relied upon for doctrine."

I would ask you "Why do you believe that?"

James Newman said "Have I now made a 'doctrine' out of KJV Only? Or is it akin to saying that Apocryphal books may contain sound doctrine, so far as they agree with the 66 books of my bible?"

Good question. I guess it depends on the context of where you said it (in a "doctrinal statement"? in a response to your views on doctrine? in an attempt to show another as inferior or unbiblical or holding to wrong beliefs if they don't agree?), and/or how you personally view it in your own heart. I think that's why it's often difficult to distinguish between the KJV-preferred and the true KJV-only folk.

 

russell55 said:

What it means it that everything we need to know to be "thoroughly furnished"

Ahem, that's throughly furnished, you heathen!

 

av1611jim said:

If we belive in sola scriptura, even though it is not found in the Bible...

Who says? Apart from the Romanists, that is.

 

Dog, are you referring to our love of the brethren, or our love of the Word of God? Though I use the KJV as my Bible of choice, I don't agree that other versions are not the Word of God, and occasionally use them as well. This doesn't mean iniquity is abounding, and it doesn't mean anyone's love of God's Word has waxed cold. Now, if you're talking of the attacks KJVo's put up against those who use MV's and vice versa, then I might be able to see love waxing cold towards other Christians. Christians can disagree without tearing each other apart, can they not?

 

Woe is me! Things different are not the same! Death to the errant O!

 

Whoa, put on the breaks there, fella. Any Baptist statement of faith and practice I've ever seen holds dogmatically to the 66 book canon. Usually in the very first pragraph. Where is the scripture to back that up? Again, all arguments seem to use "whatever fits my agenda".
Dog gone.

 

AVL1984,
I was applying the verse to people. Sorry to be so transparent.

 

Russell55, you said:

but what is scripture?