Fairness to KJVOs

Jim,

I am in total agreement with what you posted here. As I have said earlier in this post and in previous post, it is not those who exclusively use the KJV that are the problem, it is those who called the Word of God in a different version, corrupt, new age, demonic, not God's Word that I speak against and respond to. If most KJVOist viewed it the way you do there would be no debate. Unfortunately that is not the case and I will always speak up when someone attacks the Word of God, as I know you would.

Bro Tony

 

OK, so may I now have a copy of this bible? Not just any old bible, I want this one:

If this is where you got your doctrine from, surely you can tell me which one it is.

 

So, to those of you who don't believe that scripture ought to be our only source of dogmatic faith statements, what other sources would you accept as authoritative?

Church councils throughout history?

Church tradition?

Special prophetic revelation?

And can you see the contradiction in saying that Bible is made up of the 66 books of the canon, the Bible is our absolute rule of faith and practice, and the KJV is the one true Bible in the English language?

At least one of those statements has to go. Which?

 

av1611jim said "What I think is misunderstood by your crowd is our position that if "all scripture is given by inspiration of God..." then what is that Scripture? Is it all of the MSS we have today, in total? This is where the heated contention arises isn't it?
...
You may appeal to your 'authorities' we may appeal to ours. We simply do not agree on what are the determing factors as to which MSS are authoritative and which have been corrupted."

I think the real difference is that while you have your answers to those questions, and we have other answers, most KJV-onlyists have made their position and answers to your questions into doctrine (by what authority?), while we have not. Disagreement is fine. It's not so much about disagreeing about the answers, it's about "by what authority do they claim that their answers should be elevated to the level of 'doctrine'"?

 

"Christmas pudding"
You guys gotta stop, I can't think straight!
Ok, ahem, Russell55,very good points to ponder, but who is "the church" you keep refering to?

Dog gone.

 

James said "OK, so may I now have a copy of this bible? Not just any old bible, I want this one"

Take your pick. It's available in many versions and many languages. If you prefer to grab the KJV, great - just don't turn your preference into doctrine, and you're all set.

 

So you believe that every bible version is perfect? Why didn't you just say that in your statement of faith?

 

Sola Scriptura is a Protestant concept.

The Baptist Distinctives terminology is

.

Many argue that Baptists are Protestants and that the Final Authority of Scripture is synonymous with Sola Scriptura. That is their right.

Personally I am a Christian who is a Baptist and not a Protestant.

I prefer the the Baptist Distinctive terminology of the Final Authority of Scripture over Sola Scriptura.

This leaves an honest place for a Confession or Statement of of Faith which in part interprets the Scripture or even a Church Council or parts thereof which are derived from Scripture such as the doctine of the Trinity.

This also dovetails with the Distinctive of Soul Liberty.

Having said that, many here challenge the KJVO folks and their theories as not even being hinted at in the Scriptures in the same manner as the Church of Rome has declared the "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary" with no Scripture whatsoever to stand behind it. "WE HAVE SAID IT and you must believe it because God HAS REVEALED IT TO US!"

The KJVO doctrine of the 1611 (or whatever 1769?) English words correcting the original Hebrew and Greek language Scriptures or that difficulties in the King James Bible hitherto looked upon as translational errors are actually "advanced revelation" is IMO of the same order of incredulity as some RCC Marian dogma which is not even hinted at in the Scriptures.

Soul liberty gives the KJVO the right to believe this doctrine if they wish just as Catholics believe what ever they will.

All well and fine but as Baptists what is the final authority of Scripture concerning KJVOism? Where can this even be logically derived from Scripture?

By the way the Final Authority of Scripture can at least be deduced from the following Scripture:

Acts 17
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Here the noble Bereans heard the apostle Paul (who was also a Pharisee) and turned to the hitherto revealed Scripture as their final authority in determining the truth of the gospel.

So in all fairness, yes,let the KJVO present their case and we also will search the Scriptures to see if what they say is true.

HankD

 

James said "So you believe that every bible version is perfect?"

Yes, in that I believe if properly interpreted it is possible to come to correct doctrine, despite any minor textual imperfections.

James said "Why didn't you just say that in your statement of faith?"

Again, because that would be going beyond what scripture itself says - thus it would be wrong to make my belief into an authoritative doctrine. Doctrinal statements should contain doctrine, not extra-Biblical personal beliefs and preferences. Get it?

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]The number of the books as relating to doctrine is purely incidental.

The Bible gives qualifying characteristics for scripture. Primarily, you look at the sources- Apostles, prophets, and holy men of old. Was it a command from God? In 2 Peter, the apostle claimed authority for the teachings of the apostles (specifically for his and Paul's) as well as for the OT. By the way, it was the teachings, not a single set of words that Peter declared authoritative.

My point is this: There is an element of faith involved in accepting the 66 book canon. God certainly had a reason for choosing 66 books but for our purposes it could have just as easily been 70 or 62.

But the process of determining which books were canonical was not haphazard nor arbitrary. It was rational (yes Michelle- logical) and based on guiding scriptural principles.

 

Faithful Bible versions are perfect- ie. whole, complete, lacking nothing essential to its kind.

No modern version is demonstrably perfect in the sense that we can prove that every word is the exact one God chose or would have chosen in a particular language.

The words used to express the Word are important only to the extent that they accurately express what God wanted to reveal to us.

If you insist on a single perfect set of words, you have no hope and can have no real assurance in the Bible. Why? Because the words God inspired... the only perfect words ever recorded, the original mss are gone. Every original language mss differs from every other one. The only way you could say affirmatively that the KJV was perfect in an exclusive sense would be to compare it to the originals.

God providentially preserved His message and we can be sure of this by comparing the evidence which includes faithful English versions of the Bible.

If one fails to teach a doctrine not found in the others or teaches one not found in the others, scrutiny is called for.

 

OK, so now at least we understand what the problem is. I believe the bible is perfect, and you believe the bibles is 'perfect'. I would have to say that your statement of faith is a little misleading, at best.

 

It depends on your definitions of "Bible" and "perfect". You know, it's one of those, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

 

No James, I don't think you understand. The statement of faith from my church and my personal view about "which Bible?" are two separate things. One contains doctrines as given in scripture, the other is my personal understanding and preferences.

What is misleading about that statement of faith?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Faithful Bible versions are perfect- ie. whole, complete, lacking nothing essential to its kind.

--------------------------------------------------


How is it one comes to determine this?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

You say the bible is 'without error' and then say 'Yes, in that I believe if properly interpreted it is possible to come to correct doctrine, despite any minor textual imperfections.
' So how can you say that the bible is without error and not believe that it is without error?

 

Faithful Bible versions are perfect- ie. whole, complete, lacking nothing essential to its kind.
</font>[/QUOTE]AMEN! Preach on brother!

 

James said "So how can you say that the bible is without error and not believe that it is without error?"

I just explained this. You are trying to combine two separate issues into one. The first is interpretational, the second is textual. A Bible can be without error in that it allows the correct interpretation of doctrine, regardless of minor textual imperfections. Consider the 1611 KJV: even the most vocal KJV-onlyists admit it had "printer errors" that were later corrected - so how can they believe it was "without error" while admitting textual imperfections? Exactly the same thing.

 

Careful examination.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Careful examination.
--------------------------------------------------


Examination of what and based upon what? You have not explained this very clearly.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle